Sugar vs No sugar

What oil? Which vinegar? What about sugar?
Ducky
Posts: 163
https://cutt.ly/meble-kuchenne-wroclaw
Joined: Tue 22 Jul 2008 15:56

Sugar vs No sugar

Post by Ducky »

So after all, all those people that preaching against sugar and not eating any
are only gonna make their bodies spend more energy by transforming
everything they eat (carbs, fats, proteins) into sugar because their bodies will need sugar all the same.

While those who are eating sugar (when needed!) are gonna save the energy
of transforming food into sugar.

Am i right?


http://www.healingdaily.com/detoxificat ... /sugar.htm
avalon
Posts: 818
Joined: Thu 23 Feb 2006 17:51

Post by avalon »

I personally gave up sugar- table sugar that it is. I feel it is unnatural and evil, unlike wine. Sugar doesn't do me like wine does me, so yay to wine! Nay to sugar.

But seriously, god luck with that :shock:
Ducky
Posts: 163
Joined: Tue 22 Jul 2008 15:56

Post by Ducky »

According to RRM, and i find it totally logical, table sugar is the most natural
if you need energy, because its pure and simple glucose and fructose.
And that is what all the carbs you eat gets decomposed to.
claireelis
Posts: 113
Joined: Mon 13 Nov 2006 13:28

Post by claireelis »

parasitic infection can cause disaccharide (most commonly lactose) and polysaccharide intolerance. if you've had that or something like chron's (which is also hypothesized to be caused by infection) then i suggest avoiding table sugar. i've noticed i'm fine with monosaccharides, but my intestines don't react well to anything more complex.
User avatar
RRM
Administrator
Posts: 8164
Joined: Sat 16 Jul 2005 00:01
Contact:

Re: Sugar vs No sugar

Post by RRM »

Ducky wrote:those who are eating sugar (when needed!) are gonna save the energy of transforming food into sugar.

Am i right?
Yes, the conversion of complex sugars takes energy.
Thats one of the reasons you feel very energetic on this diet (more easy to handle simple sugars).
User avatar
Mr. PC
Posts: 617
Joined: Sun 25 Jan 2009 05:16
Location: Canada

Post by Mr. PC »

But isn't refined (white) sugar bleached? What happens to the bleach?

Is 'raw' or brown sugar better?
User avatar
RRM
Administrator
Posts: 8164
Joined: Sat 16 Jul 2005 00:01
Contact:

Post by RRM »

But isn't refined (white) sugar bleached? What happens to the bleach?
The extracted mass of molasses plus sugar is brown because of the molasses. Then the molasses (and nutrients) are filtered out (centrifugation, melting, filtering) and the sugar gets whiter.
If you want brown sugar, the molasses are added back in (which comes with all the pesticide and herbicide residues)
The refined (and kind of white) sugar is finally bleached with the use of phosphoric acid which frees up the iron, and filtered again to remove that iron-phosphoric acid and other 'impurities'.
Is 'raw' or brown sugar better?
Its usually just coloured white sugar, but if its really 'raw sugar', its not healthy at all, due to the herbicide and pesticide residues.
Jodiat
Posts: 185
Joined: Wed 21 Oct 2009 20:09
Location: Manchester

Sugar may decrease life expectancy

Post by Jodiat »

Sugar may decrease life expectancy
Yesterday, 07:08 pm

Buzz Up! Print StoryA spoonful of sugar might help your life expectancy go down, new research suggests. Skip related content
Related photos / videos
Sugar may decrease life expectancy .US scientists found that adding just a small amount of glucose sugar to the bacteria diet of laboratory worms cut the creatures' lifespans by a fifth.

The effect was traced to insulin signalling pathways - which exist in humans as well as simple worms.

This raised the possibility that "glucose may have a lifespan-shortening effect in humans" the researchers wrote in the journal Cell Metabolism.

On the other side of the coin, glucose is a vital source of energy without which cells cannot function.

The tiny worm Caenorhabditis elegans is a standard laboratory tool often used in studies of metabolism.

Scientists led by Dr Cynthia Kenyon from the University of California at San Francisco, carried out experiments in which worms were fed small amounts of glucose.

They found that giving sugar to the worms reduced their normal lifespan by about 20 per cent. Glucose affected insulin signals and genes and proteins previously shown to extend lifespan in C. elegans.

In particular, a sugary diet blocked the transport of glycerol, part of the process by which the body produces its own glucose.

Dr Kenyon said the findings may have implications for new diabetes drugs now in development that inhibit glycerol channels

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20091103/th ... 31572.html

_______________________

What do we think? A worm is not a human...a small ammount for these worms might still be a massive dose to them and thus would give these findings.
User avatar
Oscar
Administrator
Posts: 4350
Joined: Mon 15 Aug 2005 00:01

Post by Oscar »

Yeah, I think we should take those results for what they are, and not try to extrapolate worm findings to humans.
User avatar
RRM
Administrator
Posts: 8164
Joined: Sat 16 Jul 2005 00:01
Contact:

Post by RRM »

Key in such studies is the influence of glucose on insulin.
It very much depends on how much glucose you take in one sitting.
On this diet the secretion of insulin is spiked less, even though its high in glucose.
Why?
Because on this diet we consume lots of very small meals, predominantly replenishing lost blood glucose, and the secretion of insulin is particularly stimulated by big meals.
Even more so when those big meals contain much starch (bread, pasta, grains, beans), because then after that big meal the secretion of insulin spikes for a considerable period of time due to the cutting of starches into glucose.
Also, amino acids are at least equally potent regarding insulin, and this diet is low in protein.

So, more sugar (very much taken in gradually) may lead to less insulin secreted, particularly when less protein is consumed.
Starches tend to be worse than glucose as free glucose immediately causes satiety, whereas you readily eat quite some starch before satiety kicks in, and only then the insulin spike starts as the result of cutting up the starches in glucose.
Jodiat
Posts: 185
Joined: Wed 21 Oct 2009 20:09
Location: Manchester

Post by Jodiat »

I agree 100%, its the most important part of this diet. One slip up and your looking at possible acne.
sophie
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed 13 Jan 2010 19:36
Location: los angeles

Post by sophie »

how interesting... i've tried pure glucose in the past-- they sell it at a few Asian markets here. it's a very fine white powder, melts on your tongue like powdered sugar, and tastes more delicate than table sugar. Would that be recommended?
"if i had to live my life again, i'd make the same mistakes, only sooner." --Tallulah Bankhead
sophie
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed 13 Jan 2010 19:36
Location: los angeles

Post by sophie »

*nudge-nudge* :wink:
anyone?
"if i had to live my life again, i'd make the same mistakes, only sooner." --Tallulah Bankhead
User avatar
RRM
Administrator
Posts: 8164
Joined: Sat 16 Jul 2005 00:01
Contact:

Post by RRM »

Its not recommended, because glucose and fructose naturally form a good balance,
in as much as fat and sugars form a good balance.
Fructose goes a different pathway and activates different transmitters and hormones.
Fructose is utilized a bit slower and taste sweeter.
So, naturally, and normally, a balance of fructose and glucose is better,
so that not everything is utilized at the same time (insulin peak).
But if you need a lot energy fast (when intensively exercising, for example),
then pure glucose does the trick very well.
sophie
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed 13 Jan 2010 19:36
Location: los angeles

Post by sophie »

i see, thanks for explaining it, RRM. That makes very good sense to me. Sorry for the nudging-- i'm insatiably curious! :roll:
"if i had to live my life again, i'd make the same mistakes, only sooner." --Tallulah Bankhead
Post Reply