evidence from studies of obese children in the US shows that sugar is toxic in itself.

Toxic?

They’re going off he deep end now, aren’t they?

49 thoughts on “Rilly?”

  1. So Much For Subtlety

    I keep thinking I am going to publish something so dumb and outrageous that no one in their right mind would believe it. Like the infamous Pacific Tree Octopus. Claiming sugar gave you passive diabetes or something.

    But reality just keeps getting weirder.

  2. The human body runs on sugar.

    The scum of the left lie by design, by instinct, by reflex, by habit and addiction far beyond their ability to even control let alone stop.

    If our society does not soon unleash war, red war (no pun intended) upon the lying scum of the left we will have had our chips and there will be nothing but to wait for the end of our good life.

  3. So Much For Subtlety

    Speaking of academics who are full of [email protected], according to the Wall Street Journal:

    Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro has appointed a businessman as the country’s new economic czar, replacing a leftist sociologist who has denied existence of inflation and argued for the dissolution of the central government amid the deepest recession in the nation’s history.

    He denied the existence of inflation? Thank God our loons stick to sugar.

  4. surely these companies should be made to pay their fair share of the cost to the nation of the illnesses they help create.

    Spot the archetypal leftist quote, the “companies” wont be paying a cent, it’ll be the customer, the employee and the pension scheme with their Starbuck’s dividends.

    The fantasy of socialism is that responsibility is everyone’s -I end up paying for the fatties overdosing on double syrup lattes. In fact I’ll probably end up paying the latter as well as they’ll be welfare dependents and get means adjusted for the rising price of coffee servings.

  5. So we have a doctor who thinks sugar is poisonous and a reader who is too stupid to read the clearly displayed prices in a coffee shop. That’s Graun readers for you.

  6. Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro has appointed a businessman as the country’s new economic czar, replacing a leftist sociologist who has denied existence of inflation and argued for the dissolution of the central government amid the deepest recession in the nation’s history

    For those of us who laugh at Murphy for being a buffoon, in the right set of circumstances (and not outrageous ones) he too could become the “economics czar”. Any disaster is possible with socialists in charge.

  7. This sugar panic is a classic arms race of stupidity. Each loony has to make up more and more outrageous claims just to stay in the limelight, and the whole circus lurches closer to insanity as a result. And we as a society laugh at the Salem Witch Trials.

  8. Ecks, we won’t be allowed chips either.

    How old is the acrylomide panic?

    Basically, any time you heat starches, you get tiny amounts of acrylomides. When you pump acrylomides into rats in massive doses, they’ll get tumors. Therefore chips are evil. (Yes, the media singled out chips as opposed to starches in general.)

  9. Ecksy

    The human body runs on sugar.

    True up to a point. The human body ‘runs’ on the mono-saccharide, glucose, C6H12O6, which the body stores as the polysaccharide, glycogen. Sucrose, C12H22O11, aka table sugar, is a disaccharide consisting of glucose and fructose molecules. Ingesting sucrose gives the body a quick hit of glucose, as the gut’s enzymes rapidly snap off the glucose molecule, and so the body does not have to access its stores of glycogen or fat to create energy. Given the biochemical and health consequences of ingesting sucrose, getting more than a small level of your total calories from sucrose is not advisable. That said, to say sugar is toxic is crass.

  10. I am also by the way simultaneously annoyed and incredibly irritated by the introduction of the “teaspoon” as a unit of measure. It is of course designed to be misleading, being a small measure which is normally measuring the addition of sugar as a mere flavouring to beverages- so usage of sugar in cooking, etc, means large numbers of “teaspoons” and also phenomenally patronising.

    The core Proggies on this one by the way are prune-faced Calvinist Graham MacGregor and his harem of lovely assistants who, not having had much luck with demonising salt reinvented/rebranded Concensus Action on Salt and Health as Action On Sugar in collaboration with the top sweetness hater Aseem Malhotra.

  11. ‘They’re just a hop, skip and a jump away from declaring war on toxic dihydrogen monoxide…’

    Or indeed Hop Skip and Jump

  12. ‘Given the biochemical and health consequences of ingesting sucrose, getting more than a small level of your total calories from sucrose is not advisable. That said, to say sugar is toxic is crass.’

    Nonsense. Calories are calories.

  13. Dihydrogen monoxide is a killer. Think how many people have drowned it, especially when combined with salt. It should be banned or at the very least its distribution restricted to responsible adults under strict supervision.

  14. “I wonder how much sugar one has to consume in order to become a complete fat-head?”

    Ha ha. I think the absence of sugar is a bigger cause, but that is only from the apparent correlation between fat-headedness and non-consumption of sugar.

  15. Well, if I was a professional proggie and my organisation’s acronym was “CASH”, I’d rebrand before I gave the game away?

  16. “Nonsense. Calories are calories.”

    As I understand it (and I’m a layman so no great expertise claimed) the issue is that the human body metabolises glucose entirely differently from fructose. Glucose is the way sugar is transported around the human body and as such eating it is dealt with efficiently and without adverse effects.

    Fructose on the other hand isn’t a molecule used in the human body and has to be metabolised by an entirely different route to glucose, one that is more akin to the way the body metabolises alcohol. And we all know there are significant health issues with alcohol consumption, particularly weight gain and heart issues.

    Thus the argument goes that its fructose that is the problem, and as sucrose is one molecule of fructose loosely linked to one of glucose, eating 100g of sugar is worse for you than eating 100g of pure glucose powder, because of the fructose the sugar contains. Not all calories are identical it seems in the effect they have on the human body.

  17. I dare say that there’s a high level of sugar consumption that’s unwise. No doubt it differs from one individual to another. But handing over control of your diet to a bunch of dishonest zealots is even more unwise, and that is true for everyone.

  18. P.S. It’s when the top US medical bossy-boots starts to issue propaganda about sugar that you can be pretty confident that this hullaballoo is phoney. That officer has got practically everything wrong after cigarette smoking – and the officer of the time was absurdly late to get that right.

  19. ‘Fructose on the other hand isn’t a molecule used in the human body and has to be metabolised by an entirely different route to glucose, one that is more akin to the way the body metabolises alcohol. And we all know there are significant health issues with alcohol consumption, particularly weight gain and heart issues.’

    What a convoluted mess. Equating fructose consumption and alcohol consumption, and ascribing weight gain and heart issues with alcohol consumption. More nonsense.

  20. Jim

    I don’t have any expertise in this either, other than what I remember from A-level biology over 40 years ago.

    The breakdown of carbohydrates yields mono- and di-saccharides, mostly glucose. Through glycolysis and other reactions, glucose is oxidized to form CO2 and water, yielding energy mostly in the form of the coenzyme adenosine triphosphate, ATP. Insulin, and other mechanisms, regulate the concentration of glucose in the blood.

    Unlike glucose, most fructose is metabolised in the liver and stored as glycogen. Fructose is found in honey, fruits and vegetables, either as a mono-saccharide or as part of the di-saccharide sucrose. Unlike glucose, fructose can lower insulin levels, which is why my diabetic brother-in-law can have a bowl of fresh fruit salad but not a pudding. I am not aware of any particular problem with fructose absorption, but I may be wrong about that.

    However, the general point here is that homo sapiens has evolved to process glucose, fructose and sucrose in small doses. Consuming large quantities of sugar generally leads to obesity and diabetes — my brother-in-law used to take six large spoonfuls of sugar in his tea.

    Pace Gamecock, all calories are not equal, except in the short term. A diet of sucrose and plenty of water might keep you alive in extreme conditions, but your health would suffer if that was your long-term diet.

  21. “What a convoluted mess. Equating fructose consumption and alcohol consumption, and ascribing weight gain and heart issues with alcohol consumption. More nonsense.”

    Indeed. Complete nonsense. Weight gain from alcohol consumption is from the large amounts of maltose (a glucose-glucose disaccaride) in beer and fructose in wine. You’re actually consuming not insubstantial amounts of simple carbohydrates with your alcohol. A bottle of wine is over 600 kCal (my lunch, according to the packet, tends to be around 400-500 kCal. A litre of Coca Cola is apparently 400 kCal, and a litre of orange juice 415 or so.

    For the hard spirit drinkers, it’s not weight gain that’s the problem, but chemically cooking your liver 🙂

  22. ‘Pace Gamecock, all calories are not equal, except in the short term.’

    WTF is a short term calorie?

    ‘A diet of sucrose and plenty of water might keep you alive in extreme conditions, but your health would suffer if that was your long-term diet.’

    Relate this to calories, if you can.

  23. Is anyone of sound mind left in any doubt by now that our enemies are, indeed, puritans?

    Yes. Because puritans are only a small sub-class of the enemy – which includes cultural marxists, socialists, libtards, empire-building public sector wallahs, feminazis, guardianistas, nihilists, authoritarians…cont’d page 94…

  24. What Theophrastus said.
    The puritans tended to practice what they preached (well, anyway a lot of them did) unlike the others.
    Richard Cromwell was a Puritan

  25. Gamecock

    Who’s talking about ‘short-term calories’? Not me. In the short term, any calorie will do, when the body needs energy. Even calories in potentially health-damaging ingestibles — like sucrose, say.

    Relate this to calories, if you can.

    0.5kg of pure sucrose a day would provide 2000-2500 calories a day. You could survive on that in the short term with sufficient water. Add in a multi-vitamin, if you like. Now, try that diet for 12 months and tell us how you get on. How you fare will depend on your current health and your genes, but probably you will be fairly ill wellbefore the end of the trial.

  26. But that doesn’t really prove anything, does it, Theo? Make someone exist on just meat or boiled rice for a year, you’d likely get the same result. But no-one’s trying to exist solely on sugar.
    I have an whole other theory on obesity & it has nothing to do with sugar. Apart from people eating too much of it.
    It’s to do with life styles. How many people ever go hungry, these days? miss more than the odd meal? They’ve got into the habit, every time they feel a twinge of hunger, they stuff their face. And the more often you do that, the more you notice you haven’t put anything down your neck for a while.
    Be worth asking, you lot. When was the last time you went a whole day, morning to night, without eating?

  27. Bloke in Costa Rica

    abacab: the thing that gives you are beer belly is that after ethanol is oxidised to ethanoic acid, it then gets turned into pyruvic acid. That’s the really calorific part.

  28. BiS

    But that doesn’t really prove anything, does it, Theo? Make someone exist on just meat or boiled rice for a year, you’d likely get the same result.

    Actually, No, you wouldn’t. The human body has evolved to cope with variety and monotony in an omnivorous diet, but it has not evolved to cope with anything more than relatively small amounts of sucrose. On a meat-only + multivitamin diet, you’d survive but not thrive. On a sucrose-only + multivitamin diet, you’d feel dreadful and you’d become ill – because of the huge insulin spikes in the bloodstream – with diarrhea, dehydration, kidney damage, mental confusion, etc. IIRC, studies on rats suggest that the LD50 for sucrose is reached at about 30-35g/kg of body weight.

    But no-one’s trying to exist solely on sugar.

    Of course, they aren’t. But Gamecock seems to be claiming that all calories are equal (or something – I’m not sure he knows what he’s claiming), in which case a sucrose-only diet for calories + a supplement that provides all essential vitamins and micro-nutrients should be a satisfactory one. But it isn’t.

    That said, any health fascist who says sucrose is toxic is wildly exaggerating. However, the response of the libertarian right is often to deny that sucrose is ever harmful. All I’m saying is that there is a middle way.

  29. Starve yourself of protein and fat, and it’s the damn sugars fault!

    Er…the sugars would have the same effect in that quantity even if you were eating plenty of protein and fat. No need to starve yourself of protein and fat.

    And, by mentioning protein and fat, you are implicitly conceding that all calories are not equal. You can survive on protein and fat, but not for long on just sugar.

  30. Perhaps the most charitable explanation of your comments here is that your brain is very short of glucose…

  31. BiS

    “Be worth asking, you lot. When was the last time you went a whole day, morning to night, without eating?”

    If a 24 hour day – then, yes, and more than just occasionally. Meal in the evening, and nothing at all (bar fluid) until the following evening.

    But a day in your sense (ie 36 hours from evening to breakfast), yes, but only usually if not 100%.

    That 5/2 process people talk about gets you quite happily into the routine of ignoring hunger pangs.

  32. PF

    My wife is on the 5/2. On her diet days, I retreat – with a bottle of claret. “Quite happily” is not how I’d describe her mood!

  33. ‘0.5kg of pure sucrose a day would provide 2000-2500 calories a day. You could survive on that in the short term with sufficient water.’

    You have no point but that a sucrose only diet will kill you. Well, so #$%^ing what? Everybody knows that.

  34. Gamecock

    I would have thought that anyone reading this thread could grasp my point that the biochemical evidence shows that the human body has not evolved to cope with anything more than relatively small amounts of sucrose.

    Additionally, I have refuted every objection you have made to my arguments.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *