Avoid Sugar

[Blaster]

Too much sugar is a killer

Kill the Sugar Before It Kills You: 'Sugar Is the Source of All Chronic Disease'

Sugar causes heart disease, feeds cancer, is linked to diabetes, and the list goes on.That's why making giving up sugar your New Year's Resolution, to include artificial sweeteners, could be the best thing you do for your health in 2018.

www1.cbn.com

 

[Blaster]

I consume lots of protein and keep sugar intake at a minimum.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

Too much sugar is a killer

Kill the Sugar Before It Kills You: 'Sugar Is the Source of All Chronic Disease'

Sugar causes heart disease, feeds cancer, is linked to diabetes, and the list goes on.That's why making giving up sugar your New Year's Resolution, to include artificial sweeteners, could be the best thing you do for your health in 2018.

www1.cbn.com

.

Absolutely!

The only sugar I consume is, I'm guessing, a teaspoon of sugar in the small loaf of gluten free cornbread that I make from a mix.

I also eat no grains, as in wheat, rice, quinoa, oats, etc.

I even stopped eating honey. It's been off and on, but pretty strictly for several months.

Inflammation and pain go way down when sugar leaves your life.

.

 

[Blaster]

Many Americans are obese because they don't exercise and consume too much sugar.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

Many Americans are obese because they don't exercise and consume too much sugar.

.

It was never about fat. I eat a massive amount of good quality animal fat. Had my cholesterol checked earlier this month and it was within normal limits.

.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Too much sugar is a killer

Kill the Sugar Before It Kills You: 'Sugar Is the Source of All Chronic Disease'

Sugar causes heart disease, feeds cancer, is linked to diabetes, and the list goes on.That's why making giving up sugar your New Year's Resolution, to include artificial sweeteners, could be the best thing you do for your health in 2018.

www1.cbn.com

Keep in mind, as you read what I write, that I am a type 2 diabetic. My body has a love/hate relationship with sugar. It does not process sugar as well as if I didn't have diabetes.

Now, that said, far from being a deadly poison, sugar is a vital nutrient. It is literally the fuel on which our bodies run, and without it, we would die. It makes no more sense, to depict sugar as if it were an addictive drug, as this article does, than to similarly describe oxygen, or water.

Even as a diabetic, I need sugar to live. Something that I do, on a daily basis, is to measure the amount of sugar in my blood. In someone who is not diabetic, the body does a very good job of regulating it, keeping it within a healthy range. The defining characteristic of diabetes is that the amount of sugar in my blood can easily get too high, and over time, this can lead to serious, even deadly consequences. The flip side of diabetes, is that it can also go too low, which poses dangerous, shorter-term risks. I have to pay attention, in ways that a non-diabetic would not, in order to keep my blood sugar levels within a healthy range.

Now, yes, even for a non-diabetic, too much sugar is not good for one's health. And most of us probably do consume more sugar than is entirely good for us. But the account in the article is, at best, an extravagant exaggeration of the impact of sugar consumption on a non-diabetic. Even if you were to assume that the article was only meant to address those who have diabetes to a degree comparable to me, it's still an exaggeration.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

Keep in mind, as you read what I write, that I am a type 2 diabetic. My body has a love/hate relationship with sugar. It does not process sugar as well as if I didn't have diabetes.

Now, that said, far from being a deadly poison, sugar is a vital nutrient. It is literally the fuel on which our bodies run, and without it, we would die. It makes no more sense, to depict sugar as if it were an addictive drug, as this article does, than to similarly describe oxygen, or water.

Even as a diabetic, I need sugar to live. Something that I do, on a daily basis, is to measure the amount of sugar in my blood. In someone who is not diabetic, the body does a very good job of regulating it, keeping it within a healthy range. The defining characteristic of diabetes is that the amount of sugar in my blood can easily get too high, and over time, this can lead to serious, even deadly consequences. The flip side of diabetes, is that it can also go too low, which poses dangerous, shorter-term risks. I have to pay attention, in ways that a non-diabetic would not, in order to keep my blood sugar levels within a healthy range.

Now, yes, even for a non-diabetic, too much sugar is not good for one's health. And most of us probably do consume more sugar than is entirely good for us. But the account in the article is, at best, an extravagant exaggeration of the impact of sugar consumption on a non-diabetic. Even if you were to assume that the article was only meant to address those who have diabetes to a degree comparable to me, it's still an exaggeration.

.

You are correct. Your brain works far better when it gets an adequate amount of sugar. Those of us who don't eat refined sugar still get easily convertible carbs from fruit, potatoes and, in my case, corn and vegetables and cassava, which is about the same as tapioca root.

Good luck dealing with the diabetes.

.

 

[Blaster]

Keep in mind, as you read what I write, that I am a type 2 diabetic. My body has a love/hate relationship with sugar. It does not process sugar as well as if I didn't have diabetes.

Now, that said, far from being a deadly poison, sugar is a vital nutrient. It is literally the fuel on which our bodies run, and without it, we would die. It makes no more sense, to depict sugar as if it were an addictive drug, as this article does, than to similarly describe oxygen, or water.

Even as a diabetic, I need sugar to live. Something that I do, on a daily basis, is to measure the amount of sugar in my blood. In someone who is not diabetic, the body does a very good job of regulating it, keeping it within a healthy range. The defining characteristic of diabetes is that the amount of sugar in my blood can easily get too high, and over time, this can lead to serious, even deadly consequences. The flip side of diabetes, is that it can also go too low, which poses dangerous, shorter-term risks. I have to pay attention, in ways that a non-diabetic would not, in order to keep my blood sugar levels within a healthy range.

Now, yes, even for a non-diabetic, too much sugar is not good for one's health. And most of us probably do consume more sugar than is entirely good for us. But the account in the article is, at best, an extravagant exaggeration of the impact of sugar consumption on a non-diabetic. Even if you were to assume that the article was only meant to address those who have diabetes to a degree comparable to me, it's still an exaggeration.

I said I consume very little sugar. I didn't say I never consume it.

 

[Woodznutz]

I eat too much sugar, gotta cut down.

 

[Blaster]

Artificial sweeteners may even be worse for you than sugar. They contain many chemicals that have bad long term consequences.

 

[luiza]

Sugar affects the brain :-
Emotional and mental balance
Stress
Memory ,
Mood
Focus

All add up to make America a nation of Oinkers with most only having slave helper potential for the Chinese and Russians

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I even stopped eating honey. It's been off and on, but pretty strictly for several months.

Something I find very amusing is that a substance that, some years ago, was widely being demonized is high-fructose corn syrup (HCFS). Supposedly, this was the worst form of sugar with which we could poison ourselves. The same groups that hated HFCS regarded honey as perhaps one of the best, safest, healthiest of all sweeteners.

Guess what? Nutritionally speaking honey and HFCS are almost identical. They contain very close to the same proportions of the same sugars. There is absolutely no rational or scientific basis on which to claim that either of them is any bit better or worse than the other. This is an example of the appeal to nature fallacy. Honey is “natural”, and therefore good, while HFCS is “artificial”, and therefore bad, even though, as I said, in hard scientific terms, they are almost identical in nutritional value and effect.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

Something I find very amusing is that a substance that, some years ago, was widely being demonized is high-fructose corn syrup (HCFS). Supposedly, this was the worst form of sugar with which we could poison ourselves. The same groups that hated HFCS regarded honey as perhaps one of the best, safest, healthiest of all sweeteners.

Guess what? Nutritionally speaking honey and HFCS are almost identical. They contain very close to the same proportions of the same sugars. There is absolutely no rational or scientific basis on which to claim that either of them is any bit better or worse than the other. This is an example of the appeal to nature fallacy. Honey is “natural”, and therefore good, while HFCS is “artificial”, and therefore bad, even though, as I said, in hard scientific terms, they are almost identical in nutritional value and effect.

.

I prefer God's food.

Honey is not made in a laboratory.

.

 

[Blaster]

I am 6'2" tall and weigh about 210 which is almost the same weight I was during high school. Many people my age are walking around with a beer gut.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Many Americans are obese because they don't exercise and consume too much sugar.

In oversimplified terms, it is a matter of how many calories you take in, compared to how many you burn.

If you are very active, then you'll burn more calories than if you are sedentary.

Too much sugar, too much fat, too much of anything with calories, in excess of how many calories you actually use, is what causes obesity.

Or, to put it another way, not enough exercise, not burning off enough calories compared to what you take in, is what causes obesity.


That said, there are various metabolic issues that can complicate the matter. Nothing that changes the basic math about the necessary balance between how many calories you consume, and how many you burn off, with respect to maintaining weight.

I'm pretty sure that I have some condition, never really investigated or diagnosed, that for the early part of my life, caused me to tend to be underweight, to be thin, frail, and rather high-strung. I've always had an unusually large appetite, but in my younger days, my metabolism easily burned as many calories as I took in, and wanted more.

Type 2 diabetes generally has the opposite effect. In general, type 2 diabetics tend to be fat and sluggish; with the body more inclined to store calories as fat and less inclined to burn them to produce activity. In my case, the two conditions seem to very closely balance each other out. Only after I became diabetic, have I been able to achieve and maintain a normal, healthy level of robustness.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

This is an example of the appeal to nature fallacy. Honey is “natural”, and therefore good, while HFCS is “artificial”, and therefore bad, even though, as I said, in hard scientific terms, they are almost identical in nutritional value and effect.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

I prefer God's food.
Honey is not made in a laboratory.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Artificial sweeteners may even be worse for you than sugar. They contain many chemicals that have bad long term consequences.

There is probably no artificial food ingredient that has been more widely demonized, and more intensely investigated, and more reliably established as safe, than aspartame.

For anyone who is not diabetic, who is not overweight, and who doesn't have any other health conditions that excess sugar might aggravate it probably is better to consume sugar than to consume aspartame or any other artificial sweetener.

But as a diabetic, too much sugar absolutely can be very harmful to me. For me, artificially-sweetened foods are safer and healthier, in general, than those sweetened with sugar.

 

[Blaster]

There is probably no artificial food ingredient that has been more widely demonized, and more intensely investigated, and more reliably established as safe, than aspartame.

For anyone who is not diabetic, who is not overweight, and who doesn't have any other health conditions that excess sugar might aggravate it probably is better to consume sugar than to consume aspartame or any other artificial sweetener.

But as a diabetic, too much sugar absolutely can be very harmful to me. For me, artificially-sweetened foods are safer and healthier, in general, than those sweetened with sugar.

I appreciate your well reasoned responses. Too many people believe that artificial sweeteners are better for health than sugar.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Sugar affects the brain :-
Emotional and mental balance
Stress
Memory ,
Mood
Focus

All add up to make America a nation of Oinkers with most only having slave helper potential for the Chinese and Russians

It's funny that you would make that absurd claim.

Guess what happens to my brain, when my blood sugar level runs too low. No such effects when my sugar is running high, but very significant effects when it's too low.

I understand that it is not uncommon for a diabetic suffering from hypoglycemia (low blood sugar) to be mistaken for being drunk or drugged.

As with the rest of the body, sugar is the fuel on which the brain runs. And it's the brain that first is affected when there's not enough fuel.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Too many people believe that artificial sweeteners are better for health than sugar.

It depends on the individual.

For me, yes, artificial sweeteners are better for my health than sugar.