So after all, all those people that preaching against sugar and not eating any
are only gonna make their bodies spend more energy by transforming
everything they eat (carbs, fats, proteins) into sugar because their bodies will need sugar all the same.
While those who are eating sugar (when needed!) are gonna save the energy
of transforming food into sugar.
Am i right?
http://www.healingdaily.com/detoxificat ... /sugar.htm
Sugar vs No sugar
-
Ducky
- Posts: 163
- https://cutt.ly/meble-kuchenne-wroclaw
- Joined: Tue 22 Jul 2008 15:56
-
claireelis
- Posts: 113
- Joined: Mon 13 Nov 2006 13:28
parasitic infection can cause disaccharide (most commonly lactose) and polysaccharide intolerance. if you've had that or something like chron's (which is also hypothesized to be caused by infection) then i suggest avoiding table sugar. i've noticed i'm fine with monosaccharides, but my intestines don't react well to anything more complex.
Re: Sugar vs No sugar
Yes, the conversion of complex sugars takes energy.Ducky wrote:those who are eating sugar (when needed!) are gonna save the energy of transforming food into sugar.
Am i right?
Thats one of the reasons you feel very energetic on this diet (more easy to handle simple sugars).
The extracted mass of molasses plus sugar is brown because of the molasses. Then the molasses (and nutrients) are filtered out (centrifugation, melting, filtering) and the sugar gets whiter.But isn't refined (white) sugar bleached? What happens to the bleach?
If you want brown sugar, the molasses are added back in (which comes with all the pesticide and herbicide residues)
The refined (and kind of white) sugar is finally bleached with the use of phosphoric acid which frees up the iron, and filtered again to remove that iron-phosphoric acid and other 'impurities'.
Its usually just coloured white sugar, but if its really 'raw sugar', its not healthy at all, due to the herbicide and pesticide residues.Is 'raw' or brown sugar better?
Sugar may decrease life expectancy
Sugar may decrease life expectancy
Yesterday, 07:08 pm
Buzz Up! Print StoryA spoonful of sugar might help your life expectancy go down, new research suggests. Skip related content
Related photos / videos
Sugar may decrease life expectancy .US scientists found that adding just a small amount of glucose sugar to the bacteria diet of laboratory worms cut the creatures' lifespans by a fifth.
The effect was traced to insulin signalling pathways - which exist in humans as well as simple worms.
This raised the possibility that "glucose may have a lifespan-shortening effect in humans" the researchers wrote in the journal Cell Metabolism.
On the other side of the coin, glucose is a vital source of energy without which cells cannot function.
The tiny worm Caenorhabditis elegans is a standard laboratory tool often used in studies of metabolism.
Scientists led by Dr Cynthia Kenyon from the University of California at San Francisco, carried out experiments in which worms were fed small amounts of glucose.
They found that giving sugar to the worms reduced their normal lifespan by about 20 per cent. Glucose affected insulin signals and genes and proteins previously shown to extend lifespan in C. elegans.
In particular, a sugary diet blocked the transport of glycerol, part of the process by which the body produces its own glucose.
Dr Kenyon said the findings may have implications for new diabetes drugs now in development that inhibit glycerol channels
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20091103/th ... 31572.html
_______________________
What do we think? A worm is not a human...a small ammount for these worms might still be a massive dose to them and thus would give these findings.
Yesterday, 07:08 pm
Buzz Up! Print StoryA spoonful of sugar might help your life expectancy go down, new research suggests. Skip related content
Related photos / videos
Sugar may decrease life expectancy .US scientists found that adding just a small amount of glucose sugar to the bacteria diet of laboratory worms cut the creatures' lifespans by a fifth.
The effect was traced to insulin signalling pathways - which exist in humans as well as simple worms.
This raised the possibility that "glucose may have a lifespan-shortening effect in humans" the researchers wrote in the journal Cell Metabolism.
On the other side of the coin, glucose is a vital source of energy without which cells cannot function.
The tiny worm Caenorhabditis elegans is a standard laboratory tool often used in studies of metabolism.
Scientists led by Dr Cynthia Kenyon from the University of California at San Francisco, carried out experiments in which worms were fed small amounts of glucose.
They found that giving sugar to the worms reduced their normal lifespan by about 20 per cent. Glucose affected insulin signals and genes and proteins previously shown to extend lifespan in C. elegans.
In particular, a sugary diet blocked the transport of glycerol, part of the process by which the body produces its own glucose.
Dr Kenyon said the findings may have implications for new diabetes drugs now in development that inhibit glycerol channels
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20091103/th ... 31572.html
_______________________
What do we think? A worm is not a human...a small ammount for these worms might still be a massive dose to them and thus would give these findings.
Key in such studies is the influence of glucose on insulin.
It very much depends on how much glucose you take in one sitting.
On this diet the secretion of insulin is spiked less, even though its high in glucose.
Why?
Because on this diet we consume lots of very small meals, predominantly replenishing lost blood glucose, and the secretion of insulin is particularly stimulated by big meals.
Even more so when those big meals contain much starch (bread, pasta, grains, beans), because then after that big meal the secretion of insulin spikes for a considerable period of time due to the cutting of starches into glucose.
Also, amino acids are at least equally potent regarding insulin, and this diet is low in protein.
So, more sugar (very much taken in gradually) may lead to less insulin secreted, particularly when less protein is consumed.
Starches tend to be worse than glucose as free glucose immediately causes satiety, whereas you readily eat quite some starch before satiety kicks in, and only then the insulin spike starts as the result of cutting up the starches in glucose.
It very much depends on how much glucose you take in one sitting.
On this diet the secretion of insulin is spiked less, even though its high in glucose.
Why?
Because on this diet we consume lots of very small meals, predominantly replenishing lost blood glucose, and the secretion of insulin is particularly stimulated by big meals.
Even more so when those big meals contain much starch (bread, pasta, grains, beans), because then after that big meal the secretion of insulin spikes for a considerable period of time due to the cutting of starches into glucose.
Also, amino acids are at least equally potent regarding insulin, and this diet is low in protein.
So, more sugar (very much taken in gradually) may lead to less insulin secreted, particularly when less protein is consumed.
Starches tend to be worse than glucose as free glucose immediately causes satiety, whereas you readily eat quite some starch before satiety kicks in, and only then the insulin spike starts as the result of cutting up the starches in glucose.
how interesting... i've tried pure glucose in the past-- they sell it at a few Asian markets here. it's a very fine white powder, melts on your tongue like powdered sugar, and tastes more delicate than table sugar. Would that be recommended?
"if i had to live my life again, i'd make the same mistakes, only sooner." --Tallulah Bankhead
Its not recommended, because glucose and fructose naturally form a good balance,
in as much as fat and sugars form a good balance.
Fructose goes a different pathway and activates different transmitters and hormones.
Fructose is utilized a bit slower and taste sweeter.
So, naturally, and normally, a balance of fructose and glucose is better,
so that not everything is utilized at the same time (insulin peak).
But if you need a lot energy fast (when intensively exercising, for example),
then pure glucose does the trick very well.
in as much as fat and sugars form a good balance.
Fructose goes a different pathway and activates different transmitters and hormones.
Fructose is utilized a bit slower and taste sweeter.
So, naturally, and normally, a balance of fructose and glucose is better,
so that not everything is utilized at the same time (insulin peak).
But if you need a lot energy fast (when intensively exercising, for example),
then pure glucose does the trick very well.
