Search
Check Out Our Sponsors
Latest topics
Sugar. Good or Bad. Let's debate
+11
fumanchu
scottyc33
abc123
ppm
thissucks
Hoppipolla
pancacke
teacup
phoenix21
act
elan164
15 posters
Page 1 of 4
Page 1 of 4 • 1, 2, 3, 4
Sugar. Good or Bad. Let's debate
Been reading a lot about sugar lately and it seems to be a key nutrient for our bodies. Here's a good video. Post your comments.
elan164- Posts : 475
Join date : 2010-02-24
Location : British Columbia, Canada
Re: Sugar. Good or Bad. Let's debate
Good for some, bad for others ... I do amazingly better on little to no carbohydrates at all. I'm more convinced that it's got a hell of a lot to do with what's living in you, perhaps even much more than you to begin with.
_________________
"The greatest crimes in the world are not committed by people breaking the rules but by people following the rules"
"You owe the companies nothing. You especially don't owe them any courtesy. They have re-arranged the world to put themselves in front of you. They never asked for your permission, don't even start asking for theirs."
- Banksy
act<react- Posts : 800
Join date : 2011-01-21
Age : 33
Re: Sugar. Good or Bad. Let's debate
What actionreaction said. Also, bear in mind that not all sugar is created equal. Generally, the more refined the sugar, the worse it is for you. Look at some of the work of Dr. Weston Price.
Certain bacteria and other pathogens thrive in the presence of large amounts of sugar. All in all though, its not a simple cut and dry issue of whether sugar is good or bad.
JDP, CS and others have discussed this at length. Personally, I have started removing a lot of the refined sugar in my diet, and replaced it with healthier carbs. Less gluten, more rice, sweet potatoes etc.
I also dont doubt that I would probably benefit from removing all carbs for at least a period of time, to sort of starve out some of the bacteria/candida etc. I plan on doing this eventually, im just trying to devise a game plan to do it without my physique suffering from it.
Certain bacteria and other pathogens thrive in the presence of large amounts of sugar. All in all though, its not a simple cut and dry issue of whether sugar is good or bad.
JDP, CS and others have discussed this at length. Personally, I have started removing a lot of the refined sugar in my diet, and replaced it with healthier carbs. Less gluten, more rice, sweet potatoes etc.
I also dont doubt that I would probably benefit from removing all carbs for at least a period of time, to sort of starve out some of the bacteria/candida etc. I plan on doing this eventually, im just trying to devise a game plan to do it without my physique suffering from it.
phoenix21- Posts : 130
Join date : 2010-02-15
Re: Sugar. Good or Bad. Let's debate
I actually just bought this book a few days ago, was on discount, and i love it! highly recommendedSteven_Tyler wrote:I recommend you read book "Sugar Blues"
To me, SUGAR is pure POISON. I avoid it as much as I can. I don't buy it when some people say sugar is healthy. Carbs are important, but you dont get them from sugar ..
teacup- Posts : 966
Join date : 2010-08-24
Re: Sugar. Good or Bad. Let's debate
Ive seen the video "Sugar: the bitter truth" ive been on the no sugar bang wagon for a while now, last year or so. Eating mostly proteins, green veggies all organic or grass fed, little to no starch, sugar and no bread except sourdough. Results, started at 185lbs lean, went down to 168 thin, without exercising. Hit the weights again and made it to 175lbs, can't get any higher. Constant joint inflammation. Back 5 years ago when i would eat a balanced diet of starch, sugars, proteins and fats i never had any joint inflammation, could be unrelated. All i can say is, i went to the gym yesterday after uping my carb intake all morning (sugar) and my energy at the gym was intense. I had a massive pump going and my testosterone felt like it was shooting higher. Morning woods and harder erections lately too. I guess for someone with weight issues sugar may be the enemy because your body's metabolism isn't working properly, but for someone that has a healthy fast metabolism, sugar seems to be ideal for the body's energy supply. The key is to lower your PUFA's since they block the cells uptake of glucose.
http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/glycemia.shtml
Glycemia, starch, and sugar in context
============================================
Monosaccharide -- a simple sugar; examples, glucose, fructose, ribose, galactose (galactose is also called cerebrose, brain sugar).
Disaccharide -- two monosaccharides bound together; examples, sucrose, lactose, maltose.
Oligosaccharide -- a short chain of monosaccharides, including disaccharides and slightly longer chains.
Polysaccharide -- example, starch, cellulose, glycogen.
Glycation -- the attachment of a sugar to a protein.
Lipolysis - the liberation of free fatty acids from triglycerides, the neutral form in which fats are stored, bound to glycerine.
============================================
In the 1920s, “diabetes” was thought to be a disease of insulin deficiency. Eventually, measurements of insulin showed that “diabetics” often had normal amounts of insulin, or above-normal amounts. There are now “two kinds of diabetes,” with suggestions that “the disease” will soon be further subdivided.
The degenerative diseases that are associated with hyperglycemia and commonly called diabetes, are only indirectly related to insulin, and as an approach to understanding or treating diabetes, the “glycemic index” of foods is useless. Physiologically, it has no constructive use, and very little meaning.
Insulin is important in the regulation of blood sugar, but its importance has been exaggerated because of the diabetes/insulin industry. Insulin itself has been found to account for only about 8% of the "insulin-like activity" of the blood, with potassium being probably the largest factor. There probably isn't any process in the body that doesn't potentially affect blood sugar.
Glucagon, cortisol, adrenalin, growth hormone and thyroid tend to increase the blood sugar, but it is common to interpret hyperglycemia as "diabetes," without measuring any of these factors. Even when "insulin dependent diabetes" is diagnosed, it isn't customary to measure the insulin to see whether it is actually deficient, before writing a prescription for insulin. People resign themselves to a lifetime of insulin injections, without knowing why their blood sugar is high.
Insulin release is also stimulated by amino acids such as leucine, and insulin stimulates cells to absorb amino acids and to synthesize proteins. Since insulin lowers blood sugar as it disposes of amino acids, eating a large amount of protein without carbohydrate can cause a sharp decrease in blood sugar. This leads to the release of adrenalin and cortisol, which raise the blood sugar. Adrenalin causes fatty acids to be drawn into the blood from fat stores, especially if the liver's glycogen stores are depleted, and cortisol causes tissue protein to be broken down into amino acids, some of which are used in place of carbohydrate. Unsaturated fatty acids, adrenaline, and cortisol cause insulin resistance.
============================================
“Professional opinion” can be propagated about 10,000 times faster than research can evaluate it, or, as C. H. Spurgeon said, "A lie travels round the world while Truth is putting on her boots."
In the 1970s, dietitians began talking about the value of including "complex carbohydrates" in the diet. Many dietitians (all but one of the Registered Dietitians that I knew of) claimed that starches were more slowly absorbed than sugars, and so should be less disruptive to the blood sugar and insulin levels. People were told to eat whole grains and legumes, and to avoid fruit juices.
These recommendations, and their supporting ideology, are still rampant in the culture of the United States, fostered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the American Dietetic Association and the American Diabetes Association and innumerable university departments of home economics, dietetics, or nutrition.
Judging by present and past statements of the American Dietetic Association, I think some kind of institutional brain defect might account for their recommendations. Although the dietetic association now feebly acknowledges that sugars don't raise the blood sugar more quickly than starches do, they can't get away from their absurd old recommendations, which were never scientifically justified: “Eat more starches, such as bread, cereal, and starchy vegetables--6 servings a day or more. Start the day with cold (dry) cereal with nonfat/skim milk or a bagel with one teaspoon of jelly/jam. Put starch center stage--pasta with tomato sauce, baked potato with chili, rice and stir-fried beef and vegetables. Add cooked black beans, corn, or garbanzo beans (chickpeas) to salads or casseroles.”
The Dietetic Association's association with General Mills, the breakfast cereal empire, (and Kellog, Nabisco, and many other food industry giants) might have something to do with their starchy opinions. Starch-grain embolisms can cause brain damage, but major money can also make people say stupid things.
In an old experiment, a rat was tube-fed ten grams of corn-starch paste, and then anesthetized. Ten minutes after the massive tube feeding, the professor told the students to find how far the starch had moved along the alimentary canal. No trace of the white paste could be found, demonstrating the speed with which starch can be digested and absorbed. The very rapid rise of blood sugar stimulates massive release of insulin, and rapidly converts much of the carbohydrate into fat.
It was this sort of experiment that led to the concept of "glycemic index," that ranks foods according to their ability to raise the blood sugar. David Jenkins, in 1981, knew enough about the old studies of starch digestion to realize that the dietitians had created a dangerous cult around the “complex carbohydrates,” and he did a series of measurements that showed that starch is more “glycemic” than sucrose. But he simply used the amount of increase in blood glucose during the first two hours after ingesting the food sample, compared to that following ingestion of pure glucose, for the comparison, neglecting the physiologically complex facts, all of the processes involved in causing a certain amount of glucose to be present in the blood during a certain time. (Even the taste of sweetness, without swallowing anything, can stimulate the release of glucagon, which raises blood sugar.)
More important than the physiological vacuity of a simple glycemic measurement was the ideology within which the whole issue developed, namely, the idea that diabetes (conceived as chronic hyperglycemia) is caused by eating too much sugar, i.e., chronic hyperglycemia the illness is caused by the recurrent hyperglycemia of sugar gluttony. The experiments of Bernardo Houssay (1947 Nobel laureate) in the 1940s, in which sugar and coconut oil protected against diabetes, followed by Randle's demonstration of the antagonism between fats and glucose assimilation, and the growing recognition that polyunsaturated fatty acids cause insulin resistance and damage the pancreas, have made it clear that the dietetic obsession with sugar in relation to diabetes has been a dangerous diversion that has retarded the understanding of degenerative metabolic diseases.
Starting with the insulin industry, a culture of diabetes and sugar has been fabulized and expanded and modified as new commercial industries found ways to profit from it. Seed oils, fish oils, breakfast cereals, soybean products, and other things that were never eaten by any animal in millions of years of evolution have become commonplace as “foods,” even as “health foods.”
Although many things condition the rate at which blood sugar rises after eating carbohydrates, and affect the way in which blood glucose is metabolized, making the idea of a “glycemic index” highly misleading, it is true that blood sugar and insulin responses to different foods have some meaningful effects on physiology and health.
Starch and glucose efficiently stimulate insulin secretion, and that accelerates the disposition of glucose, activating its conversion to glycogen and fat, as well as its oxidation. Fructose inhibits the stimulation of insulin by glucose, so this means that eating ordinary sugar, sucrose (a disaccharide, consisting of glucose and fructose), in place of starch, will reduce the tendency to store fat. Eating “complex carbohydrates,” rather than sugars, is a reasonable way to promote obesity. Eating starch, by increasing insulin and lowering the blood sugar, stimulates the appetite, causing a person to eat more, so the effect on fat production becomes much larger than when equal amounts of sugar and starch are eaten. The obesity itself then becomes an additional physiological factor; the fat cells create something analogous to an inflammatory state. There isn't anything wrong with a high carbohydrate diet, and even a high starch diet isn't necessarily incompatible with good health, but when better foods are available they should be used instead of starches. For example, fruits have many advantages over grains, besides the difference between sugar and starch. Bread and pasta consumption are strongly associated with the occurrence of diabetes, fruit consumption has a strong inverse association.
Although pure fructose and sucrose produce less glycemia than glucose and starch do, the different effects of fruits and grains on the health can't be reduced to their effects on blood sugar.
Orange juice and sucrose have a lower glycemic index than starch or whole wheat or white bread, but it is common for dietitians to argue against the use of orange juice, because its index is the same as that of Coca Cola. But, if the glycemic index is very important, to be rational they would have to argue that Coke or orange juice should be substituted for white bread.
After decades of “education” to promote eating starchy foods, obesity is a bigger problem than ever, and more people are dying of diabetes than previously. The age-specific incidence of most cancers is increasing, too, and there is evidence that starch, such as pasta, contributes to breast cancer, and possibly other types of cancer.
The epidemiology would appear to suggest that complex carbohydrates cause diabetes, heart disease, and cancer. If the glycemic index is viewed in terms of the theory that hyperglycemia, by way of “glucotoxicity,” causes the destruction of proteins by glycation, which is seen in diabetes and old age, that might seem simple and obvious.
But there are many reasons to question that theory.
Oxidation of sugar is metabolically efficient in many ways, including sparing oxygen consumption. It produces more carbon dioxide than oxidizing fat does, and carbon dioxide has many protective functions, including increasing Krebs cycle activity and inhibiting toxic damage to proteins. The glycation of proteins occurs under stress, when less carbon dioxide is being produced, and the proteins are normally protected by carbon dioxide.
When sugar (or starch) is turned into fat, the fats will be either saturated, or in the series derived from omega -9 monounsaturated fatty acids. When sugar isn't available in the diet, stored glycogen will provide some glucose (usually for a few hours, up to a day), but as that is depleted, protein will be metabolized to provide sugar. If protein is eaten without carbohydrate, it will stimulate insulin secretion, lowering blood sugar and activating the stress response, leading to the secretion of adrenalin, cortisol, growth hormone, prolactin, and other hormones. The adrenalin will mobilize glycogen from the liver, and (along with other hormones) will mobilize fatty acids, mainly from fat cells. Cortisol will activate the conversion of protein to amino acids, and then to fat and sugar, for use as energy. (If the diet doesn't contain enough protein to maintain the essential organs, especially the heart, lungs, and brain, they are supplied with protein from the skeletal muscles. Because of the amino acid composition of the muscle proteins, their destruction stimulates the formation of additional cortisol, to accelerate the movement of amino acids from the less important tissues to the essential ones.)
The diabetic condition is similar in many ways to stress, inflammation, and aging, for example in the chronic elevation of free fatty acids, and in various mediators of inflammation, such as tumor necrosis factor (TNF).
Rather than the sustained hyperglycemia which is measured for determining the glycemic index, I think the “diabetogenic” or “carcinogenic” action of starch has to do with the stress reaction that follows the intense stimulation of insulin release. This is most easily seen after a large amount of protein is eaten. Insulin is secreted in response to the amino acids, and besides stimulating cells to take up the amino acids and convert them into protein, the insulin also lowers the blood sugar. This decrease in blood sugar stimulates the formation of many hormones, including cortisol, and under the influence of cortisol both sugar and fat are produced by the breakdown of proteins, including those already forming the tissues of the body. At the same time, adrenalin and several other hormones are causing free fatty acids to appear in the blood.
Since the work of Cushing and Houssay, it has been understood that blood sugar is controlled by antagonistic hormones: Remove the pituitary along with the pancreas, and the lack of insulin doesn't cause hyperglycemia. If something increases cortisol a little, the body can maintain normal blood sugar by secreting more insulin, but that tends to increase cortisol production. A certain degree of glycemia is produced by a particular balance between opposing hormones.
Tryptophan, from dietary protein or from the catabolism of muscles, is turned into serotonin which activates the pituitary stress hormones, increasing cortisol, and intensifying catabolism, which releases more tryptophan. It suppresses thyroid function, which leads to an increased need for the stress hormones. Serotonin impairs glucose oxidation, and contributes to many of the problems associated with diabetes.
“Diabetes” is often the diagnosis, when excess cortisol is the problem. The hormones have traditionally not been measured before diagnosing diabetes and prescribing insulin or other chemical to lower the blood sugar. Some of the worst effects of “diabetes,” including retinal damage, are caused or exacerbated by insulin itself.
Antiserotonin drugs can sometimes alleviate stress and normalize blood sugar. Simply eating sucrose was recently discovered to restrain the stress hormone system (“A new perspective on glucocorticoid feedback: relation to stress, carbohydrate feeding and feeling better,” J Neuroendocrinol 13(9), 2001, KD Laugero).
The free fatty acids released by the stress hormones serve as supplemental fuel, and increase the consumption of oxygen and the production of heat. (This increased oxygen demand is a problem for the heart when it is forced to oxidize fatty acids. [A. Grynberg, 2001]) But if the stored fats happen to be polyunsaturated, they damage the blood vessels and the mitochondria, suppress thyroid function, and cause “glycation” of proteins. They also damage the pancreas, and impair insulin secretion.
A repeated small stress, or overstimulation of insulin secretion, gradually tends to become amplified by the effects of tryptophan and the polyunsaturated fatty acids, with these fats increasing the formation of serotonin, and serotonin increasing the liberation of the fats.
The name, “glycation,” indicates the addition of sugar groups to proteins, such as occurs in diabetes and old age, but when tested in a controlled experiment, lipid peroxidation of polyunsaturated fatty acids produces the protein damage about 23 times faster than the simple sugars do (Fu, et al., 1996). And the oxidation of fats rather than glucose means that the proteins won't have as much protective carbon dioxide combined with their reactive nitrogen atoms, so the real difference in the organism is likely to be greater than that seen by Fu, et al.
These products of lipid peroxidation, HNE, MDA, acrolein, glyoxal, and other highly reactive aldehydes, damage the mitochondria, reducing the ability to oxidize sugar, and to produce energy and protective carbon dioxide.
Fish oil, which is extremely unstable in the presence of oxygen and metals such as iron, produces some of these dangerous products very rapidly. The polyunsaturated “essential fatty acids” and their products, arachidonic acid and many of the prostaglandin-like materials, also produce them.
When glucose can't be oxidized, for any reason, there is a stress reaction, that mobiles free fatty acids. Drugs that oppose the hormones (such as adrenalin or growth hormone) that liberate free fatty acids have been used to treat diabetes, because lowering free fatty acids can restore glucose oxidation.
Brief exposures to polyunsaturated fatty acids can damage the insulin-secreting cells of the pancreas, and the mitochondria in which oxidative energy production takes place. Prolonged exposure causes progressive damage. Acutely, the free polyunsaturated fatty acids cause capillary permeability to increase, and this can be detected at the beginning of “insulin resistance” or “diabetes.” After chronic exposure, the leakiness increases and albumin occurs in the urine, as proteins leak out of the blood vessels. The retina and brain and other organs are damaged by the leaking capillaries.
The blood vessels and other tissues are also damaged by the chronically increased cortisol, and at least in some tissues (the immune system is most sensitive to the interaction) the polyunsaturated fats increase the ability of cortisol to kill the cells.
When cells are stressed, they are likely to waste glucose in two ways, turning some of it into lactic acid, and turning some into fatty acids, even while fats are being oxidized, in place of the sugar that is available. Growth hormone and adrenalin, the stress-induced hormones, stimulate the oxidation of fatty acids, as well as their liberation from storage, so the correction of energy metabolism requires the minimization of the stress hormones, and of the free fatty acids. Prolactin, ACTH, and estrogen also cause the shift of metabolism toward the fatty acids.
Sugar and thyroid hormone (T3, triiodothyronine) correct many parts of the problem. The conversion of T4 into the active T3 requires glucose, and in diabetes, cells are deprived of glucose. Logically, all diabetics would be functionally hypothyroid. Providing T3 and sugar tends to shift energy metabolism away from the oxidation of fats, back to the oxidation of sugar.
Niacinamide, used in moderate doses, can safely help to restrain the excessive production of free fatty acids, and also helps to limit the wasteful conversion of glucose into fat. There is evidence that diabetics are chronically deficient in niacin. Excess fatty acids in the blood probably divert tryptophan from niacin synthesis into serotonin synthesis.
Sodium, which is lost in hypothyroidism and diabetes, increases cellular energy. Diuretics, that cause loss of sodium, can cause apparent diabetes, with increased glucose and fats in the blood. Thyroid, sodium, and glucose work very closely together to maintain cellular energy and stability.
In Houssay's experiments, sugar, protein, and coconut oil protected mice against developing diabetes. The saturated fats of coconut oil are similar to those we synthesize ourselves from sugar. Saturated fats, and the polyunsaturated fats synthesized by plants, have very different effects on many important physiological processes. In every case I know about, the vegetable polyunsaturated fats have harmful effects on our physiology.
For example, they bind to the “receptor” proteins for cortisol, progesterone, and estrogen, and to all of the major proteins related to thyroid function, and to the vesicles that take up nerve transmitter substances, such as glutamic acid.
They allow glutamic acid to injure and kill cells through excessive stimulation; this process is similar to the nerve damage done by cobra venom, and other toxins.
Excess cortisol makes nerve cells more sensitive to excitotoxicity, but the cells are protected if they are provided with an unusually large amount of glucose.
The cells of the thymus gland are very sensitive to damage by stress or cortisol, but they too can be rescued by giving them enough extra glucose to compensate for the cortisol. Polyunsaturated fatty acids have the opposite effect, sensitizing the thymus cells to cortisol. This partly accounts for the immunosuppressive effects of the polyunsaturated fats. (AIDS patients have increased cortisol and polyunsaturated fatty acids in their blood.[E.A. Nunez, 1988.])
Unsaturated fatty acids activate the stress hormones, sugar restrains them.
Simply making animals “deficient” in the unsaturated vegetable oils (which allows them to synthesize their own series of animal polyunsaturated fats, which are very stable), protects them against “autoimmune” diabetes, and against a variety of other “immunological” challenges. The “essential fatty acid” deficiency increases the oxidation of glucose, as it increases the metabolic rate generally.
Saturated fats improve the insulin-secreting response to glucose.
The protective effects of sugar, and the harmful effects of excessive fat metabolism, are now being widely recognized, in every field of physiology. The unsaturated vegetable fats, linoleic and linolenic acid and their derivatives, such as arachidonic acid and the long chain fish oils, have excitatory, stress promoting effects, that shift metabolism away from the oxidation of glucose, and finally destroy the respiratory metabolism altogether. Since cell injury and death generally involve an imbalance between excitation and the ability to produce energy, it is significant that the oxidation of unsaturated fatty acids seems to consume energy, lowering cellular ATP (Clejan, et al, 1986).
The bulk of the age-related tissue damage classified as “glycation end-products” (or “advanced glycation end-products,” AGE) is produced by decomposition of the polyunsaturated fats, rather than by sugars, and this would be minimized by the protective oxidation of glucose to carbon dioxide.
Protein of the right kind, in the right amount, is essential for reducing stress. Gelatin, with its antiinflammatory amino acid balance, helps to regulate fat metabolism.
Aspirin's antiinflammatory actions are generally important when the polyunsaturated fats are producing inflammatory and degenerative changes, and aspirin prevents many of the problems associated with diabetes, reducing vascular leakiness. It improves mitochondrial respiration (De Cristobal, et al., 2002) and helps to regulate blood sugar and lipids (Yuan, et al., 2001). Aspirin's broad range of beneficial effects is probably analogous to vitamin E's, being proportional to protection against the broad range of toxic effects of the polyunsaturated “essential” fatty acids.
http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/glycemia.shtml
Glycemia, starch, and sugar in context
============================================
Monosaccharide -- a simple sugar; examples, glucose, fructose, ribose, galactose (galactose is also called cerebrose, brain sugar).
Disaccharide -- two monosaccharides bound together; examples, sucrose, lactose, maltose.
Oligosaccharide -- a short chain of monosaccharides, including disaccharides and slightly longer chains.
Polysaccharide -- example, starch, cellulose, glycogen.
Glycation -- the attachment of a sugar to a protein.
Lipolysis - the liberation of free fatty acids from triglycerides, the neutral form in which fats are stored, bound to glycerine.
============================================
In the 1920s, “diabetes” was thought to be a disease of insulin deficiency. Eventually, measurements of insulin showed that “diabetics” often had normal amounts of insulin, or above-normal amounts. There are now “two kinds of diabetes,” with suggestions that “the disease” will soon be further subdivided.
The degenerative diseases that are associated with hyperglycemia and commonly called diabetes, are only indirectly related to insulin, and as an approach to understanding or treating diabetes, the “glycemic index” of foods is useless. Physiologically, it has no constructive use, and very little meaning.
Insulin is important in the regulation of blood sugar, but its importance has been exaggerated because of the diabetes/insulin industry. Insulin itself has been found to account for only about 8% of the "insulin-like activity" of the blood, with potassium being probably the largest factor. There probably isn't any process in the body that doesn't potentially affect blood sugar.
Glucagon, cortisol, adrenalin, growth hormone and thyroid tend to increase the blood sugar, but it is common to interpret hyperglycemia as "diabetes," without measuring any of these factors. Even when "insulin dependent diabetes" is diagnosed, it isn't customary to measure the insulin to see whether it is actually deficient, before writing a prescription for insulin. People resign themselves to a lifetime of insulin injections, without knowing why their blood sugar is high.
Insulin release is also stimulated by amino acids such as leucine, and insulin stimulates cells to absorb amino acids and to synthesize proteins. Since insulin lowers blood sugar as it disposes of amino acids, eating a large amount of protein without carbohydrate can cause a sharp decrease in blood sugar. This leads to the release of adrenalin and cortisol, which raise the blood sugar. Adrenalin causes fatty acids to be drawn into the blood from fat stores, especially if the liver's glycogen stores are depleted, and cortisol causes tissue protein to be broken down into amino acids, some of which are used in place of carbohydrate. Unsaturated fatty acids, adrenaline, and cortisol cause insulin resistance.
============================================
“Professional opinion” can be propagated about 10,000 times faster than research can evaluate it, or, as C. H. Spurgeon said, "A lie travels round the world while Truth is putting on her boots."
In the 1970s, dietitians began talking about the value of including "complex carbohydrates" in the diet. Many dietitians (all but one of the Registered Dietitians that I knew of) claimed that starches were more slowly absorbed than sugars, and so should be less disruptive to the blood sugar and insulin levels. People were told to eat whole grains and legumes, and to avoid fruit juices.
These recommendations, and their supporting ideology, are still rampant in the culture of the United States, fostered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the American Dietetic Association and the American Diabetes Association and innumerable university departments of home economics, dietetics, or nutrition.
Judging by present and past statements of the American Dietetic Association, I think some kind of institutional brain defect might account for their recommendations. Although the dietetic association now feebly acknowledges that sugars don't raise the blood sugar more quickly than starches do, they can't get away from their absurd old recommendations, which were never scientifically justified: “Eat more starches, such as bread, cereal, and starchy vegetables--6 servings a day or more. Start the day with cold (dry) cereal with nonfat/skim milk or a bagel with one teaspoon of jelly/jam. Put starch center stage--pasta with tomato sauce, baked potato with chili, rice and stir-fried beef and vegetables. Add cooked black beans, corn, or garbanzo beans (chickpeas) to salads or casseroles.”
The Dietetic Association's association with General Mills, the breakfast cereal empire, (and Kellog, Nabisco, and many other food industry giants) might have something to do with their starchy opinions. Starch-grain embolisms can cause brain damage, but major money can also make people say stupid things.
In an old experiment, a rat was tube-fed ten grams of corn-starch paste, and then anesthetized. Ten minutes after the massive tube feeding, the professor told the students to find how far the starch had moved along the alimentary canal. No trace of the white paste could be found, demonstrating the speed with which starch can be digested and absorbed. The very rapid rise of blood sugar stimulates massive release of insulin, and rapidly converts much of the carbohydrate into fat.
It was this sort of experiment that led to the concept of "glycemic index," that ranks foods according to their ability to raise the blood sugar. David Jenkins, in 1981, knew enough about the old studies of starch digestion to realize that the dietitians had created a dangerous cult around the “complex carbohydrates,” and he did a series of measurements that showed that starch is more “glycemic” than sucrose. But he simply used the amount of increase in blood glucose during the first two hours after ingesting the food sample, compared to that following ingestion of pure glucose, for the comparison, neglecting the physiologically complex facts, all of the processes involved in causing a certain amount of glucose to be present in the blood during a certain time. (Even the taste of sweetness, without swallowing anything, can stimulate the release of glucagon, which raises blood sugar.)
More important than the physiological vacuity of a simple glycemic measurement was the ideology within which the whole issue developed, namely, the idea that diabetes (conceived as chronic hyperglycemia) is caused by eating too much sugar, i.e., chronic hyperglycemia the illness is caused by the recurrent hyperglycemia of sugar gluttony. The experiments of Bernardo Houssay (1947 Nobel laureate) in the 1940s, in which sugar and coconut oil protected against diabetes, followed by Randle's demonstration of the antagonism between fats and glucose assimilation, and the growing recognition that polyunsaturated fatty acids cause insulin resistance and damage the pancreas, have made it clear that the dietetic obsession with sugar in relation to diabetes has been a dangerous diversion that has retarded the understanding of degenerative metabolic diseases.
Starting with the insulin industry, a culture of diabetes and sugar has been fabulized and expanded and modified as new commercial industries found ways to profit from it. Seed oils, fish oils, breakfast cereals, soybean products, and other things that were never eaten by any animal in millions of years of evolution have become commonplace as “foods,” even as “health foods.”
Although many things condition the rate at which blood sugar rises after eating carbohydrates, and affect the way in which blood glucose is metabolized, making the idea of a “glycemic index” highly misleading, it is true that blood sugar and insulin responses to different foods have some meaningful effects on physiology and health.
Starch and glucose efficiently stimulate insulin secretion, and that accelerates the disposition of glucose, activating its conversion to glycogen and fat, as well as its oxidation. Fructose inhibits the stimulation of insulin by glucose, so this means that eating ordinary sugar, sucrose (a disaccharide, consisting of glucose and fructose), in place of starch, will reduce the tendency to store fat. Eating “complex carbohydrates,” rather than sugars, is a reasonable way to promote obesity. Eating starch, by increasing insulin and lowering the blood sugar, stimulates the appetite, causing a person to eat more, so the effect on fat production becomes much larger than when equal amounts of sugar and starch are eaten. The obesity itself then becomes an additional physiological factor; the fat cells create something analogous to an inflammatory state. There isn't anything wrong with a high carbohydrate diet, and even a high starch diet isn't necessarily incompatible with good health, but when better foods are available they should be used instead of starches. For example, fruits have many advantages over grains, besides the difference between sugar and starch. Bread and pasta consumption are strongly associated with the occurrence of diabetes, fruit consumption has a strong inverse association.
Although pure fructose and sucrose produce less glycemia than glucose and starch do, the different effects of fruits and grains on the health can't be reduced to their effects on blood sugar.
Orange juice and sucrose have a lower glycemic index than starch or whole wheat or white bread, but it is common for dietitians to argue against the use of orange juice, because its index is the same as that of Coca Cola. But, if the glycemic index is very important, to be rational they would have to argue that Coke or orange juice should be substituted for white bread.
After decades of “education” to promote eating starchy foods, obesity is a bigger problem than ever, and more people are dying of diabetes than previously. The age-specific incidence of most cancers is increasing, too, and there is evidence that starch, such as pasta, contributes to breast cancer, and possibly other types of cancer.
The epidemiology would appear to suggest that complex carbohydrates cause diabetes, heart disease, and cancer. If the glycemic index is viewed in terms of the theory that hyperglycemia, by way of “glucotoxicity,” causes the destruction of proteins by glycation, which is seen in diabetes and old age, that might seem simple and obvious.
But there are many reasons to question that theory.
Oxidation of sugar is metabolically efficient in many ways, including sparing oxygen consumption. It produces more carbon dioxide than oxidizing fat does, and carbon dioxide has many protective functions, including increasing Krebs cycle activity and inhibiting toxic damage to proteins. The glycation of proteins occurs under stress, when less carbon dioxide is being produced, and the proteins are normally protected by carbon dioxide.
When sugar (or starch) is turned into fat, the fats will be either saturated, or in the series derived from omega -9 monounsaturated fatty acids. When sugar isn't available in the diet, stored glycogen will provide some glucose (usually for a few hours, up to a day), but as that is depleted, protein will be metabolized to provide sugar. If protein is eaten without carbohydrate, it will stimulate insulin secretion, lowering blood sugar and activating the stress response, leading to the secretion of adrenalin, cortisol, growth hormone, prolactin, and other hormones. The adrenalin will mobilize glycogen from the liver, and (along with other hormones) will mobilize fatty acids, mainly from fat cells. Cortisol will activate the conversion of protein to amino acids, and then to fat and sugar, for use as energy. (If the diet doesn't contain enough protein to maintain the essential organs, especially the heart, lungs, and brain, they are supplied with protein from the skeletal muscles. Because of the amino acid composition of the muscle proteins, their destruction stimulates the formation of additional cortisol, to accelerate the movement of amino acids from the less important tissues to the essential ones.)
The diabetic condition is similar in many ways to stress, inflammation, and aging, for example in the chronic elevation of free fatty acids, and in various mediators of inflammation, such as tumor necrosis factor (TNF).
Rather than the sustained hyperglycemia which is measured for determining the glycemic index, I think the “diabetogenic” or “carcinogenic” action of starch has to do with the stress reaction that follows the intense stimulation of insulin release. This is most easily seen after a large amount of protein is eaten. Insulin is secreted in response to the amino acids, and besides stimulating cells to take up the amino acids and convert them into protein, the insulin also lowers the blood sugar. This decrease in blood sugar stimulates the formation of many hormones, including cortisol, and under the influence of cortisol both sugar and fat are produced by the breakdown of proteins, including those already forming the tissues of the body. At the same time, adrenalin and several other hormones are causing free fatty acids to appear in the blood.
Since the work of Cushing and Houssay, it has been understood that blood sugar is controlled by antagonistic hormones: Remove the pituitary along with the pancreas, and the lack of insulin doesn't cause hyperglycemia. If something increases cortisol a little, the body can maintain normal blood sugar by secreting more insulin, but that tends to increase cortisol production. A certain degree of glycemia is produced by a particular balance between opposing hormones.
Tryptophan, from dietary protein or from the catabolism of muscles, is turned into serotonin which activates the pituitary stress hormones, increasing cortisol, and intensifying catabolism, which releases more tryptophan. It suppresses thyroid function, which leads to an increased need for the stress hormones. Serotonin impairs glucose oxidation, and contributes to many of the problems associated with diabetes.
“Diabetes” is often the diagnosis, when excess cortisol is the problem. The hormones have traditionally not been measured before diagnosing diabetes and prescribing insulin or other chemical to lower the blood sugar. Some of the worst effects of “diabetes,” including retinal damage, are caused or exacerbated by insulin itself.
Antiserotonin drugs can sometimes alleviate stress and normalize blood sugar. Simply eating sucrose was recently discovered to restrain the stress hormone system (“A new perspective on glucocorticoid feedback: relation to stress, carbohydrate feeding and feeling better,” J Neuroendocrinol 13(9), 2001, KD Laugero).
The free fatty acids released by the stress hormones serve as supplemental fuel, and increase the consumption of oxygen and the production of heat. (This increased oxygen demand is a problem for the heart when it is forced to oxidize fatty acids. [A. Grynberg, 2001]) But if the stored fats happen to be polyunsaturated, they damage the blood vessels and the mitochondria, suppress thyroid function, and cause “glycation” of proteins. They also damage the pancreas, and impair insulin secretion.
A repeated small stress, or overstimulation of insulin secretion, gradually tends to become amplified by the effects of tryptophan and the polyunsaturated fatty acids, with these fats increasing the formation of serotonin, and serotonin increasing the liberation of the fats.
The name, “glycation,” indicates the addition of sugar groups to proteins, such as occurs in diabetes and old age, but when tested in a controlled experiment, lipid peroxidation of polyunsaturated fatty acids produces the protein damage about 23 times faster than the simple sugars do (Fu, et al., 1996). And the oxidation of fats rather than glucose means that the proteins won't have as much protective carbon dioxide combined with their reactive nitrogen atoms, so the real difference in the organism is likely to be greater than that seen by Fu, et al.
These products of lipid peroxidation, HNE, MDA, acrolein, glyoxal, and other highly reactive aldehydes, damage the mitochondria, reducing the ability to oxidize sugar, and to produce energy and protective carbon dioxide.
Fish oil, which is extremely unstable in the presence of oxygen and metals such as iron, produces some of these dangerous products very rapidly. The polyunsaturated “essential fatty acids” and their products, arachidonic acid and many of the prostaglandin-like materials, also produce them.
When glucose can't be oxidized, for any reason, there is a stress reaction, that mobiles free fatty acids. Drugs that oppose the hormones (such as adrenalin or growth hormone) that liberate free fatty acids have been used to treat diabetes, because lowering free fatty acids can restore glucose oxidation.
Brief exposures to polyunsaturated fatty acids can damage the insulin-secreting cells of the pancreas, and the mitochondria in which oxidative energy production takes place. Prolonged exposure causes progressive damage. Acutely, the free polyunsaturated fatty acids cause capillary permeability to increase, and this can be detected at the beginning of “insulin resistance” or “diabetes.” After chronic exposure, the leakiness increases and albumin occurs in the urine, as proteins leak out of the blood vessels. The retina and brain and other organs are damaged by the leaking capillaries.
The blood vessels and other tissues are also damaged by the chronically increased cortisol, and at least in some tissues (the immune system is most sensitive to the interaction) the polyunsaturated fats increase the ability of cortisol to kill the cells.
When cells are stressed, they are likely to waste glucose in two ways, turning some of it into lactic acid, and turning some into fatty acids, even while fats are being oxidized, in place of the sugar that is available. Growth hormone and adrenalin, the stress-induced hormones, stimulate the oxidation of fatty acids, as well as their liberation from storage, so the correction of energy metabolism requires the minimization of the stress hormones, and of the free fatty acids. Prolactin, ACTH, and estrogen also cause the shift of metabolism toward the fatty acids.
Sugar and thyroid hormone (T3, triiodothyronine) correct many parts of the problem. The conversion of T4 into the active T3 requires glucose, and in diabetes, cells are deprived of glucose. Logically, all diabetics would be functionally hypothyroid. Providing T3 and sugar tends to shift energy metabolism away from the oxidation of fats, back to the oxidation of sugar.
Niacinamide, used in moderate doses, can safely help to restrain the excessive production of free fatty acids, and also helps to limit the wasteful conversion of glucose into fat. There is evidence that diabetics are chronically deficient in niacin. Excess fatty acids in the blood probably divert tryptophan from niacin synthesis into serotonin synthesis.
Sodium, which is lost in hypothyroidism and diabetes, increases cellular energy. Diuretics, that cause loss of sodium, can cause apparent diabetes, with increased glucose and fats in the blood. Thyroid, sodium, and glucose work very closely together to maintain cellular energy and stability.
In Houssay's experiments, sugar, protein, and coconut oil protected mice against developing diabetes. The saturated fats of coconut oil are similar to those we synthesize ourselves from sugar. Saturated fats, and the polyunsaturated fats synthesized by plants, have very different effects on many important physiological processes. In every case I know about, the vegetable polyunsaturated fats have harmful effects on our physiology.
For example, they bind to the “receptor” proteins for cortisol, progesterone, and estrogen, and to all of the major proteins related to thyroid function, and to the vesicles that take up nerve transmitter substances, such as glutamic acid.
They allow glutamic acid to injure and kill cells through excessive stimulation; this process is similar to the nerve damage done by cobra venom, and other toxins.
Excess cortisol makes nerve cells more sensitive to excitotoxicity, but the cells are protected if they are provided with an unusually large amount of glucose.
The cells of the thymus gland are very sensitive to damage by stress or cortisol, but they too can be rescued by giving them enough extra glucose to compensate for the cortisol. Polyunsaturated fatty acids have the opposite effect, sensitizing the thymus cells to cortisol. This partly accounts for the immunosuppressive effects of the polyunsaturated fats. (AIDS patients have increased cortisol and polyunsaturated fatty acids in their blood.[E.A. Nunez, 1988.])
Unsaturated fatty acids activate the stress hormones, sugar restrains them.
Simply making animals “deficient” in the unsaturated vegetable oils (which allows them to synthesize their own series of animal polyunsaturated fats, which are very stable), protects them against “autoimmune” diabetes, and against a variety of other “immunological” challenges. The “essential fatty acid” deficiency increases the oxidation of glucose, as it increases the metabolic rate generally.
Saturated fats improve the insulin-secreting response to glucose.
The protective effects of sugar, and the harmful effects of excessive fat metabolism, are now being widely recognized, in every field of physiology. The unsaturated vegetable fats, linoleic and linolenic acid and their derivatives, such as arachidonic acid and the long chain fish oils, have excitatory, stress promoting effects, that shift metabolism away from the oxidation of glucose, and finally destroy the respiratory metabolism altogether. Since cell injury and death generally involve an imbalance between excitation and the ability to produce energy, it is significant that the oxidation of unsaturated fatty acids seems to consume energy, lowering cellular ATP (Clejan, et al, 1986).
The bulk of the age-related tissue damage classified as “glycation end-products” (or “advanced glycation end-products,” AGE) is produced by decomposition of the polyunsaturated fats, rather than by sugars, and this would be minimized by the protective oxidation of glucose to carbon dioxide.
Protein of the right kind, in the right amount, is essential for reducing stress. Gelatin, with its antiinflammatory amino acid balance, helps to regulate fat metabolism.
Aspirin's antiinflammatory actions are generally important when the polyunsaturated fats are producing inflammatory and degenerative changes, and aspirin prevents many of the problems associated with diabetes, reducing vascular leakiness. It improves mitochondrial respiration (De Cristobal, et al., 2002) and helps to regulate blood sugar and lipids (Yuan, et al., 2001). Aspirin's broad range of beneficial effects is probably analogous to vitamin E's, being proportional to protection against the broad range of toxic effects of the polyunsaturated “essential” fatty acids.
elan164- Posts : 475
Join date : 2010-02-24
Location : British Columbia, Canada
Re: Sugar. Good or Bad. Let's debate
When talking about sugar, are you referring to table sugar, short carbohydrates, or carbs in general?
I think table(sugar) as well as high glycemic foods, is bad for everyone, while carbohydrates are necessary for proper metabolism(as are proteins and fats). The ratio depends on the metabolic type, maybe you are the carb-typ, or you have issues which let you draw energy only from carbs?!
I think table(sugar) as well as high glycemic foods, is bad for everyone, while carbohydrates are necessary for proper metabolism(as are proteins and fats). The ratio depends on the metabolic type, maybe you are the carb-typ, or you have issues which let you draw energy only from carbs?!
pancacke- Posts : 1644
Join date : 2010-07-22
Re: Sugar. Good or Bad. Let's debate
Did you read that article i just posted? At the beginning, eating protein and veggies worked for me. I had tons of energy, but i was slowly losing weight. Now that my body has burnt through any of the fat i had, it has moved on to my own muscle tissue. So now a diet of just protein and veggies isnt supplying enough energy (glucose) for my body and must find it elsewhere.
Im talking about sucrose, a disaccharide (glucose and fructose). Based on the metabolic testing you can do on the internet, i come back as type 2 protein eater. I just had a glass of raw milk and orange juice, which is said to be a perfect balance of protein, saturated fat and sucrose; perfect for pre, during and post workout or even just throughout the day to maintain proper blood sugar, body temp and resting pulse rate. My body temp has been the closest to 98.6 it has ever been. Pulse rate is a little low around 70, ray mentions a healthy/intelligent person has a resting pulse rate of 85.
Im talking about sucrose, a disaccharide (glucose and fructose). Based on the metabolic testing you can do on the internet, i come back as type 2 protein eater. I just had a glass of raw milk and orange juice, which is said to be a perfect balance of protein, saturated fat and sucrose; perfect for pre, during and post workout or even just throughout the day to maintain proper blood sugar, body temp and resting pulse rate. My body temp has been the closest to 98.6 it has ever been. Pulse rate is a little low around 70, ray mentions a healthy/intelligent person has a resting pulse rate of 85.
elan164- Posts : 475
Join date : 2010-02-24
Location : British Columbia, Canada
Re: Sugar. Good or Bad. Let's debate
I avoid it because I'm concerned about candida. Also... I think for some reason it's hard on the liver too and that's also something I'm trying to avoid. Probably all the insulin.
I love fruit though but I don't go too overboard for the same reasons!
Fruits do very though in their effects on blood sugar levels and candida, like pomegranate and papaya for example seem to have only good effects! ^_^
I love fruit though but I don't go too overboard for the same reasons!
Fruits do very though in their effects on blood sugar levels and candida, like pomegranate and papaya for example seem to have only good effects! ^_^
Re: Sugar. Good or Bad. Let's debate
You're body "eats" muscle tissue because of protein defficiency, muscle tissue consists of protein. I see your point, but nontheless I see no need for high glycemic foods...Now that my body has burnt through any of the fat i had, it has moved on to my own muscle tissue.
As for workout, I thought so too and maybe it is not a bad idea to kick insulin levels before workouts, but afterwards it only lowers the release of hormones making it counterproductive.
pancacke- Posts : 1644
Join date : 2010-07-22
Re: Sugar. Good or Bad. Let's debate
elan164 wrote:Did you read that article i just posted? At the beginning, eating protein and veggies worked for me. I had tons of energy, but i was slowly losing weight. Now that my body has burnt through any of the fat i had, it has moved on to my own muscle tissue. So now a diet of just protein and veggies isnt supplying enough energy (glucose) for my body and must find it elsewhere.
Elan, did you eat potatoes? They are my main carb source and work just fine for providing glucose/energy. I also have the occasional rice/steel cut oats, but potatoes and yams are my staple.
thissucks- Posts : 272
Join date : 2010-02-19
Re: Sugar. Good or Bad. Let's debate
@Hoppi - Tropical fruits, traditional fruits like apples and pears should be cooked. BTW im coming to these conclusions through Ray Peat's research and articles he has written.
@Thissucks - Yes, occasional yams, sweet potatoes and roasted oats.
@Thissucks - Yes, occasional yams, sweet potatoes and roasted oats.
elan164- Posts : 475
Join date : 2010-02-24
Location : British Columbia, Canada
Re: Sugar. Good or Bad. Let's debate
elan164 wrote:
@Thissucks - Yes, occasional yams, sweet potatoes and roasted oats.
Occasional is the key word. I probably eat a couple pounds of potatoes a day. It works well IME.
I agree with others who have said sugar is poison. I avoid it like the plague. Any consumption of sugar creates instant scalp itch in my case. It seems like salt does as well. Eating plain whole foods such as potatoes, meat, and fresh veggies seems to work best IMO/IME.
thissucks- Posts : 272
Join date : 2010-02-19
Re: Sugar. Good or Bad. Let's debate
This guy in the video apparently has no clue what he is talking about.. But he is talking a lot saying nothing. I would not entitle this a "good video"..
On the subject: Lately I came to know that simple sugar(s) are not the culprit. As long as they come from whole food, that is fruit and vegetables. Instead it's fat. So right now I try to follow a low fat, low protein, high sugars diet, from raw fruits and vegetables.
And btw, there is no such thing as metabolic type. Such like ideas emerge from anthropocentrism.
On the subject: Lately I came to know that simple sugar(s) are not the culprit. As long as they come from whole food, that is fruit and vegetables. Instead it's fat. So right now I try to follow a low fat, low protein, high sugars diet, from raw fruits and vegetables.
And btw, there is no such thing as metabolic type. Such like ideas emerge from anthropocentrism.
ppm- Posts : 164
Join date : 2009-07-24
Re: Sugar. Good or Bad. Let's debate
ppm wrote:This guy in the video apparently has no clue what he is talking about.. But he is talking a lot saying nothing. I would not entitle this a "good video"..
On the subject: Lately I came to know that simple sugar(s) are not the culprit. As long as they come from whole food, that is fruit and vegetables. Instead it's fat. So right now I try to follow a low fat, low protein, high sugars diet, from raw fruits and vegetables.
And btw, there is no such thing as metabolic type. Such like ideas emerge from anthropocentrism.
First of all, I didn't even bother with the video LOL. And to clarify my earlier post, we're talking about "cane sugar" as the real poison here. Although I agree there's theoretically nothing wrong with sugars from whole foods, I still avoid them because as CS says, an abundance of sugar in your blood will feed things in your body like Candida which can cause problems.
thissucks- Posts : 272
Join date : 2010-02-19
Re: Sugar. Good or Bad. Let's debate
@PPM - Metabolic type testing is what most people have used on this site, as have i. Body temp and pulse rate are used by Ray and anything below 98 degrees and 85 bpm suggests your body is in a stressed (inflammatory) state.
Im not talking about taking a tablespoon of sugar and eating it. It has to be the proper ratios of sugar, protein and fat. Carbohydrate sources: fruit juices, tropical fruit, molasses, potatoes, sucrose (organic cane sugar). Have some with every meal to prevent hypoglycemia after eating the proteins.
People need to be a little open minded. We get caught up in just regurgitating what other people tell us and not doing your own research. Anything eaten in excess or by itself, whether its protein, fats or carbs (sugars) is going to cause problems. Is anyone actually reading his articles, because the replies suggest otherwise. Just looking for a healthy debate and not a one sided fight because sucrose has been labeled as the enemy to all things over the years - cancer, candida, weight gain, acne etc.
@Thissucks - Some would say candida is a result of lack of sugar.
http://www.eastwesthealing.com/auto-immune-disease/candida-myths.aspx
Systemic candidiasis is a myth: According to Dr. Ray Peat, most of what people believe about candida is wrong, but candida can become a problem for sick people. IgA is the main type of antibody on surfaces and secretions and should protect against candidiasis. But IgA is deficient in hypothyroidism, so hypothyroid people have more susceptible membranes, and the yeasts thrive on sugar that can appear in the secretions in diabetes/Candidiasis Myths stress, but they adhere to any cell with estradiol in it, thinking they have found a fertile yeast. Eating sugar and fruit is helpful, rather than harmful as the cultists say, because well nourished yeasts aren't harmful in the intestine. But starved yeasts need sugar and so they project invasive filaments into the intestinal wall, and can get into the blood stream, at which point — if they aren't quickly de- stroyed by white blood cells — they can grow and quickly kill the person. In a typical year, a few people in the world get invasive candida and quickly die, but mil- lions of Americans will insist that they ‘have candida in the bloodstream.’ Eating sugar (fruits, fruit juices) lowers cortisol, keeping the white cells working, helps to increase thyroid, and keeps the yeast from becoming invasive. PUFA (polyunsaturated fatty acids or omega-3 and -6 oils) are yeast stimu- lants, unlike saturated fats. The white film on grapes is a layer of yeast cells, that live there because of the PUFA in the waxy surface of the grape
Im not talking about taking a tablespoon of sugar and eating it. It has to be the proper ratios of sugar, protein and fat. Carbohydrate sources: fruit juices, tropical fruit, molasses, potatoes, sucrose (organic cane sugar). Have some with every meal to prevent hypoglycemia after eating the proteins.
People need to be a little open minded. We get caught up in just regurgitating what other people tell us and not doing your own research. Anything eaten in excess or by itself, whether its protein, fats or carbs (sugars) is going to cause problems. Is anyone actually reading his articles, because the replies suggest otherwise. Just looking for a healthy debate and not a one sided fight because sucrose has been labeled as the enemy to all things over the years - cancer, candida, weight gain, acne etc.
@Thissucks - Some would say candida is a result of lack of sugar.
http://www.eastwesthealing.com/auto-immune-disease/candida-myths.aspx
Systemic candidiasis is a myth: According to Dr. Ray Peat, most of what people believe about candida is wrong, but candida can become a problem for sick people. IgA is the main type of antibody on surfaces and secretions and should protect against candidiasis. But IgA is deficient in hypothyroidism, so hypothyroid people have more susceptible membranes, and the yeasts thrive on sugar that can appear in the secretions in diabetes/Candidiasis Myths stress, but they adhere to any cell with estradiol in it, thinking they have found a fertile yeast. Eating sugar and fruit is helpful, rather than harmful as the cultists say, because well nourished yeasts aren't harmful in the intestine. But starved yeasts need sugar and so they project invasive filaments into the intestinal wall, and can get into the blood stream, at which point — if they aren't quickly de- stroyed by white blood cells — they can grow and quickly kill the person. In a typical year, a few people in the world get invasive candida and quickly die, but mil- lions of Americans will insist that they ‘have candida in the bloodstream.’ Eating sugar (fruits, fruit juices) lowers cortisol, keeping the white cells working, helps to increase thyroid, and keeps the yeast from becoming invasive. PUFA (polyunsaturated fatty acids or omega-3 and -6 oils) are yeast stimu- lants, unlike saturated fats. The white film on grapes is a layer of yeast cells, that live there because of the PUFA in the waxy surface of the grape
elan164- Posts : 475
Join date : 2010-02-24
Location : British Columbia, Canada
Re: Sugar. Good or Bad. Let's debate
There is no problem with sugar unless
#1 it is a source of excess calories
#2 it interferes with micronutrient uptake.
It can make dieting more difficult however because of its effect on blood sugar and lack of satiety.
#1 it is a source of excess calories
#2 it interferes with micronutrient uptake.
It can make dieting more difficult however because of its effect on blood sugar and lack of satiety.
abc123- Posts : 1128
Join date : 2010-07-31
Re: Sugar. Good or Bad. Let's debate
After a week of upping my carb intake (potatoes, quality ice cream, organic molasses, pomegranate and oj, mangos) my body temp is never lower than 97.8, been up to 98.6 a few times now, libido is strong, mental clarity. No more night sweats.
elan164- Posts : 475
Join date : 2010-02-24
Location : British Columbia, Canada
Re: Sugar. Good or Bad. Let's debate
abc123 wrote:There is no problem with sugar unless
#1 it is a source of excess calories
#2 it interferes with micronutrient uptake.
It can make dieting more difficult however because of its effect on blood sugar and lack of satiety.
Sugar also of course increases insulin resistance, fuels candida, and makes life harder for your liver, as it has to process all that insulin and stuff.
Re: Sugar. Good or Bad. Let's debate
http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/diabetes.shtml
The starch-based diet, emphasizing grains, beans, nuts, and vegetables, has been promoted with a variety of justifications. When people are urged to reduce their fat and sugar consumption, they are told to eat more starch. Starch stimulates the appetite, promotes fat synthesis by stimulating insulin secretion, and sometimes increases the growth of bacteria that produce toxins. It is often associated with allergens, and according to Gerhard Volkheimer, whole starch grains can be "persorbed" from the intestine directly into the blood stream where they may block arterioles, causing widely distributed nests of cell-death. I have heard dietitians urge the use of "complex carbohydrates" (starch) instead of sugar. In the first physiology lab I took, we fed rats a large blob of moist cornstarch with a stomach tube, and then after waiting a few minutes, were told to dissect the rat to find out "how far the starch had gone." In such a short time, we were surprised to find that not a trace of the starch could be found. The professor's purpose was to impress us with the rapidity with which starch is digested and absorbed. Various studies have demonstrated that starch (composed of pure glucose) raises blood glucose more quickly than sucrose (half fructose, half glucose) does. The sudden increase of blood glucose is sometimes thought to contribute to the development of diabetes, but if it does, it is probably mediated by fat metabolism and the hormones other than just insulin.
Can anyone explain why ive noticed all these positives?
The starch-based diet, emphasizing grains, beans, nuts, and vegetables, has been promoted with a variety of justifications. When people are urged to reduce their fat and sugar consumption, they are told to eat more starch. Starch stimulates the appetite, promotes fat synthesis by stimulating insulin secretion, and sometimes increases the growth of bacteria that produce toxins. It is often associated with allergens, and according to Gerhard Volkheimer, whole starch grains can be "persorbed" from the intestine directly into the blood stream where they may block arterioles, causing widely distributed nests of cell-death. I have heard dietitians urge the use of "complex carbohydrates" (starch) instead of sugar. In the first physiology lab I took, we fed rats a large blob of moist cornstarch with a stomach tube, and then after waiting a few minutes, were told to dissect the rat to find out "how far the starch had gone." In such a short time, we were surprised to find that not a trace of the starch could be found. The professor's purpose was to impress us with the rapidity with which starch is digested and absorbed. Various studies have demonstrated that starch (composed of pure glucose) raises blood glucose more quickly than sucrose (half fructose, half glucose) does. The sudden increase of blood glucose is sometimes thought to contribute to the development of diabetes, but if it does, it is probably mediated by fat metabolism and the hormones other than just insulin.
Can anyone explain why ive noticed all these positives?
elan164- Posts : 475
Join date : 2010-02-24
Location : British Columbia, Canada
Re: Sugar. Good or Bad. Let's debate
Id be interested to see other people's body temps and pulse rate. Just checked mine again, mid afternoon, 98.1 degrees and 70 bpm.
elan164- Posts : 475
Join date : 2010-02-24
Location : British Columbia, Canada
Re: Sugar. Good or Bad. Let's debate
Hoppipolla wrote:abc123 wrote:There is no problem with sugar unless
#1 it is a source of excess calories
#2 it interferes with micronutrient uptake.
It can make dieting more difficult however because of its effect on blood sugar and lack of satiety.
Sugar also of course increases insulin resistance, fuels candida, and makes life harder for your liver, as it has to process all that insulin and stuff.
Hoppi,
Sugar depends solely on dosage and context. It's not something that should be demonized by default. If you would like I can post so more info on this.
If you have candida you have candida. It's stupidly over diagnosed on the internet though. Sugar does not Cause candida although I'll take your word that it fuels it once you have it.
abc123- Posts : 1128
Join date : 2010-07-31
Re: Sugar. Good or Bad. Let's debate
I generally worry about taking enough protein and fats, therfore supplementing with iso-whey and different oils. I never worry about getting enough carbs, since they are everywhere.....just make sure I don't consume too many.
If you feel good on sugar, it's because your insulinlevels and bloodsugar are bouncing, that doesn't mean more sugar is good for you
If you feel good on sugar, it's because your insulinlevels and bloodsugar are bouncing, that doesn't mean more sugar is good for you
pancacke- Posts : 1644
Join date : 2010-07-22
Re: Sugar. Good or Bad. Let's debate
abc123 wrote:Sugar depends solely on dosage and context. It's not something that should be demonized by default. If you would like I can post so more info on this.
If you have candida you have candida. It's stupidly over diagnosed on the internet though. Sugar does not Cause candida although I'll take your word that it fuels it once you have it.
Fair enough man
Re: Sugar. Good or Bad. Let's debate
"Cancer Love Sugar", search in Google, and read this text.
146 Reasons Why Sugar Is Ruining Your Health
http://www.rheumatic.org/sugar.htm
146 Reasons Why Sugar Is Ruining Your Health
http://www.rheumatic.org/sugar.htm
Guest- Guest
Page 1 of 4 • 1, 2, 3, 4
Similar topics
» Getting some regrowth for real, and really fast...
» Lets discuss the pattern of MPB!
» hairline regrowth
» ‘NOVA’ takes science’s side in vaccine debate
» Younger Guys Losing Hair - Lets solve this!
» Lets discuss the pattern of MPB!
» hairline regrowth
» ‘NOVA’ takes science’s side in vaccine debate
» Younger Guys Losing Hair - Lets solve this!
Page 1 of 4
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
|
|
Fri May 17, 2024 7:01 am by Atlas
» zombie cells
Sat May 11, 2024 6:54 am by CausticSymmetry
» Sandalore - could it be a game changer?
Wed May 08, 2024 9:45 pm by MikeGore
» *The first scientific evidence in 2021 that viruses do not exist*
Tue May 07, 2024 4:18 am by CausticSymmetry
» China is at it again
Tue May 07, 2024 4:07 am by CausticSymmetry
» Ways to increase adult stem cells
Mon May 06, 2024 5:40 pm by el_llama
» pentadecanoic acid
Sun May 05, 2024 10:56 am by CausticSymmetry
» Exosome Theory and Herpes
Fri May 03, 2024 3:25 am by CausticSymmetry
» Road to recovery - my own log of everything I'm currently trying for HL
Tue Apr 30, 2024 1:55 pm by JtheDreamer