Sugar makes you fat.
Fat causes all kinds of hormone disruptions etc.
Carbohydrates are converted into sugar so the problem isn’t only added sugar per se. I personally believe salad makes you fat so there’s that. The structure of salad (Leaves) and it’s sugar content is how horses get fat for winter.
High protein omnivorous is fine coupled with energy output. The worst is these sedentary lifestyles.
I agree. Sedentary lifestyles are only a facet. A neighbor of a friend can be seen through her window sitting in her oversized lazyboy all night stuffing her face in front of her tv. I expect that’s what every obese person is doing across the country.
In Russia, antisugar propaganda massively appeared only in mid-2000 and mostly based on different WHO guidelines and other crap. The only real harm of sugar known to Russians before that campaign was potential harm to the teeth via the acids produced from sugar by bacteria on the teeth but this could be easily avoided. And there is one proverb - "be careful with too much dessert - your ass could stick together". And that's all.
Sugar is a natural part of most fruits and vegetables. Russian
cuisine uses sugar widely, we even have whole bunch of highly popular products mostly made from sugar, something like jam, but it is usually whole berries or sliced fruits mixed into sugar and then, after some juice soak into sugar that mix is boiled. That named "varenie". It was used for centuries to preserve the crop of fruils and berries. You will not find a Russian who don't like it. Thousand years ago, before the sugar manufacturing was established, honey, evaporated birch and beet juice with high sugar content used as substitute.
The only difference between sugars in US and Russia appears to be that US sugar is mostly cane sourced, Russia one is from beet. Chemically they differ in isotope of carbon, cane sugar have higher С13/C12 isotope ratio than beet sugar.
Basically, sugar is main source of glucose in blood which is literally fuel for the brain. Healthy man could consume sugar without limitations and any side effects. Sugar substitutes does not provide necessary amount of glucose, even fructose have much lower conversion efficiency. Sugar is just combined fructose and glucose, and it can't pass to the blood in whole. So there can't be any cocaine-like addiction. Only lack of glucose necessary to the brain when you deprive the body the source of it. It is a literal fraud to pass the brain starvation as "addiction". That way they will name hunger and need for oxygen as "harmful addiction" soon.
I find it highly suspicious, when whole groups of usual products declared "harmful" now by the same group of people connected with big pharma and swindlers like WHO. There are already "harmful" meat, potato, sugar, salt, wheat derivatives, dairy including cheese, and all that they recommend to exclude from your diet. What else they declare "harmful", and what they suggest as replacement? Synthetic garbage? Insects? Green soylent?
I think a lot of the dietary system gets thrown on its head by the sedentary lifestyle promoted by the modern workplace. Bodies just aren't used anymore... We're just brains connecting to machines to accomplish a task. The carb requirements to sustain this lifestyle are minimal at best, and yet it is the cornerstone of the average diet.
Brain still needs glucose to function. Glucose and oxygen is the only fuel for the brain.
When you don't use your body a lot, you just want to eat less. This does not mean you have to exclude something from your regular diet, you just eat less, and that's all.
Excluding important parts from diet could lead to many adverse effects, including inability to return to normal one when your body will need more energy. Excluding sugar you force your body to get glucose using other, much more complex ways and with less efficiency. And you could still feel some kind of hunger, since salad with smoothy won't give you enough glucose to satisfy your brain. It is much easier and simplier just to eat a smaller piece of cake with your coffee/tea, than to consume the tons of vegetables retargetting your body to another way of mining exactly same substances from unusual food.
Every etnicity have its own cuisine legacy perfectly fitted to that etnicity genetics and eventually metabolism. For european, abandoning sugar (or dairy, or meat, etc) and attempting to compensate it with other food is something like moving from rice and soy products to dairy for chinese.
Of course there exists body malfunctions when body treat sugar or glucose weird way, but that is definitely not the sugars fault.
Sugar perfectly masks things that taste bad. They need to hide the taste of conservants, emulgators, all that stuff that makes their shitty food cheaper, make it last longer and look good. All for the profit.
The industry uses many different forms (sugar, corn syrup, high fructose corn syrup, dextrose, etc.).
sugar (sucrose), fructose and dextrose(glucose) is different things and processed by completely different ways in your body.
and Type 2 diabetes develops.
If you are healthy, you can't get diabetes eating sugar. Diabetes is malfunction of insulin generation in human body. Insulin participates in sugar processing, but that does not mean that you could break it with sugar.
only 1% of the brain absolutely requires sugar.
Ketosis is emergency failover process. It is not natural for us. You can force your car to run on 1% of gas or diesel mixed with, say, 99% alcohol or oil respectively, but that does not mean it is a good substitution.
May be there could be population groups who are adapted to that kind of metabolism, say some northern etnicities like saam or eskimos, but we are very differnt from them. And I think that dropping their "keto" diet and switching to sugar one could be dangerous for them. Just like switching from sugar to ketosis for us.
The liver can produce enough sugar the body absolutely needs from fat and produces ketones from fat for the rest.
Human body can produce necessary substances from nearly anything. But that does not mean it should be forced to do so.
standard diet is too carbohydrate heavy.
That diet is for reason. We adopted to it by thousands years and hundreds of generations. In the past, when times was not so pleasant, only ones who, along the other tings, eat right food, survived and produced descendants. We are adopted to our cuisine and our cuisine adopted to us. And it will be a huge mistake to drop it.
I just learned about a study showing one 75g intake of sugar measurably reduces testosterone
Beer reduces testosterone too. And many other things too. Effect is temporary and we are definitely not going to change a sex. It could be some kind of survival mechanism for europeans. High testosterone means more aggression, so, the nature find out a ways to lower it's level in european men to allow civilisation development. Including cuisine.
High testosterone tribes in Africa still eating each other and live in straw houses.
Too high testosterone level for men is as bad as low one.
Sugar is not the thing you should avoid. It is not harmful for us. But the things they try to hide with sugar taste are.
Many health problems and diets as a solution to them appeared when corporations took a significant part of food market.
I could tell you "awful" thing - fast food is not bad because of ingredients. Say, burger - basically it is bread, vegetables, may be some cheese and piece of meat. Perfect combination for european. Perfectly aligned with usual cuisine. It can't be bad. Hundreds of generations of our ancestors eat the same thing and we are here. It is all that shitty additions, unusual for europeans, like soy beans and antibiotics in chop, stabilisers and emulgators in sauce and bread, pesticides in vegetables and god knows what they add to cheese are bad. Make your own burger from good ingredients, and it will be as good, as your usual food.
How can it be addictive (as drugs) if it can't pass to the blood and reach the brain? It will be broken to fructose and glucose by sucrase at cell membrane.
sucrose (sugar) is 50% glucose and 50% fructose
No, it is single molecule. To break it into glucose and fructose you need sucrase, invertase or hydrolysis.
high fructose corn syrup is 45% glucose and 55% fructose
I'm not very familiar with corn syrup, we don't use it often in Russia, but as I understnad it is specifically fermented to get higher percentage of fructose. But it is definitely not sucrose.
For the purposes of this discussion, I'm treating them the same as they make my point.
But they are not the same. Sucrose breaked down to fructose and glucose with sucrase on cell membranes. That glucose immidiately absorbed into blood. Fructose first phosphated in liver and then after long complex process transformed in glucose. Free glucose could be absorbed everywhere, but not so fast as from sucrose breakdown.
So, there are three different processes for three different substances.
I'd say ketosis is "natural" in that it was built into our bodies to survive during times of starvation.
Yes, just like other failover mechanisms. But using it as main energy process is not in our habit. Moreover, when there is lack of glucose, our body more likely began to synthesise it from other substances (in liver, f.e.), than to completely switch to ketosis.
Senior citizens in the US will tell you there weren't as many obese people when they were young as there are today.
There was not many obese people in USSR. And that is not because of famine, may be we had a little choice here, without thousands of sausage or cheese variants, but we always had enough food. It was not very tasty or very diverse, but basic Russian cuisine was completely accessible. Nobody starved. There was period of USSR destruction, when some types of food disappeared, or people just had no money to buy food, but fortunately it was not long.
We got spike in obese people when food from corporations come here, and that corps began to buy out Russian food enterprises and introduce new technologies.
Now Russia consume noticeably less sugar than in USSR times, but the number of obese people is definitely grown in last 30 years.
I'm shure that the true reason for obesity is an unnatural additions corporations use in food production.
I would say just based on my own experience that sugar has an addictive quality. When I was losing weight one of the first things I did was cut out as much sugar as humanly possible. It's actually pretty damn hard with how much sugar is in everything. I noticed when I did this that I'd get sugar cravings. I used to buy a pack of skittles and then when I got a craving for something sweet, I'd eat a few skittles then put the pack away. This seemed to work to wean me off sugar. It sounds like something an addict would do to wean off an addiction.
Once I was in the routine of not eating sugar, I stopped craving sugar and things like cupcakes or chocolate and desserts just didn't really interest me. I kind of forgot how much I used to like sugar and just figured I didn't have much of a sweet tooth. Once I lost all my weight and got into a good workout routine, I decided I didn't need to pay so much attention to cutting out sugar so I started eating more sugar and the cravings came back. I used to only drink water but as I incorporated my sugar into my diet, I started craving pop and juice again but it was the sweetness of the drinks I was craving.
I 100% fully believe sugar is addictive. I think this is why it's added to food. Many people will say things with sugar taste better but that's because these people are hooked on sugar. When I was off sugar in my diet, I actually found a lot of things too sweet. I remember drinking a can of pop and thinking it was gross because of how sweet it was.
As for suggestibility? I don't think sugar made me more suggestable. Alcohol is hypothesized to with some research suggesting it increases estrogen and displaces testosterone in people. Generally speaking we think of women as more suggestable than men, could it be that alcohol increases suggestibility because of how it impacts these hormones which impacts suggestibility. As for sugar, it does seem to me that women are more prone to the addictive nature of sugar than men are. It might appear sugar increases suggestibility only because the group of people who overconsume sugar might me more weighted towards women which then makes it appear to have an overweight for suggestibility.
Sugar makes you fat. Fat causes all kinds of hormone disruptions etc. Carbohydrates are converted into sugar so the problem isn’t only added sugar per se. I personally believe salad makes you fat so there’s that. The structure of salad (Leaves) and it’s sugar content is how horses get fat for winter.
High protein omnivorous is fine coupled with energy output. The worst is these sedentary lifestyles.
I agree. Sedentary lifestyles are only a facet. A neighbor of a friend can be seen through her window sitting in her oversized lazyboy all night stuffing her face in front of her tv. I expect that’s what every obese person is doing across the country.
What's wrong with sugar in US?
In Russia, antisugar propaganda massively appeared only in mid-2000 and mostly based on different WHO guidelines and other crap. The only real harm of sugar known to Russians before that campaign was potential harm to the teeth via the acids produced from sugar by bacteria on the teeth but this could be easily avoided. And there is one proverb - "be careful with too much dessert - your ass could stick together". And that's all.
Sugar is a natural part of most fruits and vegetables. Russian cuisine uses sugar widely, we even have whole bunch of highly popular products mostly made from sugar, something like jam, but it is usually whole berries or sliced fruits mixed into sugar and then, after some juice soak into sugar that mix is boiled. That named "varenie". It was used for centuries to preserve the crop of fruils and berries. You will not find a Russian who don't like it. Thousand years ago, before the sugar manufacturing was established, honey, evaporated birch and beet juice with high sugar content used as substitute.
The only difference between sugars in US and Russia appears to be that US sugar is mostly cane sourced, Russia one is from beet. Chemically they differ in isotope of carbon, cane sugar have higher С13/C12 isotope ratio than beet sugar.
Basically, sugar is main source of glucose in blood which is literally fuel for the brain. Healthy man could consume sugar without limitations and any side effects. Sugar substitutes does not provide necessary amount of glucose, even fructose have much lower conversion efficiency. Sugar is just combined fructose and glucose, and it can't pass to the blood in whole. So there can't be any cocaine-like addiction. Only lack of glucose necessary to the brain when you deprive the body the source of it. It is a literal fraud to pass the brain starvation as "addiction". That way they will name hunger and need for oxygen as "harmful addiction" soon.
I find it highly suspicious, when whole groups of usual products declared "harmful" now by the same group of people connected with big pharma and swindlers like WHO. There are already "harmful" meat, potato, sugar, salt, wheat derivatives, dairy including cheese, and all that they recommend to exclude from your diet. What else they declare "harmful", and what they suggest as replacement? Synthetic garbage? Insects? Green soylent?
I think a lot of the dietary system gets thrown on its head by the sedentary lifestyle promoted by the modern workplace. Bodies just aren't used anymore... We're just brains connecting to machines to accomplish a task. The carb requirements to sustain this lifestyle are minimal at best, and yet it is the cornerstone of the average diet.
Brain still needs glucose to function. Glucose and oxygen is the only fuel for the brain.
When you don't use your body a lot, you just want to eat less. This does not mean you have to exclude something from your regular diet, you just eat less, and that's all.
Excluding important parts from diet could lead to many adverse effects, including inability to return to normal one when your body will need more energy. Excluding sugar you force your body to get glucose using other, much more complex ways and with less efficiency. And you could still feel some kind of hunger, since salad with smoothy won't give you enough glucose to satisfy your brain. It is much easier and simplier just to eat a smaller piece of cake with your coffee/tea, than to consume the tons of vegetables retargetting your body to another way of mining exactly same substances from unusual food.
Every etnicity have its own cuisine legacy perfectly fitted to that etnicity genetics and eventually metabolism. For european, abandoning sugar (or dairy, or meat, etc) and attempting to compensate it with other food is something like moving from rice and soy products to dairy for chinese.
Of course there exists body malfunctions when body treat sugar or glucose weird way, but that is definitely not the sugars fault.
Sugar perfectly masks things that taste bad. They need to hide the taste of conservants, emulgators, all that stuff that makes their shitty food cheaper, make it last longer and look good. All for the profit.
sugar (sucrose), fructose and dextrose(glucose) is different things and processed by completely different ways in your body.
If you are healthy, you can't get diabetes eating sugar. Diabetes is malfunction of insulin generation in human body. Insulin participates in sugar processing, but that does not mean that you could break it with sugar.
Ketosis is emergency failover process. It is not natural for us. You can force your car to run on 1% of gas or diesel mixed with, say, 99% alcohol or oil respectively, but that does not mean it is a good substitution.
May be there could be population groups who are adapted to that kind of metabolism, say some northern etnicities like saam or eskimos, but we are very differnt from them. And I think that dropping their "keto" diet and switching to sugar one could be dangerous for them. Just like switching from sugar to ketosis for us.
Human body can produce necessary substances from nearly anything. But that does not mean it should be forced to do so.
That diet is for reason. We adopted to it by thousands years and hundreds of generations. In the past, when times was not so pleasant, only ones who, along the other tings, eat right food, survived and produced descendants. We are adopted to our cuisine and our cuisine adopted to us. And it will be a huge mistake to drop it.
Beer reduces testosterone too. And many other things too. Effect is temporary and we are definitely not going to change a sex. It could be some kind of survival mechanism for europeans. High testosterone means more aggression, so, the nature find out a ways to lower it's level in european men to allow civilisation development. Including cuisine.
High testosterone tribes in Africa still eating each other and live in straw houses.
Too high testosterone level for men is as bad as low one.
Sugar is not the thing you should avoid. It is not harmful for us. But the things they try to hide with sugar taste are.
Many health problems and diets as a solution to them appeared when corporations took a significant part of food market.
I could tell you "awful" thing - fast food is not bad because of ingredients. Say, burger - basically it is bread, vegetables, may be some cheese and piece of meat. Perfect combination for european. Perfectly aligned with usual cuisine. It can't be bad. Hundreds of generations of our ancestors eat the same thing and we are here. It is all that shitty additions, unusual for europeans, like soy beans and antibiotics in chop, stabilisers and emulgators in sauce and bread, pesticides in vegetables and god knows what they add to cheese are bad. Make your own burger from good ingredients, and it will be as good, as your usual food.
How can it be addictive (as drugs) if it can't pass to the blood and reach the brain? It will be broken to fructose and glucose by sucrase at cell membrane.
No, it is single molecule. To break it into glucose and fructose you need sucrase, invertase or hydrolysis.
I'm not very familiar with corn syrup, we don't use it often in Russia, but as I understnad it is specifically fermented to get higher percentage of fructose. But it is definitely not sucrose.
But they are not the same. Sucrose breaked down to fructose and glucose with sucrase on cell membranes. That glucose immidiately absorbed into blood. Fructose first phosphated in liver and then after long complex process transformed in glucose. Free glucose could be absorbed everywhere, but not so fast as from sucrose breakdown.
So, there are three different processes for three different substances.
Yes, just like other failover mechanisms. But using it as main energy process is not in our habit. Moreover, when there is lack of glucose, our body more likely began to synthesise it from other substances (in liver, f.e.), than to completely switch to ketosis.
There was not many obese people in USSR. And that is not because of famine, may be we had a little choice here, without thousands of sausage or cheese variants, but we always had enough food. It was not very tasty or very diverse, but basic Russian cuisine was completely accessible. Nobody starved. There was period of USSR destruction, when some types of food disappeared, or people just had no money to buy food, but fortunately it was not long.
We got spike in obese people when food from corporations come here, and that corps began to buy out Russian food enterprises and introduce new technologies.
Now Russia consume noticeably less sugar than in USSR times, but the number of obese people is definitely grown in last 30 years.
I'm shure that the true reason for obesity is an unnatural additions corporations use in food production.
I would say just based on my own experience that sugar has an addictive quality. When I was losing weight one of the first things I did was cut out as much sugar as humanly possible. It's actually pretty damn hard with how much sugar is in everything. I noticed when I did this that I'd get sugar cravings. I used to buy a pack of skittles and then when I got a craving for something sweet, I'd eat a few skittles then put the pack away. This seemed to work to wean me off sugar. It sounds like something an addict would do to wean off an addiction.
Once I was in the routine of not eating sugar, I stopped craving sugar and things like cupcakes or chocolate and desserts just didn't really interest me. I kind of forgot how much I used to like sugar and just figured I didn't have much of a sweet tooth. Once I lost all my weight and got into a good workout routine, I decided I didn't need to pay so much attention to cutting out sugar so I started eating more sugar and the cravings came back. I used to only drink water but as I incorporated my sugar into my diet, I started craving pop and juice again but it was the sweetness of the drinks I was craving.
I 100% fully believe sugar is addictive. I think this is why it's added to food. Many people will say things with sugar taste better but that's because these people are hooked on sugar. When I was off sugar in my diet, I actually found a lot of things too sweet. I remember drinking a can of pop and thinking it was gross because of how sweet it was.
As for suggestibility? I don't think sugar made me more suggestable. Alcohol is hypothesized to with some research suggesting it increases estrogen and displaces testosterone in people. Generally speaking we think of women as more suggestable than men, could it be that alcohol increases suggestibility because of how it impacts these hormones which impacts suggestibility. As for sugar, it does seem to me that women are more prone to the addictive nature of sugar than men are. It might appear sugar increases suggestibility only because the group of people who overconsume sugar might me more weighted towards women which then makes it appear to have an overweight for suggestibility.
Just some thoughts.