2 ms·

> The devil is in the details as they say. Yes. First off, there is absolutely no science showing sugar is bad for you, or that it behaves differently from ot

by wdewind 12y ago

> The devil is in the details as they say. Yes. First off, there is absolutely no science showing sugar is bad for you, or that it behaves differently from other carbs when combined with equal amounts of fiber (which is why vegetable carbohydrates tend to be "ok"). Second, even without the fiber, for the vast majority of people a high sugar diet (within reasonable max carbohydrate intake) is not going to adversely affect you directly, the issue usually comes in with behavioral impact, causing you to eat more, causing you to get fat, causing you to have diabetes. > as a general rule "bad" carbs can be very bad for you and give you things like diabetes if over-consumed This concept of "bad" carbs is really not useful. Carbs are pretty much carbs. Anything (other carbs, fat and protein) can also be over-consumed but are simply less likely to. TLDR: assuming equal amounts of carbohydrates, the source doesn't actually seem to have a big impact.

Someone1234 12y ago
> First off, there is absolutely no science showing sugar is bad for you, or that it behaves differently from other carbs when combined with equal amounts of fiber (which is why vegetable carbohydrates tend to be "ok"). I just stopped reading there. No point going on, that's just jaw droppingly ignorant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar#Health_effects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar#Health_effects The fact you're arguing that green veggies and sugar are equally bad for people is just, wow, just wow. That's a new low.
- wdewind 12y ago
  Did you even read the link you sent? Here are some quotes: > Some studies involving the health impact of sugars are effectively inconclusive. The WHO and FAO meta studies have shown directly contrasting impacts of sugar in refined and unrefined forms[66] and since most studies do not use a population that do not consume any "free sugars" at all, the baseline is effectively flawed. Hence, there are articles such as Consumer Reports on Health that stated in 2008, "Some of the supposed dietary dangers of sugar have been overblown. Many studies have debunked the idea that it causes hyperactivity, for example. > Studies on the link between sugars and diabetes are inconclusive, with some suggesting that eating excessive amounts of sugar does not increase the risk of diabetes, although the extra calories from consuming large amounts of sugar can lead to obesity, which may itself increase the risk of developing this metabolic disease. So there is definitely controversy, and to call me jaw droppingly ignorant is pretty offensive. The fact that you think I'm arguing green veggies and sugar are equally bad for people means you fundamentally did not understand what I was saying. What do you think the difference between veggies and other sources of sugar is? Hint: it's not the type of sugar, it's the absence of fiber. Here's another quote, from your link: > Some experts have suggested that refined fructose is more damaging than refined glucose in terms of cardiovascular risk. The refining process is essentially one that removes the fiber. Let's go back to my quote: > First off, there is absolutely no science showing sugar is bad for you, or that it behaves differently from other carbs when combined with equal amounts of fiber (which is why vegetable carbohydrates tend to be "ok"). Emphasis added.

by wdewind 12y ago

Someone1234 12y ago

> First off, there is absolutely no science showing sugar is bad for you, or that it behaves differently from other carbs when combined with equal amounts of fiber (which is why vegetable carbohydrates tend to be "ok"). I just stopped reading there. No point going on, that's just jaw droppingly ignorant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar#Health_effects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar#Health_effects The fact you're arguing that green veggies and sugar are equally bad for people is just, wow, just wow. That's a new low.

wdewind 12y ago
Did you even read the link you sent? Here are some quotes: > Some studies involving the health impact of sugars are effectively inconclusive. The WHO and FAO meta studies have shown directly contrasting impacts of sugar in refined and unrefined forms[66] and since most studies do not use a population that do not consume any "free sugars" at all, the baseline is effectively flawed. Hence, there are articles such as Consumer Reports on Health that stated in 2008, "Some of the supposed dietary dangers of sugar have been overblown. Many studies have debunked the idea that it causes hyperactivity, for example. > Studies on the link between sugars and diabetes are inconclusive, with some suggesting that eating excessive amounts of sugar does not increase the risk of diabetes, although the extra calories from consuming large amounts of sugar can lead to obesity, which may itself increase the risk of developing this metabolic disease. So there is definitely controversy, and to call me jaw droppingly ignorant is pretty offensive. The fact that you think I'm arguing green veggies and sugar are equally bad for people means you fundamentally did not understand what I was saying. What do you think the difference between veggies and other sources of sugar is? Hint: it's not the type of sugar, it's the absence of fiber. Here's another quote, from your link: > Some experts have suggested that refined fructose is more damaging than refined glucose in terms of cardiovascular risk. The refining process is essentially one that removes the fiber. Let's go back to my quote: > First off, there is absolutely no science showing sugar is bad for you, or that it behaves differently from other carbs when combined with equal amounts of fiber (which is why vegetable carbohydrates tend to be "ok"). Emphasis added.