No it is a waste of time. Goodnight.
2 Likes
Cane sugar or sucrose is a double molecule of two sugars, glucose and fructose. Glucose is the universal fuel powering our muscles. Fructose is the villain of the piece being the primary cause of obesity, tooth decay and a string of other diseases. So dividing the Nutritional Information Panel âsugarsâ percentage by two will give you an a reasonable estimate of the fructose content. It is advisable to avoid products with âsugarsâ contents over 2%. There are some exceptions, such as yogurt. The first 4.7% of the sugars it contains is lactose (milk sugar) based which metabolises as glucose and is therefore harmless. So you can safely consume yogurts at up to about 7% âsugarsâ. But donât be conned y âlow fatâ yogurts - the flavour is removed with the fat and usually replaced by sugar and salt. Also fruit juices, dried fruits and the like are concentrated forms of fructose so all of the âsugarsâ content is fructose. They are best avoided entirely except perhaps for the occasional sip or nibble. Incidentally âadded sugarâ is meaningless. It makes no difference what the source of the sugar is. Itâs the actual; percentage of fructose that matters.
It doesnât matter whether the sugar is inherent or added. Itâs the total percentage of sugar in a product which matters. And the one sugar which really matters is fructose (fruit sugar), which comprises 50% of sucrose (cane sugar). The only sense in which âadded sugarâ has any real meaning is the fact that the ill effects of ingesting fructose in whole fresh fruits are somewhat ameliorated by the inclusion of the fibre. This is why fruit juices, which generally exclude the fibre, represent concentrated fructose. You couldnât eat six oranges at a sitting. But you can swallow their juice in a few seconds.
This is only the part of the story many fruits, honey and such like whichbare recommended universally as part of a healthy/balanced diet, can have very high sugar contents, The total amount of sugar consumed or the percentage of daily calorie intake as sugar is possibly just if not more important.
One can have a teaspoon of sugar (close to 100% sugar) in a cup of tea for ones whole life. With a nutritous balanced diet and exercise this teaspoon of sugar will have no ill effects. If one has a high sugar diet and consumes predominantly high sugar foods then this does become a problem.
It is not necessarily the consumption of sugarâs which is the issue as humans have been consuming sugar in food since the beginning of time. The issue is loading of mainly procesed foods with sugar (added sugar in one of its many forms) whereby sugar become a significant percentage/dominates of the calories of foods eaten.
3 Likes
Hi[quote=âjohnn31, post:49, topic:13293â]
Fructose is the villain of the piece being the primary cause of obesity, tooth decay and a string of other diseases.
[/quote]
Glucose, fructose, sucrose and lactose are the main source of food for the bacteria which occur naturally in the mouth (inc. Streptococcus mutans). These bacteria produce acids as a byproduct of the sugars metabolism. This acid weakens and dissolves the teethâs enamel coating causing decay.
The bacteria does not discriminate against glucose, fructose, sucrose or lactose, as it has the ability to consume all these.
3 Likes
Quote: "This is only the part of the story many fruits, honey and such like ⊠"
What matters is that we limit our fructose intake to 10 grams a day. You can get that from about 200 grams of fresh fruit. But we get lots more from processed foods and sweetened snacks, drinks lollies etc.The average consumption in Australia is more like 30 g/day. As a consequence we are just about the most obese people in the world. 60% of the population is overweight or obese.
Sugar as a regular part of the diet is a modern phenomenon - about 200 years from memory. Prior to that the only sources of sugar were fruit, honey and other seasonal foods ilke beetroot, corn and so on⊠The average citizen would have access to them on an rare, occasional basis.
Several of your comments indicate that you donât really disagree with me. Youâre just coming at it from a different angle. If you want to learn more about the metabolism of sugar (fructose in particular) read some of the works of David Gillespie, Dr Robert Lustig, Dr John Yudkin (who started it all in 1972) - to name a few.
Quote: âThe bacteria does not discriminate against glucose, fructose, sucrose or lactose, as it has the ability to consume all these.â
In David Gillespieâs book âSweet Poison Quit Planâ on pages 157-8 he explains that, based on hundreds of controlled studies, unless SM it gets glucose and fructose in exactly the 50/50 proportion found in sucrose plaque and lactic acid cannot form so there is no decay.
There was detailed discussion of Dr Lustig here.
3 Likes
No this is not correct. Here is one of many research papers which disprove thisâŠ
http://iai.asm.org/content/31/1/78.short
This paper indicates that a 0.5% fructose solution resulted in a pH drop (namely acid formation). This is the same process which leads to teeth enamel damage.
It is also worth noting that David Gillespie is a corporate lawyer which his own opinions on sugar. I would prefer to rely on research findings from reputable organisations.
3 Likes
[1] I donât see anything in this abstract about the lactic acid which together with plaque formation cause tooth decay.
[2] Yes David Gillespie is a solicitor. The one thing solicitors do well is research. He cites âhundreds of studiesâ for his claim about the 505/50 ratio and its effect on lactic acid production. I donât have time to ask him to list them nor to read them. But I do trust his integrity. His material does derive from reputable organizations - hundreds of them!
[3] People in the establishment distrust âoutsidersâ who donât have their qualifications as not having any credibility in relation to their specialities⊠They donât like having their ages rattled by interlopers.
1 Like
The article demostrates that feeding Streptococcus mutans a 0.5% fructose (with no sucrose) solution, acid is produced. The acid production is proven by a reduction in pH (the lower the pH, the stronger the acid). The acid produced by Streptococcus mutans is lactic acid. This article is one of many that discusses the role of Streptococcus mutans. It is worth noting that some of the discussion is about sucrose consumption and affect on plaque pH. Sucrose has a similar effect to fructise that it results in loweing of pH/acid production.
Plaque itself does not cause tooth decay, but it is the bateria/micripobes within this plaque which produce acids. These acids cause the corrosion/dissolving of tooth emanel leading to decay.
Plaque is a matrix of saliva, polysaccharides, bacteria and food residues (left in the mouth after eating). If one consumes a diet high in sugar (principally sucrose, fructose, glucose, lactose), this provides a feed source for tbe bacteriaâŠleading to acid production.
Foods with low pH like citrus, soft drinks etc, can have the same effect in the long term. If these foods are also high in sugar, it may be a âdouble whammyââŠthe food acid impacting on the tooth enamel, along with acid production from bacteria within the oral cavity.
3 Likes
Yes they do a lot of research of case history, precedents and rulings. Understanding the complexities of specific scientific processes can take many decades, supported with ones own laboratory research.
This is why often authors like those you listed above tend to gain momentum from the media and from their own internet pages. Many laypeople donât understand these scientific concepts as they use complex terms which might appear a little frightening and confusing. Many rely on popular forms of media, such as a book written by someone who looks credible, for information of interest. While information within these books may have some factual basis, a good researcher always reverts to the original research papers to verify conclusions which may have been drawn by others. To rely on opinions or conclusions from someone who is not an expert in the field, is fraught with danger as the same person may have their own âbarrowâ or agenda to push.
No this is not the case. There are many example or people who were âoutsiderâ who are well respected. One such example is Einstein, who was very much an outsider in the early days of his career. He became respected as he took the time to do his own research to prove the theories/hypotheses he developed.
What the âestablishmentâ distrust I beleive falls into these:
- persons calling themselves experts in a particular field and misusing research research or investing their own to push their own agendas (e.g. anti-vaxxer groups)
- those who are loose with science for their own financial again (as highlighted in other posts i have made about the vitamin supplement industry)
- those who donât beleive in science, especially that which has been proven, peer reviewed and research replicated by other independent groups (the anti-big pharma groups are an example).
If one wishes to write a popular article/book about a specific topic, one needs to demonstrate they have the necessary background, qualifications and/or experience. Otherwise such books could be considered as opinions and encouraging debate to the topic at hand.
Debate is good, as it challenges the norm. However, these alternative views need to be supported by science, not opinion.
This is a major concern and will impact on the individuals health in the long term, and the health system as well.
One also also needs to realise that sugar is only one way to load calories/energy into foods. Fats/oils is another.
There seems to be general consensus in the medical, nutrition and health sectors that high calorie diets with more sedentary lifestyles. Genetics also play a factor has the human body digestive system is based on a infrequent high energy intake mealâŠpotentially followed by fasting (hunter and gather style). This fasting/lack of food made the body develop metabolic process to store excess food energy during a feast, namely fat deposition. During period of fasting (food calorific levels less than that required for everyday life), these deposits were used as a energy supply.
Today with modern conveniences, we can have high energy meals every meal. The human body thinks there is still a fasting even coming, so will store fat and keep doing so.
4 Likes
The concept of âadded sugarâ is very uncertain.
For example consider tinned fruit. There is an amount of sugar inherent in the solid fruit, presumably this isnât added. If the fruit is in a sweet liquid is that added sugar? Does it matter if the liquid is sucrose and water or fruit juice? The sweet liquid could also be derived from HFCS and all three might well contain the same amount of sugar. The label on a tin of (say) mangoes will say âin natural juiceâ but it isnât mango juice but pear. This is an attempt to dress up the product with the naturalistic fallacy and it saves money as pear juice is cheap.
Take a second example, processed fruit snacks. You can have a fruity substance that is derived mainly from dried fruit that is sweet and attractive to children. The sugar content may be quite high but it is not added sugar in the sense of no buckets of sucrose were poured in somewhere in the process. The labelling and advertising will hint that this product is better for not having the bucket applied: more dressing up. It is still a high sugar snack that ought to be rationed carefully.
To me this looks much like the as-sold vs as-served noise of the health ratings scheme. A convenient bit of confusion in words that allows the labelling system to be rorted. In both of the examples above the maker knows well that sugar is a selling point (because we are genetically programmed to like it) but that it cannot be made explicit because then we might allow our intellect to override our gut feeling and not buy it. The result is advertising that shows images of serving suggestions and people with big smiles that sucks you into thinking âhmmm yummy yummy sugarâ and at the same time in black and white it says âno added sugarâ. Two bob each way.
The main issue to be addressed is, as a society we consume too much energy for our level of exercise and so get fat. A part of that excess is in the form of sugar. Your cardiologist will be worried that you are morbidly obese not that you got that way by consuming added sugar as opposed to any other surplus calories. People will be best served if they know how much sugar is in each product. This should apply to all products equally and regardless of where the sugar comes from and whether it can be labelled ânaturalâ.
The concept of âadded sugarâ is not all helpful in trying to choose a healthy diet, the concept of matching your energy intake, including sugar from all sources, to your physical activity is. We donât need to identify added sugar separately and we certainly donât need to make it easier for market-droids to sell us more sugary foods.
3 Likes
Actually, I find that quite easy to do! same with eating 1kg of cherries in a day, or a dozen apricots, or half a dozen large peaches, or a stack of mandarins when harvesting them. Easy peasy 
I rarely eat any sweetened snacks (apart from some dried fruit), other than a homemade brew of glucose and almond meal, coconut and cacao, which is ~50% glucose, when out on long bike rides.
Itâs not really the amount of sugar that is the problem, its whether you are eating more calories than you are using, IMO.
BTW, I am not overweight, since I generally burn more than twice the standard 8700kJ each day.
4 Likes
They found pathways in the brains of mice linking sweet and bitter and why sweet invokes such a strong response. They could also disable the part of the brain that was emotionally connected.
2 Likes
Just to show you how healthy i am, when i put mainstream white processed sugar on my tongue which by the way also includes glyphosate from the spray they use, i get an intense nasty sweet taste which lingers and a burning sensation on my tongue, pretty similar to a narcotic i used to use in the eighties actually but without the sweetness. I use ORGANIC palm or beet sugar and its still sweet in a friendly way and no burning and the sweetness comes and goes pretty quick too. My body tells me its happy
As you mentioned other sugars are still not the best, but are less toxic, some more than others. Even mr google has page after page of studies saying how toxic white sugar is. Its whether it stems from organic ways or not is probably the only difference as with other ingredients, although theres a fair few numbers in most of those icereams which are a worry.
I would actually put a decent bit of coin on people still buying shed loads of processed sugar in different foods even if there were ads on the tv telling people processed sugar is highly toxic and the issues it slowly causes.
Its not that theres not programs and films telling us
Even mr google has
I could point out a lot of issues with that wall of text but I think I might just highlight these two and leave.
1 Like
All sugars are not the same. Fructose is the dangerous one (just Google Dr Lustig).
It is essential that the ingredient list specify the percentage of Fructose, Glucose (Dextrose), Lactose and Galactose; these are the ânaturalâ sugars. In addition the sugar alcohols need to be listed (Google them) as well as other sweetners such as Stavia.
Also keep in mind that not all calories are processed by the body in the same way (Google Dr Lustig again).
The link between fructose and various metabolic disorders is far from established. I will pay more attention if ever there is widespread support for the idea from the wider scientific community. In the meantime Lustig is but one of many health gurus who get much attention (and sometimes make a living) out of commanding us to always (or never) eat some particular substance. As with all the others reading his material alone will not provide anything conclusive just one view of the matter.
There is a thread in existence for the fructose issue perhaps this should go there.
1 Like
