Very droll.

I don't think you do get it. For someone who is always on about the simple "calories in, calories out" idea, I would have thought that you would "get this" more than you appear to want to. Never mind.

It doesn't. It changes:
1) Volume/amount
2) Bioavailability

In that respect, eating honey vs. refined sugar is not very different, but eating fruit vs. refined sugar is (and will of course vary depending on the fruit).

When people say they "avoid refined sugar", what they really mean is they "avoid additional sugar". Thus endeth the confusion.

Ahh, if only sugar was the only problem. You can avoid sugar all you want, if you stuff your face with meat and milk products your health is still in danger. Nutrition is such a complex subject that just cutting down on sugar won't do it. You need to also stick to regional and seasonal foods. But the society we live in makes it almost impossible.

That was precisely my point. You're not on some special diet (as I pointed out, it appears you probably consume more sugar than me on your sugar-free diet), it's just that you've lost weight only because you are consuming fewer calories.

Um... don't we live in a society which has the greatest longevity the world has ever seen?

No. It doesn't. Refined sugar contains exactly the same chemicals as unrefined sugar, in exactly the same proportion. (Notwithstanding the small amounts of 'impurities' removed).

You're simply extending the confusion, as clearly you're again talking about processed foods, whereas my question was directed specifically at the comments about 'refined' sugar.

I don't understand why anyone wanting to avoid overeating sugars would think that, for example, replacing white sugar with honey would be significant, compared with simply avoiding the junk and convenience foods that contain too much of it.

Fructose and glucose aren't the same thing from a dietary perspective. Glucose can be burned by every cell in your body (except sperm). Fructose can only be 'burned' by the liver (and sperm), and even then it either converts it to glucose, or to palmate (i.e the preferred saturated fat of mammals) beforehand. The hypothesis is that excessive fructose consumption leads to too many calories for the liver relative to the rest of the body. This can lead to fattening of the liver (known as central obesity or fatty-liver disease), and as the molecular machinery of the liver is pushed out by fat deposits it stops working well and type II diabetes can result.

Sucrose is half-fructose, half-glucose. High-fructose corn syrup doesn't exist here I think? Some trendy sweeteners like agave syrup are close to 90 % fructose and not really a good idea to consume in quantity.

The fact that human saliva contains amylase, a enzyme that breaks down starch, argues that evolutionarily we did each starches a lot. Fructose isn't found in starch though, so consuming more than 25-40 g of fructose per day might be a bad idea. That's around 2-3 apples, or less than a single 355 mL can of coke.

I am not confusing anything. I specifically prefaced my comment by saying that, indeed, at a molecular level there is no difference (although different fruits have different amounts of sugar/types). And then went on to explain what the problem is with added sugar.

You've clearly got your knickers in a twist over this straw man.

To spell it out for you: the thing about added (aka refined) sugars is that they are in a disproportionate amount (point 1), and are not in the natural state (point 2), i.e. a) the chemical molecules are the same, but often in different ratios and b) contained within the cells of whatever food you are eating, so bioavailability of sugar in an orange will be lower than the equivalent sugar given on a teaspoon.

When we talk about processed food, it isn't just the ready meals. Nearly every off-the-shelf consumable food has added sugar, from what people think are healthy foods, e.g. yoghurts and bread, to the ready meals. So as Idefix points out in the OP, trying to find any food that hasn't had sugar added is sometimes a challenge.

__________________
Never let right or wrong get in the way of a good opinion

I was slightly bemused by your earlier comment that even some plain, natural yoghurts contain sugar and I checked the ones that we normally buy and none of them contain sugar. And I hadn't even thought about it.
So, to contradict your earlier statement, it's pretty simple to buy yoghurt with no sugar - even a fool like me can do it.

I'm not sure why you find it so difficult.

... they're not the same thing at all.

Adding honey or unrefined raw cane sugar would be no different from adding refined sugar. The thread is about giving up refined sugar.

I think you would need to avoid carbs almost completely and go "full paleo" to really take some load of your liver and pancreas.
I admit, I've been "trained" my whole life towards a "sweet" breakfast (bread, butter, honey, jam/jelly - but NO Nutella).

I'll readily admit I'm sort of addicted to carbs.
It's very difficult to remove them from your diet. And I never seriously tried.

That would be high fructose corn syrup. Corn starch is a powder used as a thickening agent.

Morning,

I tried a year ago after reading a great book by Sarah Wilson - called 'I quit sugar' - truly stunning book and a must read! But I have to admit its very difficult especially when you are working to get food without sugar. Won't give up though ... really think its worth it!

Good luck!
:-)

Going by the replies and the "tone" on this forum in general I'm obviously risking - but we are all victims of life and what we choose to believe...although the blood will tell a different story...

Sugar is an acid waste product of metabolism and/or fermentation. In other words it is a waste product much like the exhaust of a car or smoke from a chimney. Sugar is the evidence of cellular degeneration. Sugar is what happens when any fruit, like a banana gets sweeter and sweeter as it is rotting or aging. When sugar goes up in a diabetic that is the sure sign that cells are breaking down. When sugars increase in a breast or prostate that is a sure sign of a pending cancerous condition. Any sugar no matter how little is unhealthy to the blood, tissues and organs although impossible to avoid since sugar is the major waste product or metabolism. Just as exhaust is the evidence that a car is running so sugar is the evidence that the body is alive and functioning. In a perfect body with perfect elimination blood sugars would be normally low or less than 40mg/dl not the abnormal levels pronounced by current medical savants of 80mg/dl.

Oh yes - meat and milk are just another acid to avoid...but I'm only learning myself...nobody ever told me...I was brought up on a terrible amount of acid and that was normal I thought Now I know that aging is a rotting process caused by acid - we can't avoid but we can learn or carry on as if...

I'm not a scientist, but...

That's probably the biggest load of pseudoscientific horseshit I've read in quite some time. Congratulations.

Come on, you can politely disagree without mocking her. She already is feeling unwelcome here because of these kinds of behavior. Please remain civil.

No.

I wonder why that could be...


Alkalarian, just a gentle question - are you a Marlboro Light and Red Bull kind of girl?

Wrong. Disseminating false and possibly dangerous information deserves all the ridicule it can get.