3 ms·

Sugar is required for biology. I'm no more addicted to sugar than I am to water, air or just being alive.

by parineum 3mo ago

BigTTYGothGF 3mo ago
This is in the same category of statements as "ACTUALLY, everything in food is a chemical".
- parineum 3mo ago
  The parent was the same category of statements as, "I don't eat food that has chemicals." While they sprinkle it a chemical based, flavor enhancing, preservative.
  - BigTTYGothGF 3mo ago
    In both cases, you know what's meant by "chemicals" (the broad category of things like preservatives, colorings, and similar, that you find in lists like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_number https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_number) and "sugar" (refined white sugar, corn syrup, and similar that are added to foods one would not traditionally expect to have that).
- breezybottom 3mo ago
  Which is true. The idea of "chemical-free" food and water is absurd.
  - BigTTYGothGF 3mo ago
    [dead]
gtowey 3mo ago
I had a biology teacher who was fond of repeating " everything is toxic, it's just a matter of dosage" And it's true, you can die from water toxicity. Water and air are ubiquitous, so we've naturally evolved defenses against overdosing. Sugar has always been rare and valuable as a food source. In fact most organisms existence revolves around collecting enough chemical energy. It's only in the last 100 years that sugar has become cheap enough for many humans that overdosing is now a problem, and we have little in the way of evolved defenses that keep us from overconsumption. Sugar addiction is real.
- parineum 3mo ago
  Your last sentence is non-sequitur. The health implications of sugar consumption have no relationship to it being addictive (or not).
  - gtowey 3mo ago
    That's like saying the addictiveness of heroin has no bearing on its health implications. It is the literally the most important aspect to consider. Without addictiveness, it wouldn't have such a large impact.

Sugar is required for biology. I'm no more addicted to sugar than I am to water, air or just being alive.

BigTTYGothGF 3mo ago

This is in the same category of statements as "ACTUALLY, everything in food is a chemical".

parineum 3mo ago
The parent was the same category of statements as, "I don't eat food that has chemicals." While they sprinkle it a chemical based, flavor enhancing, preservative.
- BigTTYGothGF 3mo ago
  In both cases, you know what's meant by "chemicals" (the broad category of things like preservatives, colorings, and similar, that you find in lists like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_number https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_number) and "sugar" (refined white sugar, corn syrup, and similar that are added to foods one would not traditionally expect to have that).
breezybottom 3mo ago
Which is true. The idea of "chemical-free" food and water is absurd.
- BigTTYGothGF 3mo ago
  [dead]

gtowey 3mo ago

I had a biology teacher who was fond of repeating " everything is toxic, it's just a matter of dosage" And it's true, you can die from water toxicity. Water and air are ubiquitous, so we've naturally evolved defenses against overdosing. Sugar has always been rare and valuable as a food source. In fact most organisms existence revolves around collecting enough chemical energy. It's only in the last 100 years that sugar has become cheap enough for many humans that overdosing is now a problem, and we have little in the way of evolved defenses that keep us from overconsumption. Sugar addiction is real.

parineum 3mo ago
Your last sentence is non-sequitur. The health implications of sugar consumption have no relationship to it being addictive (or not).
- gtowey 3mo ago
  That's like saying the addictiveness of heroin has no bearing on its health implications. It is the literally the most important aspect to consider. Without addictiveness, it wouldn't have such a large impact.