Obviously he knows it, or he wouldn't have made the distinction.

another 400 replies coming up ...


ROFL

the big difference is that pure glucose will raise the blood sugar (glucose) level very quickly. spikes in the blood sugar level reak havoc with your insulin regulatory system which in turn cause more of these sugars to be stored. In fruit, the fiber in the fruit causes the sugar to be absorbed much slower and more even, so the blood sugar level doesn't tend to spike. Healthy sugar metabolism is really all about keeping your blood sugar levels not only at healthy levels, but just as imortantly, at continuous healthy levels.

It's an incredibly important distinction, though. In a lot of these studies, there's just survey data, which isn't reliable, as has been pointed out. If I said that I got fat because I was eating candy and salad at the same time, you might draw the conclusion that it was the candy making me fat. But if the amounts and ingredients weren't specified, the researcher might not know that I ate a salad with a cup of blue cheese dressing, and only one Reese's mini peanut butter cup. The caloric values are very, very different.

once again you come back with the old 'just stop eating ...' perspective

well i guess all food is exactly the same 'as long as you only eat a little bit'

crack is fine as long as you on use a little bit
cigs are fine as long as you only smoke 1 a day

Silock is absolutely correct that very simply, if you eat more calories than you burn, you will get fat, and vice versa. But, you have to remember that while calories are calories, the foods giving you the calories, and how your body uses them are not. The foods giving you these calories have different effects on your lipid and sugar metabolism, which in turn have different effects on fat storage, overall metabolic rate, cholesterol and triglyceride levels, and so many effects on different hormones like cortisol that entire books have been written about it.

Research review here, because I've been over this before.

http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/0...tose-alarmism/

http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/0...armism-debate/

Insulin series:
http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=319

More often than not, the devil is in the dosage.

I'm not saying that eating a shitload of sugar isn't bad. IT IS. But it's equally as bad as eating a shitload of anything else.

Our bodies need balance. From a pure weight loss standpoint, calories are the only thing that matters. That's all I've been trying to say there. From a long-term standpoint of "general health", calories aren't the ONLY thing that matters, although they remain a good part of it. We need minerals and vitamins and fats and proteins and cholesterols and sugars; we just need them in the right amount.

If you aren't taking in more calories than you are burning, and you aren't overeating on one specific thing, you are VERY likely not to be fat and have good markers of health, insofar as they can be controlled by your diet and not any specific genetic abnormalities you may possess.

Demonizing food groups is bad.

Im going to go out on a limb here and say this thing about "sugar" that is so bad is the processing of sugar. Like they say in the video, fruits and vegetables are fine. Those foods have sugar its just not processed sugar. Evaporated Cane juice is better than processed sugar. We have even put processed sugar in our meats, breads and everything else practically...something we havent done forever. People from centuries ago died form lack of medical science and no medications (like dying form common colds)more than they did of diabetes. Now we have medical science but are dropping like flies because of cancer, diabetes etc..which is directly linked to processed sugar. we have ****ed up our food source so badly, that food is a toxin....

Really?

We're now comparing sugar to crack?

Your argument just jumped the shark.

Look, if you're fat, eating less sugar is great. Grains and alcohol break down into sugar, so cut down on those too.

I, however, am not. I will eat these brownies sitting in front of me and I have a hunch I won't wake up obese.

People aren't dying from these things now because of new toxins in foods. They are dying from these things now because they are living longer due to them surviving things that would have killed them in the past.

yea, that's what i'm doing .. comparing sugar to crack

:facepalm:

It's EXACTLY what you did!

You invoked crack into a conversation about sugar... what else is it?

i was comparing the CONCEPT not the items

"sugar is fine, just stop eating it ..."

well that's the dam problem, now isn't it.


processed sugar spikes your blood sugar so it very difficult to stop when you should.

One is a drug, the other is food. They're not comparable by any means. It's ridiculous. That's all I'm saying.

If I smoke a 'little bit of crack' I become addicted and start smoking more until I am a crack head. Cocaine is a helluva drug.

To act like moderating sugar intake is some how comparable to regulating your cocaine intake isn't a realistic comparison. Neither are cigs because nicotine is a hella addictive drug.

It's not that I don't understand what you're trying to drive home, but I don't think it's valid at all.