You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Why Sugar Is Public Enemy Number 1

in #life6 years ago (edited)

So,

I wasn't sure what you were referring to and started back at working through it again and I'm not sure the emeded youtube links are working. At least for me, whenever I try to play any of them they all start at the wrong timestamp. Even when I try to edit the reply it still shows the timestamps as correct. Not sure what is up with that but you were probably not viewing what I intended but I did put specific time stamps to start at for each, those should be accurate.

For particular things you've said. I don't think I've changed topic. We started by discussing sugar and why it is bad for you. It is bad for you because of the fructose content. I'm trying to explain why it is bad

As I've said before, there isn't anything wrong with glucose. It isn't bad for you and your right, even yeast prefer it to fructose.

It's not even vaguely similar. Fructose can be metabolized in various places and in various ways whereas ethanol cannot.

look at video but alcohol is metabolized in liver and brain (which is why it has acute affects). Fructose is almost exclusively metabolized in the liver. You have it backwards.

from wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fructolysis

Unlike glucose, which is metabolized widely in the body, fructose is metabolized almost completely in the liver in humans

The link you provide is interesting and great I believe that it supports my position fully. 1g/kg is a pretty low threshold. The study was done on mice and I'm not sure the 1g/kg is the body weight of the individual consuming the fructose as you've indicated but rather the ratio of fructose to weight of the food consumed. That would actually bolster the view that fiber offers a protective effect from fructose consumption. In fact if you find articles interviewing the scientists that conducted the study they have this to say:

"We can offer some reassurance -- at least from these animal studies -- that fructose from moderate amounts of fruits will not reach the liver," he says. However, the small intestine probably starts to get overwhelmed with sugar halfway through a can of soda or large glass of orange juice.

link here to quote (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/02/180206140645.htm) This seems to directly fall in line with my way of thinking that fructose is bad once you get past fruit level purities. It would indicate a fiber or bulk of the food offering a protective effect. Nothing in the article supports that fructose is safe for you in sugary drinks or in the quantities consumed today. The article also indicates that fructose is also metabolized in the liver past the small intestine.

The only thing in that study/article that would contradict my position is that the small intestine is doing some of the heavy lifting to prevent fructose from hitting the liver where previously I'd show studies (older) that indicated it was metabolized primarily through the liver. This isn't distressing so much as provide reasons why people don't have long term health issues from eating fruit but do from highly processed foods or high sugar foods or soda or juice consumption. The article even offers new reasons why fructose is bad, it potentially harms the microbiome past the small intestine which wasn't designed to see sugars.

One can eat an infinite amount of carbohydrates, and there will be nary a molecule of glucose that enters the microbiome. But as soon as you drink the soda or juice, the microbiome is seeing an extremely powerful nutrient that it was designed to never see."

You've posted an article that directly states in the summary that there are "strong ties between fructose and disease" and offers additional information that may have been missing from our discussion that the small intestine protects us from fructose levels you'd find in fruit but not past half of a soda. I find it hard to see this as anything other than agreement with me.

The information on the doctor can be found here: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Lustig)
I'm not sure if this is an anti-appeal to authority. He has a newer video here (

) and indicates list of collaborators on at about 1:25:00 (one hour 25 min). Information on fructose metabolism is unchanged from the videos I've linked above.

also this is what endocrinology is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endocrinology

endocrine system, its diseases, and its specific secretions known as hormones. It is also concerned with the integration of developmental events proliferation, growth, and differentiation, and the psychological or behavioral activities of metabolism, growth and development, tissue function, sleep, digestion, respiration, excretion...

so basically everything about how the human body uses foods signals within itself with hormones etc. Specifically relevant.

Sort:  

The links work fine but that is moot because I've shown that the presenter is deficient on the subject of biochemistry. The rather laughable "Ethanol is a carbohydrate".

The link you provide is interesting and great I believe that it supports my position fully. 1g/kg is a pretty low threshold.

Pardon? That is about 3litres of coke for someone of regular weight and size. As this is the acute consumption limit they would have to down it in one. I think that in most people's books that isn't normal. That is not half a can of soda. I've yet to see 6 litre cans of soda for sale most anywhere.

From your own article

Researchers report that in mice, fructose, a sugar found in fruit, is processed mainly in the small intestine, not in the liver as had previously been suspected.

Are we clear that what you are stating about the liver is outdated and nothing but a populist meme now?

this is what endocrinology is:

So not biochemistry then?

so basically everything about how the human body uses foods signals within itself with hormones etc

That is like saying because a haystack has a pin in it, it must be a pile of pins.

Loading...

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.19
TRX 0.12
JST 0.027
BTC 64807.94
ETH 3507.27
USDT 1.00
SBD 2.37