How Much Sugar is Acceptable?

Nutrition
41

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Dianaballs wrote:

[quote]anonym wrote:
OK, so here we are being told that Substance A is extremely toxic – just a small amount of it is enough to kill us. It just never does for the vast majority because we can process it properly. But for the fraction of us who CAN’T do so, it’s deadly news.

Yes, you ARE arguing about the toxicity of this substance on “technical” grounds – because very specific and uncommon conditions need to be met for such a consequence to result.

So, then, for your post alluding to T1D: that if we give this fraction of the population a large amount of something they are congenitally unequipped to handle, they will die without external medication* – and that we should therefore generalize these findings to demonize an entire macronutrient group for the healthy majority… but let’s only deal with technicalities in this specific instance, because from here on out we are abruptly switching topics to a secondary group with an acquired intolerance…(?)

Which would bring me to my earlier point: that you are guilty of conflating dietary carbohydrate consumption with pathologically unsuppressed endogenous glucose production to make your case – pathologically unsuppressed endogenous glucose production being in no way, shape, or form the result of simply eating carbohydrates for the vast majority and yet, in spite of that, being the crux of nearly every health issue you have outlined in your post.

This is where your position ultimately falls apart, because there is no compelling evidence to support, well, any of it. Any evidence proffered to substantiate these claims will NOT be uniquely characteristic of any physiological cascade resulting from dietary CHO in and of themselves.

Your contention is, frankly, not something that has been demonstrated scientifically, and it is certainly not something that has been observed or reported anecdotally from nearly any indigenous culture studied.

*still waiting for someone to explain the “toxic” effects of CHO in these instances.[/quote]

ITS TOXIC BECAUSE CHARLES POLIQUIN SAYS SO BRO

i have never even heard of people not being able to process carbohydrates in my entire life. jesus christ, 1000 years ago what do you people think the average person ate? peasants living in rags eating a nice big steak and some broccoli? they ate bread. and please god dont try and use the “THEY ONLY LIVED TO 40 BRO”
[/quote]

1000 years ago is very recent modern history.[/quote]

what has that got to do with anything?

42

[quote]anonym wrote:
OK, so here we are being told that Substance A is extremely toxic – just a small amount of it is enough to kill us. It just never does for the vast majority because we can process it properly. But for the fraction of us who CAN’T do so, it’s deadly news.

Yes, you ARE arguing about the toxicity of this substance on “technical” grounds – because very specific and uncommon conditions need to be met for such a consequence to result.

So, then, for your post alluding to T1D: that if we give this fraction of the population a large amount of something they are congenitally unequipped to handle, they will die without external medication* – and that we should therefore generalize these findings to demonize an entire macronutrient group for the healthy majority… but let’s only deal with technicalities in this specific instance, because from here on out we are abruptly switching topics to a secondary group with an acquired intolerance…(?)

Which would bring me to my earlier point: that you are guilty of conflating dietary carbohydrate consumption with pathologically unsuppressed endogenous glucose production to make your case – pathologically unsuppressed endogenous glucose production being in no way, shape, or form the result of simply eating carbohydrates for the vast majority and yet, in spite of that, being the crux of nearly every health issue you have outlined in your post.

This is where your position ultimately falls apart, because there is no compelling evidence to support, well, any of it. Any evidence proffered to substantiate these claims will NOT be uniquely characteristic of any physiological cascade resulting from dietary CHO in and of themselves.

Your contention is, frankly, not something that has been demonstrated scientifically, and it is certainly not something that has been observed or reported anecdotally from nearly any indigenous culture studied.

*still waiting for someone to explain the “toxic” effects of CHO in these instances.[/quote]

10% going on 30+% is neither small nor rare.

There is plenty of correlative and observational evidence including of indigenous cultures, in addition to basically being no real viable alternative theory. There aren’t studies showing tons and tons of things that we all know. I mean until recently the medical community maintained that steroids didn’t enhance performance and there are still no real studies showing they do. Nutrition and dietary studies are basically inherently flawed anyway. Information is either wildly inaccurate or incredibly expensive and therefore limited. There can’t really be control groups. Plus a number of other inherent problems.

And though I’m not arrogant enough to claim to understand all the immense grossly complicated physiological impact of consuming virtually anything, much less carbs (here is a hint, no one knows even a fraction) carbohydrate consumption is certainly different than other things. It is unique in intensity and combination if not in isolated pathways. Scientists attempting to isolate things in physiology is a huge mistake. No pathways work in isolation.

You keep on telling everyone steroids don’t help athletes. Meanwhile for some “un-known” reason the immense death toll keeps rising.

43

[quote]Dianaballs wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Dianaballs wrote:

[quote]outlaws wrote:
You’ve never even heard of people not being able to process carbs?!

Diabetes 101

We’ve (Homo Sapiens) started to evolve around 200 000 years ago, agriculture only existed in the last 12 000

Conventional bread you buy from the supermarket? Maybe 150-200

I guess ‘‘toxic’’ depends how technical the description is

Cigarettes are toxic. Alcohol may be toxic. Yet sugar takes more lives then both, go figure[/quote]

he was implying that they cant process them AT ALL, diabetics can obviously eat some CHO.

bread still contains carbs, whether it is from a supermarket or not…
i think you should seriously educate yourself on this shit. honestly. look up alan aragons stuff.sugar intake has barely gone up in the past 50 years or so. it overall calories and higher fat killing people.
everything is toxic past a certain threshold for fucks sake. dont eat ANY salt kids. its toxic(at doses you could never possibly consume but lets leave that out, it doesnt sound as good)
[/quote]

Other than the fact that fat intake has been going down for the last 50 years.[/quote]

what do you think the average american eats? you mean kfc, mcdonalds,chips, etc are all low fat? im not bothered enough to debate this. look up lyle mcdonald and alan aragon’s "is sugar toxic"you people are the nutritional equivalent of people who believe in our lizardmen overlords(PRAISE BE UNTO THEN) 9/11 was an inside job
[/quote]

Since we are all on studies, I’m just quoting the evidence. Fat consumption has drastically dropped. The rest of your post sounds like you don’t understand my argument.

44

[quote]Dianaballs wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Dianaballs wrote:

[quote]anonym wrote:
OK, so here we are being told that Substance A is extremely toxic – just a small amount of it is enough to kill us. It just never does for the vast majority because we can process it properly. But for the fraction of us who CAN’T do so, it’s deadly news.

Yes, you ARE arguing about the toxicity of this substance on “technical” grounds – because very specific and uncommon conditions need to be met for such a consequence to result.

So, then, for your post alluding to T1D: that if we give this fraction of the population a large amount of something they are congenitally unequipped to handle, they will die without external medication* – and that we should therefore generalize these findings to demonize an entire macronutrient group for the healthy majority… but let’s only deal with technicalities in this specific instance, because from here on out we are abruptly switching topics to a secondary group with an acquired intolerance…(?)

Which would bring me to my earlier point: that you are guilty of conflating dietary carbohydrate consumption with pathologically unsuppressed endogenous glucose production to make your case – pathologically unsuppressed endogenous glucose production being in no way, shape, or form the result of simply eating carbohydrates for the vast majority and yet, in spite of that, being the crux of nearly every health issue you have outlined in your post.

This is where your position ultimately falls apart, because there is no compelling evidence to support, well, any of it. Any evidence proffered to substantiate these claims will NOT be uniquely characteristic of any physiological cascade resulting from dietary CHO in and of themselves.

Your contention is, frankly, not something that has been demonstrated scientifically, and it is certainly not something that has been observed or reported anecdotally from nearly any indigenous culture studied.

*still waiting for someone to explain the “toxic” effects of CHO in these instances.[/quote]

ITS TOXIC BECAUSE CHARLES POLIQUIN SAYS SO BRO

i have never even heard of people not being able to process carbohydrates in my entire life. jesus christ, 1000 years ago what do you people think the average person ate? peasants living in rags eating a nice big steak and some broccoli? they ate bread. and please god dont try and use the “THEY ONLY LIVED TO 40 BRO”
[/quote]

1000 years ago is very recent modern history.[/quote]

what has that got to do with anything?
[/quote]

They ate “bread” made from a different species of plant than today’s bread. They lived completely different lifestyles. And we don’t know a whole lot about their health statistics. large numbers of carbs are a very recent introduction.

45

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Dianaballs wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Dianaballs wrote:

[quote]anonym wrote:
OK, so here we are being told that Substance A is extremely toxic – just a small amount of it is enough to kill us. It just never does for the vast majority because we can process it properly. But for the fraction of us who CAN’T do so, it’s deadly news.

Yes, you ARE arguing about the toxicity of this substance on “technical” grounds – because very specific and uncommon conditions need to be met for such a consequence to result.

So, then, for your post alluding to T1D: that if we give this fraction of the population a large amount of something they are congenitally unequipped to handle, they will die without external medication* – and that we should therefore generalize these findings to demonize an entire macronutrient group for the healthy majority… but let’s only deal with technicalities in this specific instance, because from here on out we are abruptly switching topics to a secondary group with an acquired intolerance…(?)

Which would bring me to my earlier point: that you are guilty of conflating dietary carbohydrate consumption with pathologically unsuppressed endogenous glucose production to make your case – pathologically unsuppressed endogenous glucose production being in no way, shape, or form the result of simply eating carbohydrates for the vast majority and yet, in spite of that, being the crux of nearly every health issue you have outlined in your post.

This is where your position ultimately falls apart, because there is no compelling evidence to support, well, any of it. Any evidence proffered to substantiate these claims will NOT be uniquely characteristic of any physiological cascade resulting from dietary CHO in and of themselves.

Your contention is, frankly, not something that has been demonstrated scientifically, and it is certainly not something that has been observed or reported anecdotally from nearly any indigenous culture studied.

*still waiting for someone to explain the “toxic” effects of CHO in these instances.[/quote]

ITS TOXIC BECAUSE CHARLES POLIQUIN SAYS SO BRO

i have never even heard of people not being able to process carbohydrates in my entire life. jesus christ, 1000 years ago what do you people think the average person ate? peasants living in rags eating a nice big steak and some broccoli? they ate bread. and please god dont try and use the “THEY ONLY LIVED TO 40 BRO”
[/quote]

1000 years ago is very recent modern history.[/quote]

what has that got to do with anything?
[/quote]

They ate “bread” made from a different species of plant than today’s bread. They lived completely different lifestyles. And we don’t know a whole lot about their health statistics. large numbers of carbs are a very recent introduction. [/quote]

its still carbs.

thats pretty much the staple of their diet. they couldnt afford anything else.

did you watch that alan aragon sugar is toxic video yet? im sorry, im going to go with the vast majority of sports nutritionists and doctors who gasp know more than you do about this stuff. again, you are not the “enlightened ones” who know the deep inner truth. you are just misinterpretting studies. show me one study not in rats or sedentary people, not at doses that noone would possibly eat in a day, that supports this “sugar is toxic” bollox

46

also its pretty much universally agreed that “Modern history” began at the end of middle ages, around 1500 AD. last time i checked thats 500 years after 1000 AD.

47

[quote]Dianaballs wrote:
also its pretty much universally agreed that “Modern history” began at the end of middle ages, around 1500 AD. last time i checked thats 500 years after 1000 AD. [/quote]

Human evolutionary and dietary history, not literature and technology history. I assumed given the discussion, that was evident.

48

[quote]Dianaballs wrote:
its still carbs.

thats pretty much the staple of their diet. they couldnt afford anything else.

did you watch that alan aragon sugar is toxic video yet? im sorry, im going to go with the vast majority of sports nutritionists and doctors who gasp know more than you do about this stuff. again, you are not the “enlightened ones” who know the deep inner truth. you are just misinterpretting studies. show me one study not in rats or sedentary people, not at doses that noone would possibly eat in a day, that supports this “sugar is toxic” bollox[/quote]

There are plenty who agree with me too. And the side against sugar is growing fast. Call it whatever you want. Carbs kill hundreds of thousands of people a year in the US alone. Given that without carbs it becomes almost impossible to become obese and that carbs are not really necessary either for health or even high level performance, discussing serious risks associated with carbs seems relevant and poignant to the topic.

The truth is that it is very individual how many carbs one can continue to eat and what kinds of health problems can be caused. Even without becoming obese, they can cause low HDL, high tryglicerides, and form the small LDL particles in your blood. The exact 3 risk factors current research points to as the best predictors of heart disease. Something even VERY VERY active people should consider.

And (again) even more directly, almost a 3rd of the population is suffering from some issue that is basically amounts to sugar intolerance. Yes, it most certainly can cause problems for anyone. Yes it’s something that should be considered when discussing acceptable amounts of dietary sugar/carbs. Yes it can lead to or at least contribute to many serious health problems up to and including cancer, heart disease, and ultimately death.

49

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

Given that without carbs it becomes almost impossible to become obese [/quote]

how so? I know low insulin and all, but eating too much, regardless of the macros involved, WILL make someone obese if the surplus is there.

50

[quote]Spidey22 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

Given that without carbs it becomes almost impossible to become obese [/quote]

how so? I know low insulin and all, but eating too much, regardless of the macros involved, WILL make someone obese if the surplus is there. [/quote]

Insulin is the primary gate keeper for fat tissue, without high levels from carbs it’s tough store a lot.

And what you are saying is true to an extent, but it’s more complicated. Cellular metabolism changes, effects on hunger mechanisms, est. It is difficult to significantly overeat on fat and protein alone.

The downside for me has been that I almost can’t gain weight without carbs.

51

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Dianaballs wrote:
its still carbs.

thats pretty much the staple of their diet. they couldnt afford anything else.

did you watch that alan aragon sugar is toxic video yet? im sorry, im going to go with the vast majority of sports nutritionists and doctors who gasp know more than you do about this stuff. again, you are not the “enlightened ones” who know the deep inner truth. you are just misinterpretting studies. show me one study not in rats or sedentary people, not at doses that noone would possibly eat in a day, that supports this “sugar is toxic” bollox[/quote]

There are plenty who agree with me too. And the side against sugar is growing fast. Call it whatever you want. Carbs kill hundreds of thousands of people a year in the US alone. Given that without carbs it becomes almost impossible to become obese and that carbs are not really necessary either for health or even high level performance, discussing serious risks associated with carbs seems relevant and poignant to the topic.

The truth is that it is very individual how many carbs one can continue to eat and what kinds of health problems can be caused. Even without becoming obese, they can cause low HDL, high tryglicerides, and form the small LDL particles in your blood. The exact 3 risk factors current research points to as the best predictors of heart disease. Something even VERY VERY active people should consider.

And (again) even more directly, almost a 3rd of the population is suffering from some issue that is basically amounts to sugar intolerance. Yes, it most certainly can cause problems for anyone. Yes it’s something that should be considered when discussing acceptable amounts of dietary sugar/carbs. Yes it can lead to or at least contribute to many serious health problems up to and including cancer, heart disease, and ultimately death. [/quote]

remember when i asked for actual scientific evidence? not just your hunches and things that you think sound good?

“Given that without carbs it becomes almost impossible to become obese”
seriously? yeah its GOT to be the carbs, not the fact that people are eating 4000 calories a day, and not exercising? GOT to be those carbs bro.

“carbs are not really necessary either for health or even high level performance” thats complete and utter fucking nonsense. again, all the top sports nutritionists know more than some random guy on the internet who has been brainwashed completely by the low carb retards.

also you realise protein spikes insulin levels almost as much as carbs do? and that transient spikes in insulin levels dont really matter right? the only reason keto works to cut is because fat is satiating.

" And the side against sugar is growing fast. Call it whatever you want." appeal to authority, or at least numbers. the low fat crowd in the 80s had 10x more people than your anti carbs people. they werent right either, but you people are dead wrong.

again, studies in active people, not obese rats being forcefed 10 times bodyweight in sugar each day. please.

52

- YouTube .

alan aragon knows more than you

53

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Insulin is the primary gate keeper for fat tissue, without high levels from carbs it’s tough store a lot.

And what you are saying is true to an extent, but it’s more complicated. Cellular metabolism changes, effects on hunger mechanisms, est. It is difficult to significantly overeat on fat and protein alone.

The downside for me has been that I almost can’t gain weight without carbs. [/quote]Stop giving dietary advice.
And stop posting.
Please stop posting.

54

[quote]tolismann wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Insulin is the primary gate keeper for fat tissue, without high levels from carbs it’s tough store a lot.

And what you are saying is true to an extent, but it’s more complicated. Cellular metabolism changes, effects on hunger mechanisms, est. It is difficult to significantly overeat on fat and protein alone.

The downside for me has been that I almost can’t gain weight without carbs. [/quote]Stop giving dietary advice.
And stop posting.
Please stop posting.[/quote]

this. oh god this

these people are the nutrition version of truthers .i mean fuck,them reading 10 or 20 combined hours of low carb quacks/gurus ramblings means they are 10 times as knowledgeable as people who, you know, studied nutrition and the bodie’s workings for 4+ years, right?

55

" I destroyed 4 servings in a couple of minutes which adds up to 65g of sugar. " OP are you dead yet? i heard sugar is toxic

56

With your immature and thick headed comments, whether true or not, you last two posters are just about to destroy a quite good thread

I hope someone like Mertdawg or Anonym chimes back in

57

IM the thickheaded one? thats pretty amusing coming from someone who thinks sugar is toxic. it wasent a good thread, it was lots of dumbasses spitting out pseudoscience and false information, along with a healthy dose of orthorexia and fear mongering. sounds great to me.

58

  1. That’s what we were discussing, i’ve never came to a conclusion ‘‘sugar is toxic’’.

  2. You asked for ‘‘actual scientific evidence’’ and not our ‘‘hunches and things we think sound good’’, yet you’ve never posted a single thing that was scientific (apart from a skype conversation) but your own thoughts and ideas, which half, cant be any further from truth.

  3. If you don’t think this is a good thread, then why dont you leave. Your attitude is offending.

59

[quote]outlaws wrote:

  1. That’s what we were discussing, i’ve never came to a conclusion ‘‘sugar is toxic’’.

  2. You asked for ‘‘actual scientific evidence’’ and not our ‘‘hunches and things we think sound good’’, yet you’ve never posted a single thing that was scientific (apart from a skype conversation) but your own thoughts and ideas, which half, cant be any further from truth.

  3. If you don’t think this is a good thread, then why dont you leave. Your attitude is offending. [/quote]

1)sorry if i lumped you in with the retards, how silly of me

2)you do realize who the burden of proof is on here, right? its on the people making the daft claims to prove themselves right, not for everyone to have to scientifically dissect all their silly claims. i could say “HA HA WE ALL ACTUALLY LIVE ON THE MOON, WHAT WE THINK IS THE MOON IS THE EARTH!”
and you’re telling me that i wouldn’t need any evidence to my claim, but it will be taken seriously? that skype conversation is with someone who has more nutritional knowledge than this entire thread put together, and hes speaking on this very topic!gasp thats why i linked it

  1. i am posting because i dislike the amount of bullshit information that is passed off as fact in this community. i once fell prey to it when i was young and just got involved, and it gave me a retarded case of orthorexia because i didnt know any better. you guys can be running around thinking the sky is green for all i care, its the younger people that get sucked into this nonsense that i actually give half a shit about. if you get this upset about an online argument i wonder what you do if one arises in real life? curl up in the fetal position and cry your eyes out?
60

[quote]outlaws wrote:
With your immature and thick headed comments, whether true or not, you last two posters are just about to destroy a quite good thread

I hope someone like Mertdawg or Anonym chimes back in[/quote]

Everything is toxic at a certain dose, but sugar is toxic at a rather low dose. Sucrose is half fructose, and fructose goes straight to the liver through the hepatic portal vein because fructose in the blood leads to oxidative damage. Fructose taxes the liver. Rat studies don’t equate to humans, but the rat studies suggest that a mammalian liver has an ability to process about 4% of maintenence calories from fructose. Above that level the fructose slowly damages the liver over time. The same is true of alcohol. Toxic doesn’t mean to me that it causes death. It means that it makes you less healthy. I already showed evidence that given normal stored glycogen levels, that getting below 20% and above 30% calories from carbs correlates to higher mortality rate and gradual progression of liver disease, heart disease, and cancer. The instigation of heart disease comes from inability to process more than about 30% cals from carbs, and more than about 4% from PUFA’s although the balance of PUFA’s is a factor. Saturated fat has NO mechanism to instigate arterial scarring which leads to plaques. Only PUFA’s and carbs cause significant oxidative damage among energy sources. If you hold to the free radical mechanism of ageing, (at least in part, that is free radicals cause premature cell death) then carbs, particularly sugar, more particularly fructose, and PUFA’s especially w-6’s above a baseline level that can be processed efficiently, lead to cell death, progressive diseases (cancer, diabetes, CHD) and ageing.