tjs@cbdkc1.UUCP ( Tom Stanions) (07/18/85)
Why do so many people think that sugar is harmless? Just because the sugar
industry says so is only part of a reason. Because people want to eat sugar?
If people stopped, after a while they would probably start to dislike it (I
hate the taste of it in any quantity). Probably because doctors don't tell
people that sugar is dangerous often enough (some even say that there is no
harm).
The harmful effects of sugar take years to develop and are affected by many,
many outside variables. Basically refined sugar passes so rapidly into the
blood stream that the bodies blood-sugar organs are put on a merry-go-round.
Fiber in the diet is important to slow down the digestive process so that the
body can change smoothly from an elimination to an assimilation of food. Blood
sugar is controlled by many organs in the body - islands-of-langerhans, liver,
adrenal and other glands. After many years some of these organs get burnt
out. Look at the number of diabetics in the world today? Anybody have a
better explanation for this rise other than the consumption of refined sugar,
caffeine and chocolate (the later having very similar effects)?
Sugar is also responsible for mood changes. Hasn't sugar been blamed for
hyperactivity in children?
Is there an alternative? Use small amounts of raw honey (not cooked, not
pasturized, not anything but raw). Honey is unrefined and therefore does not
pass into the blood stream with the speed of sugar, nor does it stop passing
into the blood stream with the abruptness of sugar. Also it should be eaten
with other foods high in fiber to slow down the digestive process. Natural
fructose, while it is still in whatever fruit or vegetable it belongs in, is
very harmless for this reason. Corn fructose (as an example) as an ingredient
is not harmless and they might as well say sugar, but even the food industry
will try and fool people into eating sugar by making them think they are
getting something 'natural'. Sugar is an empty food source, it has no positive
value, therefore it is eaten in abundance because it is not filling.
{allegra|ihnp4}!cbdkc1!tjsark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) (07/19/85)
> The harmful effects of sugar take years to develop and are affected by many, > many outside variables. Basically refined sugar passes so rapidly into the > blood stream that the bodies blood-sugar organs are put on a merry-go-round. I presume you didn't get this through divine revelation but rather read it or heard it somewhere. How about posting your sources so that others can check them out?
ken@turtlevax.UUCP (Ken Turkowski) (07/21/85)
In article <1053@cbdkc1.UUCP> tjs@cbdkc1.UUCP ( Tom Stanions) writes: >Why do so many people think that sugar is harmless? Just because the sugar >industry says so is only part of a reason. Because people want to eat sugar? > ... >Sugar is also responsible for mood changes. Hasn't sugar been blamed for >hyperactivity in children? Sugar has also been shown to cause temporary insanity. Wintess the "Twinkie Case", that of Dan White, a Coke and Twinkie addict, who shot the mayor and a supervisor of the City of San Francisco, while under the influence of junk food. The courts determined that he was rendered temporarily insane by the ingestion of the aforementioned "junk foods", and was therefore not responsible for his actions. He has been acquitted, and is rumored to be living in San Diego. -- Ken Turkowski @ CADLINC, Menlo Park, CA UUCP: {amd,decwrl,hplabs,nsc,seismo,spar}!turtlevax!ken ARPA: turtlevax!ken@DECWRL.ARPA
sdyer@bbncc5.UUCP (Steve Dyer) (07/22/85)
> Sugar has also been shown to cause temporary insanity. Wintess the > "Twinkie Case", that of Dan White, a Coke and Twinkie addict, who shot > the mayor and a supervisor of the City of San Francisco, while under > the influence of junk food. The courts determined that he was rendered > temporarily insane by the ingestion of the aforementioned "junk foods", > and was therefore not responsible for his actions. He has been > acquitted, and is rumored to be living in San Diego. Um, just because a jury is foolish enough to buy a cockamamie ploy by a lawyer, we needn't consider it scientific evidence. By the way, White was "paroled" not "acquitted." -- /Steve Dyer {decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!sdyer sdyer@bbnccv.ARPA
betsy@dartvax.UUCP (Betsy Hanes Perry) (07/22/85)
> > out. Look at the number of diabetics in the world today? Anybody have a > better explanation for this rise other than the consumption of refined sugar, > caffeine and chocolate (the later having very similar effects)? > Gee, I've go a simple statistical explanation: Before insulin, diabetics *died*. Juvenile diabetics didn't live to reproductive age. Adult-onset diabetics didn't live much beyond the onset. So the diabetic population was naturally self-limiting. Today, by contrast, diabetes isn't *immediately* fatal; my closest childhood friend was the daughter of two diabetics. (Her mother was juvenile-onset; her father developed adult-onset *after* the birth of his third daughter. Ouch!) I'm certainly not claiming that this is the *only* cause of the increased diabetic population, but it's an obvious partial cause. -- Elizabeth Hanes Perry UUCP: {decvax |ihnp4 | linus| cornell}!dartvax!betsy CSNET: betsy@dartmouth ARPA: betsy%dartmouth@csnet-relay "Ooh, ick!" -- Penfold
wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) (07/22/85)
In article <1053@cbdkc1.UUCP> tjs@cbdkc1.UUCP ( Tom Stanions) writes: > Look at the number of diabetics in the world today? Anybody have a >better explanation for this rise other than the consumption of refined sugar, >caffeine and chocolate (the later having very similar effects)? Simply because they are now being kept alive by modern medical techniques, when in previous generations they would have died off due to their illnesses or by succumbing to other diseases or conditions to which their resistance had been weakened. Same reason why *anything* is the current "leading cause of death" -- the stuff that is worse has been eliminated/prevented/staved off, and now this comes to the fore. When this is fixed, something else will move to the top of the list. This will only stop when people live forever... Will
brower@fortune.UUCP (Richard Brower) (07/23/85)
In article <835@turtlevax.UUCP> ken@turtlevax.UUCP (Ken Turkowski) writes: >Wintess the >"Twinkie Case", that of Dan White, a Coke and Twinkie addict, who shot >the mayor and a supervisor of the City of San Francisco, while under >He has been >acquitted, and is rumored to be living in San Diego. Please keep the facts straight. While Dan White was not convicted of 1st degree murder, he was convicted manslaughter of some sort. He was not acquitted. He has served his time now, has been released from prison, but remains in hiding for the sake of his continued health.
peter@baylor.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (07/25/85)
> > Sugar has also been shown to cause temporary insanity. Wintess the > "Twinkie Case", that of Dan White, a Coke and Twinkie addict, who shot > Hasn't Ken Arnold already blown this one out of the water? Also, remember the difference between a legal proof and a scientific proof. -- Peter da Silva (the mad Australian) UUCP: ...!shell!neuro1!{hyd-ptd,baylor,datafac}!peter MCI: PDASILVA; CIS: 70216,1076
peter@kitty.UUCP (Peter DaSilva) (07/26/85)
> Is there an alternative? Use small amounts of raw honey (not cooked, not > pasturized, not anything but raw). Honey is unrefined and therefore does not > pass into the blood stream with the speed of sugar, nor does it stop passing > into the blood stream with the abruptness of sugar. This sounds like balderdash to me. Honey *is* sugar. All unrefined honey has in it that refined doesn't is dead bees. It's like the "raw sugar" argument: all raw sugar is is dirty sugar.
tjs@cbdkc1.UUCP ( Tom Stanions) (07/26/85)
In article <4022@alice.UUCP> ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) writes: >> The harmful effects of sugar take years to develop and are affected by many, >> many outside variables. Basically refined sugar passes so rapidly into the >> blood stream that the bodies blood-sugar organs are put on a merry-go-round. > >I presume you didn't get this through divine revelation but rather >read it or heard it somewhere. How about posting your sources so >that others can check them out? Would you check out my sources? If you did would you give them any credibility (they aren't AMA approved [blessed])? The subject of sugar is almost a non-subject in the natural health field, you don't put any of it in a refined state into your body! I'll give you the name of two of my favorite books on the subject: "Body, Mind, & Sugar" by E.M. Abrahamson,M.D. and "Sugar Blues". However, if you enter any "good" health food store you should have no trouble finding many books on the subject. If you feel bad about going into a health food store then find a naturalpathic doctor and ask them for a reference. Want more information? Find your closest chapter of the Natural Foods Association (NFA) and ask where you can go to lectures or talks on health where sugar might become a topic. I am big into herbs, once a month we go to a meeting where a medical herbalist carries on a lecture/disscusion group and sometimes sugar is made a subject, with others relating real-life experiences. Lack of proof is a bad excuse for using sugar. It has the value to life of cigarettes and illegal drugs. It has no positive effects. So why use it? Reference another book "Fighting The Food Giants" by Paul Stitt. This subject is outside this news group unless the politics of the medical industry is to be considered. {allegra|ihnp4}!cbdkc1!tjs
tjs@cbdkc1.UUCP ( Tom Stanions) (07/26/85)
In article <226@bbncc5.UUCP> sdyer@bbncc5.UUCP (Steve Dyer) writes: >> Sugar has also been shown to cause temporary insanity. Wintess the >> "Twinkie Case", that of Dan White, a Coke and Twinkie addict, who shot > >Um, just because a jury is foolish enough to buy a cockamamie ploy ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >by a lawyer, we needn't consider it scientific evidence. By the way, ^^^^^^^^^^^ >White was "paroled" not "acquitted." >-- >/Steve Dyer >{decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!sdyer >sdyer@bbnccv.ARPA Alright Steve, my turn. I would like to know your source for knowing that his lawyer made this up. And where is the proof that the ploy way "cockamamie" and not real? And how do you know that the jury was foolish? There is another similar case given in the book "Body, Mind, & Sugar" where a man killed a child while experiencing extreme tention and hyper-insulinism. But he didn't get off, I think that maybe his jury was foolish. {allegra|ihnp4}!cbdkc1!tjs
fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) (07/27/85)
>> Is there an alternative? Use small amounts of raw honey (not cooked, not >> pasturized, not anything but raw). Honey is unrefined and therefore does not >> pass into the blood stream with the speed of sugar, nor does it stop passing >> into the blood stream with the abruptness of sugar. In article <kitty.158> peter@kitty.UUCP (Peter DaSilva) writes: >This sounds like balderdash to me. Honey *is* sugar. All unrefined honey >has in it that refined doesn't is dead bees. Honey does NOT contain sucrose, despite what you say. Or do you maintain that the body reacts identically to ALL different sugars? What is the basis for this belief? I do agree, however, that the refinement of sucrose is not the issue. Raw cane sugar is just as useless and potentially harmful as when purified. Frank Silbermann
sdyer@bbncc5.UUCP (Steve Dyer) (07/28/85)
> Honey does NOT contain sucrose, despite what you say. Or do you maintain > that the body reacts identically to ALL different sugars? Honey contains glucose and fructose. Sucrose is not metabolized as such in the body, but is quickly hydrolyzed to its constituent simple sugars, glucose and fructose, which are then metabolized. -- /Steve Dyer {decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!sdyer sdyer@bbnccv.ARPA
carter@gatech.CSNET (Carter Bullard) (07/28/85)
In article <40@unc.UUCP> fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) writes: >Honey does NOT contain sucrose, despite what you say. Or do you maintain >that the body reacts identically to ALL different sugars? What is the >basis for this belief? I do agree, however, that the refinement of sucrose >is not the issue. Raw cane sugar is just as useless and potentially harmful >as when purified. > > Frank Silbermann Honey may not contain sucrose, but it also does not contain any fructose. Honey contains about 85% glucose, at least, thats what I remember from biology, whereas sucrose is only 50%. We all know that it is the glucose thats the problem, not sucrose or fructose. So remember boys and girls, a gram of honey is more detrimental than a gram of sucrose.
bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes) (07/29/85)
In article <1064@cbdkc1.UUCP> tjs@dkc1.UUCP ( Tom Stanions) writes: >Lack of proof is a bad excuse for using sugar. I see we're getting down to solid argumentation here. The equivalent sentiment, in about 1964 was "In your heart you know he's right...." Referring, of course, to Barry Goldwater. -- Byron C. Howes ...!{decvax,akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!bch
peter@baylor.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (08/05/85)
> >> Is there an alternative? Use small amounts of raw honey (not cooked, not > >> pasturized, not anything but raw). Honey is unrefined and therefore does not > >> pass into the blood stream with the speed of sugar, nor does it stop passing > >> into the blood stream with the abruptness of sugar. > > In article <kitty.158> peter@kitty.UUCP (Peter DaSilva) writes: > >This sounds like balderdash to me. Honey *is* sugar. All unrefined honey > >has in it that refined doesn't is dead bees. > > Honey does NOT contain sucrose, despite what you say. Or do you maintain > that the body reacts identically to ALL different sugars? What is the > basis for this belief? I do agree, however, that the refinement of sucrose > is not the issue. Raw cane sugar is just as useless and potentially harmful > as when purified. I didn't know honey didn't contain sucrose (what sugars does it contain?). I was objecting to the phrase "not cooked, not pasteurised, not anything but raw". As you say, refinement of x-ose is not the issue. All refined x-ose has in it that unrefined doesn't is dirt, burned leaves (in the case of cane sugar), insect feces, and insect cadavers. -- Peter da Silva (the mad Australian) UUCP: ...!shell!neuro1!{hyd-ptd,baylor,datafac}!peter MCI: PDASILVA; CIS: 70216,1076
wilde@apollo.uucp (Scott Wilde) (08/09/85)
> Honey may not contain sucrose, but it also does not contain any > fructose. Honey contains about 85% glucose, at least, > thats what I remember from biology, whereas sucrose is only 50%. > We all know that it is the glucose thats the problem, not sucrose > or fructose. > > So remember boys and girls, a gram of honey is more detrimental than > a gram of sucrose. Actually, honey is close to pure invert sugar (50 % glucose, 50% fructose). but has a greater percentage of fructose. Tupelo honey has about twice as much fructose as glucose. Honey is produced by the action of the enzyme honey invertase on the sucrose that the bees gather from flowers. I not sure what happens to produce the greater amount of fructose.
fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) (08/11/85)
> Honey may not contain sucrose, but it also does not contain any > fructose. Honey contains about 85% glucose, at least, > thats what I remember from biology, whereas sucrose is only 50%. Impossible. Sucrose contains NO glucose and NO fructose. Sucrose contains only sucrose. Or did you mean to say that _table sugar_ is half glucose? This I've never heard before. > We all know that it is the glucose thats the problem, > not sucrose or fructose. I didn't know this. Does anybody know whether this is true, or have any explanation? Frank Silbermann
ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) (08/12/85)
> Actually, honey is close to pure invert sugar (50 % glucose, 50% fructose). > but has a greater percentage of fructose. I thought invert sugar was levulose.
wilde@apollo.uucp (Scott Wilde) (08/23/85)
>> Actually, honey is close to pure invert sugar (50 % glucose, 50% fructose). >> but has a greater percentage of fructose. > >I thought invert sugar was levulose. levulose = fructose, so invert sugar is 50% levulose
smh@rduxb.UUCP (henning) (08/26/85)
**** **** From the keys of Steve Henning, AT&T Bell Labs, Reading, PA rduxb!smh > >> Actually, honey is close to pure invert sugar (50 % glucose, 50% fructose). > >> but has a greater percentage of fructose. > > > >I thought invert sugar was levulose. > > levulose = fructose, so invert sugar is 50% levulose invert sugar = dextrose + levulose honey = glucose + levulose glucose # dextrose, at least yesterday it didn't.
wilde@apollo.uucp (Scott Wilde) (09/05/85)
I could have sworn this horse was dead (flog, flog, flog...) >invert sugar = dextrose + levulose > >honey = glucose + levulose > >glucose # dextrose, at least yesterday it didn't. dextrose = D-glucose , even yesterday .... (D-glucose is the stereo-isomer of glucose that occurs in nature )