9 ms·

Depends on your definition of "innocent". Sugar is Satan-incarnate (and I am its slave )

darkclouds 3y ago
I love my mucopolysaccharides, it keeps the COPD away.
Aerbil313 3y ago
Sorry for off-topic, but I must say this. Sugar is the worst substance for public health ever. It's literally poison. Modern society is mostly cured of diseases of the old, but it's littered with the chronic diseases (which medical science pretends to solve by sympomatic treatment) whose only cause is sugar. I abandoned sugar cold-turkey after watching this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM, and am thankful to God that I was only 18 when I watched it. And no, FDA says it won't do anything about sugar, see the video.
- namdnay 3y ago
  I wouldn't go that far.. introducing sugar in as many foods (and worse, drinks) as possible is a big problem. but sugar in of itself is a very useful quick energy boost. it's not like we waited for the 20th century to start liking fruits it would be extremely difficult to run a marathon without sugar in some form
  - chrisco255 3y ago
    Fruits used to be a seasonal treat, and people lived very active exhausting lifestyles. As we've gotten more sedentary, sugar consumption has gone up, and it should truly be the opposite. Also no, it's no more difficult to run a marathon with an all meat, zero carb diet than it is with a carb heavy diet. People run ultramarathons on carnivore diets: https://youtu.be/PEgjafWFMQ4 https://youtu.be/PEgjafWFMQ4 And this is how ancient humans hunted game as well, despite not having access to trail mix and Power Bars, as you can see in the Masaai persistence hunting technique: https://youtu.be/9iGJjdt1xSo https://youtu.be/9iGJjdt1xSo
    - gjulianm 3y ago
      I can't really trust the nutritional advice of someone that deliberately loads up on things like bacon and red meat, which are known risk factors for colon cancer.
      - yellowapple 3y ago
        Everything's a "known risk factor" for some sort of cancer.
        gjulianm 3y ago
        Not really, and the link between red meat and colon cancer is very well established and significant, much more than the alternatives.
        gausswho 3y ago
        Bacon is high on the list of pleasure inducing foods. Youi're going to have to share evidence to be convincing here.
        gjulianm 3y ago
        The evidence is well known and any Google search will produce it. Here's a document from WHO: https://www.iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Monographs-QA_Vol114.pdf https://www.iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Monograp... Spoiler: bacon (as it's a processed red meat) is classified as carcinogenic (Group 1), red meat as probable carcinogenic (Group 2A). There are quite a lot of analysis showing there's up to a 50% increase in overall cancer risk due to eating red meat and up to 70% with processed meat https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0308814621007032?via%3Dihub https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03088...
        monkpit 3y ago
        TIL that pork is actually red meat! Interesting. I guess their ad campaign “the other white meat” worked on me. A google search does indeed confirm that pork is scientifically classified as red meat.
  - haspok 3y ago
    Funnily enough, I think it is exactly the other way round: it is much more difficult to run a marathon while depending on carbohydrate (because your stores are limited and the amount you can digest per hour is also limited). It is much easier to do long distances if you are accustomed to NOT depend on sugar. (If you are good enough, a running a marathon is not even a long distance event...)
    - JshWright 3y ago
      So if you're "good enough" you can train your cells to use something other than glucose to produce ATP?
      - maksimur 3y ago
        My memory on this is rusty but I recall fat being usable as fuel by the body after being converted to ketones.
        candiddevmike 3y ago
        This is not good for your liver long term: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7008768 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7008768 Keto causes fatty liver disease
        bluGill 3y ago
        That is only for the brain. Muscles can use fat directly for energy. Glucose is a lot easier process and so the body will use that first. If plenty of sugar is always available your body won't develop the fat pathways as much.
      - r2_pilot 3y ago
        A ketogenic diet can cause human metabolism to shift from glucose to ketones for power consumption.
      - bluGill 3y ago
        Your cells already know how to produce ATP from fat. (except for brain cells, and maybe a few others) there are more steps involved than the glucose pathway, but the cells already know them. All you have to do is up regulate those pathways in the cells that already have them. This is why your body makes/stores fat in the first place: it is a nice way to store a lot of energy for later use that doesn't have the problems of excess glucose in the body, if the body couldn't turn it into ATP it wouldn't bother making fat. Ask a real biologist for details. I know this was covered in my high school classes 30 years ago, but I haven't studied it since so I don't remember details or know anything later research has discovered.
  - Aerbil313 3y ago
    > it would be extremely difficult to run a marathon without sugar in some form Some tribes hunt, running for several hours, without having breakfast. Their bodies are able to burn fat more efficiently and easily than us probably due to their lifestyle.
- omnicognate 3y ago
  This kind of attitude is absurd and counterproductive. There's a long history of people demonising particular food groups and it gets in the way of developing actually healthy food attitudes. It used to be fat, now it's sugar. Sugar is not "literally poison". What it literally is is the body's primary energy source and a requirement for survival. The fact that eating too much of it is bad for you doesn't make it poisonous. Everything has a median lethal dose (LD50), including water. You can perfectly healthily enjoy a moderate amount of sugar as part of a varied diet just like you can healthily eat a moderate amount of any food as part of a varied diet. Extreme diet fads and the demonisation of entire food groups work against moderation and variety which are what we actually need in our eating habits. None of this is to say there isn't a huge sugar problem in modern society, ofc. What I'm saying is the problem is excess, not the consumption of it at all, and demonising it as "poison" and attempting to eliminate it entirely is not the way to bring about moderation.
  - strken 3y ago
    Is there ever a benefit to adding refined sugar to anything, though? We know there's a benefit to eating fruit and vegetables or arguably to eating dairy, and these foods contain sugar, but when would you want to add more of it? Or is it like alcohol in that it's mostly useful for enjoyment? Long bouts of exercise like a marathon or the Tour de France or medical conditions like diabetes are the only exceptions I can think of where you'd want to instantly flood yourself with glucose.
    - matkoniecz 3y ago
      > Is there ever a benefit to adding refined sugar to anything, though? 1) this claim is much weaker than "Sugar is the worst substance for public health ever. It's literally poison." 2) and it can be a good idea if otherwise someone would suffer from caloric deficit dangerous to health and eating more food is not viable (yes, this situation is unusual)
      - synetic 3y ago
        Sugar is the worst substance for public health ever. It's literally poison. Its hyperbole meant to convey a sense of how bad sugar (particularly added sugars) is to the health of the population. Sugar is in everything (more hyperbole!) in the U.S. America by and large is addicted to sugar and it’s very bad for us. Everything is over sweetened. Can’t even buy bacon without sugar added in some form or other.
- localplume 3y ago
  [dead]
- matkoniecz 3y ago
  > whose only cause is sugar Which chronic diseases are caused by sugar and nothing else?
  - wsintra2022 3y ago
    The disease of brown rotten teeth ;)
  - Aerbil313 3y ago
    I meant incidentally. As in, the general population gets those diseases almost only because of sugar, while they can get them by other means.
- funnym0nk3y 3y ago
  In my opinion the problems of sugar aren't that it's a carbohydrate (which are and should be the main energy source), it's in its metabolism: Sugar, especially without any fiber, jacks up the blood glucose levels, which are AFAIK pro inflammatory. Sugar added to a high fiber dish? Fine in my opinion.
  - nemo44x 3y ago
    Fiber is so incredibly important and often overlooked since it doesn’t have an effect like nutrition, cardiovascular, blood/sugar, etc. It’s so important to moving waste through the body healthily. It keeps it moving and you want waste to move consistently. People who find themselves consulates, irregular, or have to strain when they go should consider more fiber.
    - jodrellblank 3y ago
      > "It keeps it moving" It doesn't, it can't. From paper "Stopping or reducing dietary fiber intake reduces constipation and its associated symptoms" - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3435786/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3435786/ : "Whilst it is often stated in physiology textbooks that bulking agents improve peristalsis, there is no proof of this in practice nor experimentally. Regardless of the food ingested, small intestinal and right mid colonic contents are fluid and all ingestible dietary fiber is suspended therein. Dietary fiber, therefore, cannot act as solid boluses for the initiation of peristalsis. In fact, dietary fiber had been shown to retard peristalsis and hold up gaseous expulsion in human experiments[22]." > "People who find themselves consulates, irregular, or have to strain when they go should consider more fiber." They should consider less fiber; from the same paper: "Dietary fiber is also associated with increased bloatedness and abdominal discomfort[22]. Insoluble fiber was reported to worsen the clinical outcome of abdominal pain and constipation[18-20]. In our recent study, patients who followed a diet with no or less dietary fiber intake showed a significant improvement, not just in their constipation, but also in their bloatedness. Patients who completely stopped consuming dietary fiber no longer suffered from abdominal bloatedness and pain.[...]" "Stools only become well-formed in the sigmoid colon and rectum and by this time, especially in constipated subjects, more stools result in more evacuation problems. It is not logical to increase both the volume and size of stool in patients with idiopathic constipation and indeed for anybody with difficulty in passing stools, e.g., due to anismus or anal spasm from anal stricture, fissure or pelvic outlet disorders. We have shown that decreasing the bulk and volume of feces immediately enables the easier evacuation of smaller and thinner stools through the anal sphincter mechanism. This eliminates the need to strain in passing stools, and prevents the tearing of the anal sphincter and bleeding due to large and bulky fecal loads. None of our patients experienced anal bleeding or straining following complete abstinence from dietary fiber." "The results of this study should lead us to reexamine popular beliefs in benefits of dietary fiber and more studies should be undertaken to confirm or repudiate these results."
- chaxor 3y ago
  Carbohydrates are necessary to live at some (albeit much lower than typically consumed) quantity, so it's not precisely poison. Your point stands in that as a society we typically consume too much on average however.
  - achenatx 3y ago
    carbohydrates are not required to be consumed in any quantity since your body can make them.
  - Aerbil313 3y ago
    Other carbohydrates are not poison, the sugar (the fructose half) is.
- NickC25 3y ago
  You should differentiate between added sugar and naturally occurring sugar. It's OK to have fruit. It's not OK to have food loaded with artificial sweeteners or artificial sugars. I run a small business that sells sports drinks and other healthy beverages aimed at athletes. Our drinks have a few grams of naturally occurring sugar, because some ingredients that are naturally hydrating also contain natural sugars. Nothing wrong with that, as opposed to a 16oz BigCorp (Gatorade, Powerade, Lucozade, Carabao, Body Armor, etc...) sports drink that has over 1oz of added artificial sugars. There's a MASSIVE difference. People don't realize that.
nashashmi 3y ago
> Satan... I'm it's slave. I finally understand this phrase! "I worship God and I'm His slave" just never seemed to ring any bells.
- 36850113 3y ago
  > "I worship God and I'm His slave" just never seemed to ring any bells. Let me tune your system for you: Slave to Love.

I love my mucopolysaccharides, it keeps the COPD away.

Sorry for off-topic, but I must say this. Sugar is the worst substance for public health ever. It's literally poison. Modern society is mostly cured of diseases of the old, but it's littered with the chronic diseases (which medical science pretends to solve by sympomatic treatment) whose only cause is sugar. I abandoned sugar cold-turkey after watching this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM, and am thankful to God that I was only 18 when I watched it. And no, FDA says it won't do anything about sugar, see the video.

namdnay 3y ago
I wouldn't go that far.. introducing sugar in as many foods (and worse, drinks) as possible is a big problem. but sugar in of itself is a very useful quick energy boost. it's not like we waited for the 20th century to start liking fruits it would be extremely difficult to run a marathon without sugar in some form
- chrisco255 3y ago
  Fruits used to be a seasonal treat, and people lived very active exhausting lifestyles. As we've gotten more sedentary, sugar consumption has gone up, and it should truly be the opposite. Also no, it's no more difficult to run a marathon with an all meat, zero carb diet than it is with a carb heavy diet. People run ultramarathons on carnivore diets: https://youtu.be/PEgjafWFMQ4 https://youtu.be/PEgjafWFMQ4 And this is how ancient humans hunted game as well, despite not having access to trail mix and Power Bars, as you can see in the Masaai persistence hunting technique: https://youtu.be/9iGJjdt1xSo https://youtu.be/9iGJjdt1xSo
  - gjulianm 3y ago
    I can't really trust the nutritional advice of someone that deliberately loads up on things like bacon and red meat, which are known risk factors for colon cancer.
    - yellowapple 3y ago
      Everything's a "known risk factor" for some sort of cancer.
      - gjulianm 3y ago
        Not really, and the link between red meat and colon cancer is very well established and significant, much more than the alternatives.
        gausswho 3y ago
        Bacon is high on the list of pleasure inducing foods. Youi're going to have to share evidence to be convincing here.
        gjulianm 3y ago
        The evidence is well known and any Google search will produce it. Here's a document from WHO: https://www.iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Monographs-QA_Vol114.pdf https://www.iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Monograp... Spoiler: bacon (as it's a processed red meat) is classified as carcinogenic (Group 1), red meat as probable carcinogenic (Group 2A). There are quite a lot of analysis showing there's up to a 50% increase in overall cancer risk due to eating red meat and up to 70% with processed meat https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0308814621007032?via%3Dihub https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03088...
        monkpit 3y ago
        TIL that pork is actually red meat! Interesting. I guess their ad campaign “the other white meat” worked on me. A google search does indeed confirm that pork is scientifically classified as red meat.
- haspok 3y ago
  Funnily enough, I think it is exactly the other way round: it is much more difficult to run a marathon while depending on carbohydrate (because your stores are limited and the amount you can digest per hour is also limited). It is much easier to do long distances if you are accustomed to NOT depend on sugar. (If you are good enough, a running a marathon is not even a long distance event...)
  - JshWright 3y ago
    So if you're "good enough" you can train your cells to use something other than glucose to produce ATP?
    - maksimur 3y ago
      My memory on this is rusty but I recall fat being usable as fuel by the body after being converted to ketones.
      - candiddevmike 3y ago
        This is not good for your liver long term: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7008768 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7008768 Keto causes fatty liver disease
      - bluGill 3y ago
        That is only for the brain. Muscles can use fat directly for energy. Glucose is a lot easier process and so the body will use that first. If plenty of sugar is always available your body won't develop the fat pathways as much.
    - r2_pilot 3y ago
      A ketogenic diet can cause human metabolism to shift from glucose to ketones for power consumption.
    - bluGill 3y ago
      Your cells already know how to produce ATP from fat. (except for brain cells, and maybe a few others) there are more steps involved than the glucose pathway, but the cells already know them. All you have to do is up regulate those pathways in the cells that already have them. This is why your body makes/stores fat in the first place: it is a nice way to store a lot of energy for later use that doesn't have the problems of excess glucose in the body, if the body couldn't turn it into ATP it wouldn't bother making fat. Ask a real biologist for details. I know this was covered in my high school classes 30 years ago, but I haven't studied it since so I don't remember details or know anything later research has discovered.
- Aerbil313 3y ago
  > it would be extremely difficult to run a marathon without sugar in some form Some tribes hunt, running for several hours, without having breakfast. Their bodies are able to burn fat more efficiently and easily than us probably due to their lifestyle.
omnicognate 3y ago
This kind of attitude is absurd and counterproductive. There's a long history of people demonising particular food groups and it gets in the way of developing actually healthy food attitudes. It used to be fat, now it's sugar. Sugar is not "literally poison". What it literally is is the body's primary energy source and a requirement for survival. The fact that eating too much of it is bad for you doesn't make it poisonous. Everything has a median lethal dose (LD50), including water. You can perfectly healthily enjoy a moderate amount of sugar as part of a varied diet just like you can healthily eat a moderate amount of any food as part of a varied diet. Extreme diet fads and the demonisation of entire food groups work against moderation and variety which are what we actually need in our eating habits. None of this is to say there isn't a huge sugar problem in modern society, ofc. What I'm saying is the problem is excess, not the consumption of it at all, and demonising it as "poison" and attempting to eliminate it entirely is not the way to bring about moderation.
- strken 3y ago
  Is there ever a benefit to adding refined sugar to anything, though? We know there's a benefit to eating fruit and vegetables or arguably to eating dairy, and these foods contain sugar, but when would you want to add more of it? Or is it like alcohol in that it's mostly useful for enjoyment? Long bouts of exercise like a marathon or the Tour de France or medical conditions like diabetes are the only exceptions I can think of where you'd want to instantly flood yourself with glucose.
  - matkoniecz 3y ago
    > Is there ever a benefit to adding refined sugar to anything, though? 1) this claim is much weaker than "Sugar is the worst substance for public health ever. It's literally poison." 2) and it can be a good idea if otherwise someone would suffer from caloric deficit dangerous to health and eating more food is not viable (yes, this situation is unusual)
    - synetic 3y ago
      Sugar is the worst substance for public health ever. It's literally poison. Its hyperbole meant to convey a sense of how bad sugar (particularly added sugars) is to the health of the population. Sugar is in everything (more hyperbole!) in the U.S. America by and large is addicted to sugar and it’s very bad for us. Everything is over sweetened. Can’t even buy bacon without sugar added in some form or other.
localplume 3y ago
[dead]
matkoniecz 3y ago
> whose only cause is sugar Which chronic diseases are caused by sugar and nothing else?
- wsintra2022 3y ago
  The disease of brown rotten teeth ;)
- Aerbil313 3y ago
  I meant incidentally. As in, the general population gets those diseases almost only because of sugar, while they can get them by other means.
funnym0nk3y 3y ago
In my opinion the problems of sugar aren't that it's a carbohydrate (which are and should be the main energy source), it's in its metabolism: Sugar, especially without any fiber, jacks up the blood glucose levels, which are AFAIK pro inflammatory. Sugar added to a high fiber dish? Fine in my opinion.
- nemo44x 3y ago
  Fiber is so incredibly important and often overlooked since it doesn’t have an effect like nutrition, cardiovascular, blood/sugar, etc. It’s so important to moving waste through the body healthily. It keeps it moving and you want waste to move consistently. People who find themselves consulates, irregular, or have to strain when they go should consider more fiber.
  - jodrellblank 3y ago
    > "It keeps it moving" It doesn't, it can't. From paper "Stopping or reducing dietary fiber intake reduces constipation and its associated symptoms" - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3435786/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3435786/ : "Whilst it is often stated in physiology textbooks that bulking agents improve peristalsis, there is no proof of this in practice nor experimentally. Regardless of the food ingested, small intestinal and right mid colonic contents are fluid and all ingestible dietary fiber is suspended therein. Dietary fiber, therefore, cannot act as solid boluses for the initiation of peristalsis. In fact, dietary fiber had been shown to retard peristalsis and hold up gaseous expulsion in human experiments[22]." > "People who find themselves consulates, irregular, or have to strain when they go should consider more fiber." They should consider less fiber; from the same paper: "Dietary fiber is also associated with increased bloatedness and abdominal discomfort[22]. Insoluble fiber was reported to worsen the clinical outcome of abdominal pain and constipation[18-20]. In our recent study, patients who followed a diet with no or less dietary fiber intake showed a significant improvement, not just in their constipation, but also in their bloatedness. Patients who completely stopped consuming dietary fiber no longer suffered from abdominal bloatedness and pain.[...]" "Stools only become well-formed in the sigmoid colon and rectum and by this time, especially in constipated subjects, more stools result in more evacuation problems. It is not logical to increase both the volume and size of stool in patients with idiopathic constipation and indeed for anybody with difficulty in passing stools, e.g., due to anismus or anal spasm from anal stricture, fissure or pelvic outlet disorders. We have shown that decreasing the bulk and volume of feces immediately enables the easier evacuation of smaller and thinner stools through the anal sphincter mechanism. This eliminates the need to strain in passing stools, and prevents the tearing of the anal sphincter and bleeding due to large and bulky fecal loads. None of our patients experienced anal bleeding or straining following complete abstinence from dietary fiber." "The results of this study should lead us to reexamine popular beliefs in benefits of dietary fiber and more studies should be undertaken to confirm or repudiate these results."
chaxor 3y ago
Carbohydrates are necessary to live at some (albeit much lower than typically consumed) quantity, so it's not precisely poison. Your point stands in that as a society we typically consume too much on average however.
- achenatx 3y ago
  carbohydrates are not required to be consumed in any quantity since your body can make them.
- Aerbil313 3y ago
  Other carbohydrates are not poison, the sugar (the fructose half) is.
NickC25 3y ago
You should differentiate between added sugar and naturally occurring sugar. It's OK to have fruit. It's not OK to have food loaded with artificial sweeteners or artificial sugars. I run a small business that sells sports drinks and other healthy beverages aimed at athletes. Our drinks have a few grams of naturally occurring sugar, because some ingredients that are naturally hydrating also contain natural sugars. Nothing wrong with that, as opposed to a 16oz BigCorp (Gatorade, Powerade, Lucozade, Carabao, Body Armor, etc...) sports drink that has over 1oz of added artificial sugars. There's a MASSIVE difference. People don't realize that.

nashashmi 3y ago

> Satan... I'm it's slave. I finally understand this phrase! "I worship God and I'm His slave" just never seemed to ring any bells.

36850113 3y ago
> "I worship God and I'm His slave" just never seemed to ring any bells. Let me tune your system for you: Slave to Love.