3 ms·

He did refer to it as a poison and a dose-dependent toxin. There's room to quibble over their definitions and whether he's exaggerating a bit for effect, but h

by CMay 14y ago

He did refer to it as a poison and a dose-dependent toxin. There's room to quibble over their definitions and whether he's exaggerating a bit for effect, but he's very clear on his message that it's a substance which requires serious moderation that can lead to death in various ways. Sure, if you don't take water in moderation it can kill you, but in this case the dosage required in order to produce negative effects is low enough that its side effects have become commonplace. You are confusing all sugar as meaning "glucose", but there are a number of sugars. Fructose is the sugar he takes issue with, because it's much more common in products than it should be due to the body's limited ability to cope with it. When he just calls it sugar, he's making it easier for people to relate with. And yes, with him calling fructose a poison a large number of products available could be a serious issue if you eat too much of them. Unfortunately, what constitutes "too much" is very little and fluctuates a bit depending on your rate of digestion which can be slowed by taking in more soluble fiber at the same time. It's been added to products as a flavor compensation too liberally, because it's cheap, addictive, legal and increases sales. This is used as the basis for why the issue is widespread, it's been put into so many products.

Klinky 14y ago
You are confusing all sugar as meaning "glucose", but there are a number of sugars. No I am not confusing them. I know there is a difference. When he just calls it sugar, he's making it easier for people to relate with. He goes back and forth between calling it sugar and fructose. His advocates are often anti-sugar zealots espousing zero sugar diets & parrot his "sugar is poison" line. I also doubt if we changed all the fructose in products to glucose, that would really make him happy nor do I think that is a real solution. You still need to burn the calories if you're eating them.
- CMay 14y ago
  You're right, I probably phrased that wrong. It's apparent you are aware of there being multiple sugars. What I should say is that you're not giving him enough credit by assuming that he's somehow unaware that glucose is not rare. I attempted to show you that he is referring to fructose, not glucose. I should have realized you are not at all familiar with his actual research and what he is saying. A quick and simple overview is that fiber is critically important here and was not given proper emphasis in the posted video compared to his previous videos. It is not just "fructose is bad, the end", it is the combination of the lack of fiber and excessive amounts of fructose that leads to a situation not found abundantly in nature. Go eat an orange, an apple, some grapes, etc. These are all pretty much fine and yet have fructose in them. So why shouldn't an equal amount of fructose in canned soda not be the same? The complete absence of fiber. This carries on even outside of the liquid/direct forms, in fast food or other processed foods. Yes, this does mean if you drink nice wholesome orange juice or apple juice without eating the actual fruit, you could potentially be doing more harm than good depending on the rest of your diet. Why is fiber almost entirely removed from so much food you'll buy at the grocery store or in drive-thrus? High fiber stuff doesn't preserve/freeze well in many situations for distribution and long term storage. Why is so much extra fructose added to these foods? The things they do to increase the shelf life on some types of food can result in some bitterness, which they compensate for with things like fructose. If fructose is indeed a problem in this scenario and fiber cannot be reasonably added to the products, you get people saying the fructose should be removed, replaced or severely limited. Even if fiber did make it back as a larger part of the diet, fructose would probably still need to be toned down a bit considering how widespread it has become. Does that make more sense? If you need more information and actually have a legitimate interest in this topic outside of the entertainment value of criticism, look up some of his other videos that go much more in depth. He goes into how he got into this, how it actually works, what studies he has run and what the results were that lead him to this conclusion. Then for future conversations you can have more well-formed thoughts on the topic.

by CMay 14y ago

Klinky 14y ago

You are confusing all sugar as meaning "glucose", but there are a number of sugars. No I am not confusing them. I know there is a difference. When he just calls it sugar, he's making it easier for people to relate with. He goes back and forth between calling it sugar and fructose. His advocates are often anti-sugar zealots espousing zero sugar diets & parrot his "sugar is poison" line. I also doubt if we changed all the fructose in products to glucose, that would really make him happy nor do I think that is a real solution. You still need to burn the calories if you're eating them.

CMay 14y ago
You're right, I probably phrased that wrong. It's apparent you are aware of there being multiple sugars. What I should say is that you're not giving him enough credit by assuming that he's somehow unaware that glucose is not rare. I attempted to show you that he is referring to fructose, not glucose. I should have realized you are not at all familiar with his actual research and what he is saying. A quick and simple overview is that fiber is critically important here and was not given proper emphasis in the posted video compared to his previous videos. It is not just "fructose is bad, the end", it is the combination of the lack of fiber and excessive amounts of fructose that leads to a situation not found abundantly in nature. Go eat an orange, an apple, some grapes, etc. These are all pretty much fine and yet have fructose in them. So why shouldn't an equal amount of fructose in canned soda not be the same? The complete absence of fiber. This carries on even outside of the liquid/direct forms, in fast food or other processed foods. Yes, this does mean if you drink nice wholesome orange juice or apple juice without eating the actual fruit, you could potentially be doing more harm than good depending on the rest of your diet. Why is fiber almost entirely removed from so much food you'll buy at the grocery store or in drive-thrus? High fiber stuff doesn't preserve/freeze well in many situations for distribution and long term storage. Why is so much extra fructose added to these foods? The things they do to increase the shelf life on some types of food can result in some bitterness, which they compensate for with things like fructose. If fructose is indeed a problem in this scenario and fiber cannot be reasonably added to the products, you get people saying the fructose should be removed, replaced or severely limited. Even if fiber did make it back as a larger part of the diet, fructose would probably still need to be toned down a bit considering how widespread it has become. Does that make more sense? If you need more information and actually have a legitimate interest in this topic outside of the entertainment value of criticism, look up some of his other videos that go much more in depth. He goes into how he got into this, how it actually works, what studies he has run and what the results were that lead him to this conclusion. Then for future conversations you can have more well-formed thoughts on the topic.