like, sweat poison

You have recieved a free upvote from minnowpond, Send 0.1 -> 10 SBD with your post url as the memo to recieve an upvote from up to 100 accounts!

Hay man I liked your post.

Just want to help. Do you know the best way to promote your website to social media users? I will share it with you
https://www.urlpromoter.com/Page/Index/EXnzcliica10eAv

This post has received a 70.64 % upvote from @boomerang.

stopped sugar 1 year now...wow... my soul thanks me!

I quit the sugar after rotting out a perfetly good tooth that is going to cost me a fortune in dentist bills

its really bad for our health

Just want to help. Do you know the best way to promote your website to social media users? I will share it with you
https://www.urlpromoter.com/Page/Index/EXnzcliica10eAv

Co aim is better than sugar , because we can quit Cocain but we cannot quit sugar , thank you for this realisation bro

i know sugar is a bad as cocaine but all the word 90% use the sugar let me know why sugar is cocaine

How many years can you live on a diet of cocaine alone with no other "nutritional" foods?

oh..... I love sweet foods but knowing this i can now minimize nyah...

I like sweet food you are a good dear brother

👌👌👌👌👌

Sugar is the worst thing ever; I gave it up in 2012 and can't stand the stuff now

Ah the power of populism over biology

Sigh - In the not too distant past when water supplies were not so safe people in the West and Africa would drink something called "small beer". This was a lightly alcoholic fermented gruel/drink. One litre of this had the equivalent of about 40 spoons of sugar. This amount makes the sugary sodas of today quite bland in comparison. This was drunk as a direct replacement for water.

Let's look at sugary soda consumption today.

1. Number one consumer in the world - USA. Most obese nation in the world - USA.
2. Number two consumer in the world - Japan. Slenderest nation in the world (and longest lived) - Japan.
3. Lowest consumer of sugary sodas (and sugar in general) India. 5th most obese nation in the world India.

Clearly from these stats you can see there is no pattern that links sugar with obesity. The stats are all over the place. The cause of obesity will be a number of factors only one of which will be the overconsumption of sugar. The key factor in preventing obesity (and illnesses in general) is to have a balanced diet.

Fun fact - You brain cannot function without sugar whereas other organs can (this is not classed as addiction). After long periods without sugar your brain starts to process ketone bodies for energy. After 3-5 days the metabolites of ketone bodies start to poison your brain and cause brain damage. It is recommended that if going on a fast that you take a small amount of sugar every day or couple of days so that you don't get brain damage.

Glucose is what your body, and every other living thing on earth, uses for energy. Sugar or sucrose roughly 50% glucose and 50% fructose.

High fructose corn syrup is roughly 55% fructose. The fructose is the problem not glucose. It is metabolized in the liver much like alcohol and has many of the same long run health issues.

I won't argue any of your other points but any time someone points out issues with sugar it is the fructose that is causing issues.

Except that fructose is the main sugar in fruit.

While I'm not sure that is really a counterpoint to anything I've said the answer is the amount of fructose varies and it is surrounded by a protecting layer of fiber
https://thepaleodiet.com/fruits-and-sugars/ (just the first link I found, not a paleo person)

The fiber tells you to stop eating, it tells your brain it is full, it feeds your healthy gut bacteria. See how much fructose you can consume when you take apples and make apple juice vs having to eat that those same apples straight. Most people stop eating a long time before they get to 3-4 apples for just one cup of juice.

If sugar is a poison then fiber is the antidote.

What do you mean by "a protecting layer of fibre"? Fibre plays no role in the metabolism of fructose. Please don't link to sites that have zero science in them. They are populist echo sounding boxes. Take this statement from your link
> Domesticated fruits are almost always larger, sweeter, and contain less fiber than their wild counterparts. Compare a Golden Delicious apple to a crab apple and you begin to get the picture.

1. Crab apples are domesticated and NOT wild. They were bred for their pollination agnosticism and long pollination periods. Every orchard will have a fixed percentage of crab apple trees for this purpose.
2. The term "wild" is inappropriate for plants and is not used by scientists.
3. Not all apples are bred to be sweet and is just one category from several.
4. Not all apples are bred for their juice.

8-10 apples are needed for 1 litre of juice. A large glass of juice will contain about 2 apples and more sugar than an equal sized glass of coke. Are you seriously telling me that you could not eat 2 apples.

The feeling of satiety (being full) is not triggered by fibre or bulk but by the level of sugar. The presence stops ghrelin production (the hunger hormone). This is the reason that you have something sweet after your main course - to make you feel full. If you eat something sweet before your main course you don't generally want to eat it.

Sugar is as much of a poison as water.

I gave you a disclaimer on the link, first one i found that showed that sucrose levels vary in fruit. If you don't like it that's fine, I don't claim anything on it (and said as much), I was just trying to show that levels vary from fruit to fruit. So... I won't defend anything else there (maybe it is right maybe it is wrong).

I'm saying that it is far easier to eat a glass of juice than a whole apple. The first source I found said 3 'medium' sized apples per cup of juice. A cup is pretty small but isn't that far off from your estimate. Fiber slows how fast the sugar hits your system, it slows digestion. It limits how much you can consume and how quickly. Sugar is made up of fructose and glucose. The fructose does not engage satiety glucose may very well do that. I'm only saying that fructose is bad. We've probably made some mistakes moving back and forth between those two terms (sugar/fructose/glucose) since they aren't the same thing but it is easy to do.

I feel like this is digressing as a discussion somewhat. This is what I'm starting from:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM&feature=youtu.be
sorry it is so long, i'd feel it is worth watching. There isn't any pseudoscience there but you could probably tone down the alarm a bit.

Short version is here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_4Q9Iv7_Ao&feature=youtu.be

Worth watching no matter who you are but if you don't feel like watching the takeaway is that fructose (50% of sugar) is processed by the body mostly the same way as alcohol and has most of the same long term affects on health. It is not, in any way, comparable to water consumption.

If you can reference how fructose metabolism isn't bad for you I'd be interested.

I think everyone knows that different fruit contain different amounts of sugar. In the same way a dog is different to a cat regarding mammals. It would be a bigger shock if different fruit all contained the same amount of sugar and all of the same type.

The ease of eating/drinking does not change how the various sugars are metabolised
> Fiber slows how fast the sugar hits your system, it slows digestion.

Can you show how it does this in scientific terms as it was not what I was taught. It also would counter your argument if it were true - Something that slowed down digestion would not stop ghrelin production fast enough. Thus eating an apple as opposed to drinking the juice would leave you feeling hungry.

Instead of giving me a video that is 1 hour 30 to watch can you link to the times in video that back up your arguments.

As far as the sugar is as bad as alcohol video goes that is a strawman falacy - Pick something which has a negative image and make a tenuous link to it and in doing so spread that negative image to said argument. This is a mendacious practice that is used by populists to bend reality.

So to the main point on sugar, it is not a straw man. The way the human body metabolizes fructose (50% of sugar) is very similar to how it metabolizes alcohol. That isn't surprising because we just ferment sugar to get alcohol. There isn't any tenuous link, they are very similar compounds that are processed by the body similarly. The video isn't associating them because they have many of the same long term health affects (which they do) or because alcohol is a convenient boogie man but because they are handled by the body the same. The comparison is appropriate, for specifics we can look at these three examples.

Examples of metabolizing 120 calories of glucose, alcohol, and sugar. If you have to watch just one watch the sucrose (sugar) metabolism at 56:30.

Glucose metabolism (50% of sugar, not bad for you)
https://youtu.be/dBnniua6-oM?t=2711
(starts roughly 45min in and finishes at 51:10)

Ethanol metabolism (alcohol, not good for you. An acute toxin)
https://youtu.be/dBnniua6-oM?t=3067
(starts at... 51:10, could skip to 53:00 ends roughly 56:30)

Sucrose Metabolism (this is Sugar, made up of 50% glucose and 50% fructose)
https://youtu.be/dBnniua6-oM?t=3396
(starts roughly 56:30 ends around 1:10)

I included the fruit reference to show that fruit contains different amounts of fructose relative to each other (not sugar) and you're right this line of discussion is probably a distraction from the main point I'm trying to make, which is that fructose (and by extension sugar with is 50% fructose, or "high fructose corn syrup" which is 55% fructose) is bad for you. The fiber discussion is also a distraction at this point. Weather it has no effect, slows or speeds absorption of fructose how the body metabolizes fructose is the same.

>So to the main point on sugar, it is not a straw man.

Yes it is. And as you then change topic and talk about the dangers of alcohol you confirm that.

>The way the human body metabolizes fructose (50% of sugar) is very similar to how it metabolizes alcohol.

It's not even vaguely similar. Fructose can be metabolised in various places and in various ways whereas ethanol cannot.

> That isn't surprising because we just ferment sugar to get alcohol.

The best type of sugar for brewing is glucose. That is why "brewing sugar" is glucose..

Ok now for the videos.

Clip 1. Fructose does not suppress ghrelin. No it doesn't but it does get converted to glucose in the small intestine and that glucose DOES suppress ghrelin.

>Low doses of fructose are ∼90% cleared by the intestine,

Let's look at high doses and what is considered a high dose.

>High doses of fructose (≥1 g/kg) overwhelm intestinal fructose absorption and clearance, resulting in fructose reaching both the liver and colonic microbiota.

Ok let's translate that. The median healthy weight for a male is 73kg so that would mean an unhealthy dose of fructose is 73g. If the intake is as sucrose that would be 146g. 146g of sugar in one go. That is an insane amount of sugar before the small intestine can no longer efficiently convert the fructose that is there to glucose.

ie. This is nothing like alcohol metabolism.

Clip 2. Ethanol is not a carbohydrate. It has neither analdehyde or ketone group. It is an alcohol.

This is rather basic biochemistry. In fact it is so basic it could be considered basic chemistry. The "professor" in this video is not what he claims to be. Looking at his speciality it appears to be paediatrics and endocrinology and NOT biochemistry.

With that I think we are done.

So,

I wasn't sure what you were referring to and started back at working through it again and I'm not sure the emeded youtube links are working. At least for me, whenever I try to play any of them they all start at the wrong timestamp. Even when I try to edit the reply it still shows the timestamps as correct. Not sure what is up with that but you were probably not viewing what I intended but I did put specific time stamps to start at for each, those should be accurate.

For particular things you've said. I don't think I've changed topic. We started by discussing sugar and why it is bad for you. It is bad for you because of the fructose content. I'm trying to explain why it is bad

As I've said before, there isn't anything wrong with glucose. It isn't bad for you and your right, even yeast prefer it to fructose.

>It's not even vaguely similar. Fructose can be metabolized in various places and in various ways whereas ethanol cannot.

look at video but alcohol is metabolized in liver and brain (which is why it has acute affects). Fructose is almost exclusively metabolized in the liver. You have it backwards.

from wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fructolysis
>Unlike glucose, which is metabolized widely in the body, fructose is metabolized almost completely in the liver in humans

The link you provide is interesting and great I believe that it supports my position fully. 1g/kg is a pretty low threshold. The study was done on mice and I'm not sure the 1g/kg is the body weight of the individual consuming the fructose as you've indicated but rather the ratio of fructose to weight of the food consumed. That would actually bolster the view that fiber offers a protective effect from fructose consumption. In fact if you find articles interviewing the scientists that conducted the study they have this to say:
>"We can offer some reassurance -- at least from these animal studies -- that fructose from moderate amounts of fruits will not reach the liver," he says. However, the small intestine probably starts to get overwhelmed with sugar halfway through a can of soda or large glass of orange juice.

link here to quote (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/02/180206140645.htm) This seems to directly fall in line with my way of thinking that fructose is bad once you get past fruit level purities. It would indicate a fiber or bulk of the food offering a protective effect. Nothing in the article supports that fructose is safe for you in sugary drinks or in the quantities consumed today. The article also indicates that fructose is also metabolized in the liver past the small intestine.

The only thing in that study/article that would contradict my position is that the small intestine is doing some of the heavy lifting to prevent fructose from hitting the liver where previously I'd show studies (older) that indicated it was metabolized primarily through the liver. This isn't distressing so much as provide reasons why people don't have long term health issues from eating fruit but do from highly processed foods or high sugar foods or soda or juice consumption. The article even offers new reasons why fructose is bad, it potentially harms the microbiome past the small intestine which wasn't designed to see sugars.

>One can eat an infinite amount of carbohydrates, and there will be nary a molecule of glucose that enters the microbiome. But as soon as you drink the soda or juice, the microbiome is seeing an extremely powerful nutrient that it was designed to never see."

You've posted an article that directly states in the summary that there are "strong ties between fructose and disease" and offers additional information that may have been missing from our discussion that the small intestine protects us from fructose levels you'd find in fruit but not past half of a soda. I find it hard to see this as anything other than agreement with me.

The information on the doctor can be found here: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Lustig)
I'm not sure if this is an anti-appeal to authority. He has a newer video here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceFyF9px20Y&index=127&t=2305s&list=WLv) and indicates list of collaborators on at about 1:25:00 (one hour 25 min). Information on fructose metabolism is unchanged from the videos I've linked above.

also this is what endocrinology is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endocrinology
>endocrine system, its diseases, and its specific secretions known as hormones. It is also concerned with the integration of developmental events proliferation, growth, and differentiation, and the psychological or behavioral activities of metabolism, growth and development, tissue function, sleep, digestion, respiration, excretion...

so basically everything about how the human body uses foods signals within itself with hormones etc. Specifically relevant.

The links work fine but that is moot because I've shown that the presenter is deficient on the subject of biochemistry. The rather laughable "Ethanol is a carbohydrate".
>The link you provide is interesting and great I believe that it supports my position fully. 1g/kg is a pretty low threshold.

Pardon? That is about 3litres of coke for someone of regular weight and size. As this is the acute consumption limit they would have to down it in one. I think that in most people's books that isn't normal. That is not half a can of soda. I've yet to see 6 litre cans of soda for sale most anywhere.

From your own article
>Researchers report that in mice, fructose, a sugar found in fruit, is processed mainly in the small intestine, not in the liver as had previously been suspected.

Are we clear that what you are stating about the liver is outdated and nothing but a populist meme now?

>this is what endocrinology is:

So not biochemistry then?
>so basically everything about how the human body uses foods signals within itself with hormones etc

That is like saying because a haystack has a pin in it, it must be a pile of pins.

Lol,

you send me an article that states directly in the summary that there are
>strong ties between fructose and disease

Interviews of the people doing the study say
>that fructose from moderate amounts of fruits will not reach the liver," he says. However, the small intestine probably starts to get overwhelmed with sugar halfway through a can of soda or large glass of orange juice.

to summarize the source you sent me says
1.) fructose is metabolized in the liver after half a can of sugary drink
2.) it is known that fructose is bad for you
3.) Fruit isn't bad for you because the small intestine can take care of small amounts of fructose

That is what I've been trying to say..... You've basically handed my entire argument to me with that article.

Your reply arguing the half a can of soda point is funny because that is from your own source! (you've misunderstood the 1g/kg, that is the amount of fructose per weight of food you're consuming i.e. 1g of fructose per 1,000g of pear/apple/soda or whatever you're eating. It doesn't have anything to do with the weight of whoever is consuming the fructose that is why those numbers don't make sense to you).

I don't know if we are doing anything productive here when:
1.) you don't want to address the points I bring up or find sources to backup your claims
2.) you fail to ever knock down any of my claims, and the one attempt to find a counterpoint fully supports my position (fructose is bad for you)
3.) when you just decide the highly credentialed sources I've listed aren't good enough without any justification. (the dude wrote the American Heart Associations statement on dietary sugar https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/circulationaha.109.192627).

Its been a lot of fun. I enjoy looking things up and getting into the weeds but if you're done trying and have to resort to taking things out of context we're probably not being productive.

For example you say this:
>Are we clear that what you are stating about the liver is outdated and nothing but a populist meme now?

"populist meme" what? lol really? just read the next sentence (and remember these are the people that wrote the article/study you sent originally being interviewed about that study)

The whole quote:
>Researchers report that in mice, fructose, a sugar found in fruit, is processed mainly in the small intestine, not in the liver as had previously been suspected. Sugary drinks and processed high-sugar foods overwhelm the small intestine and spill into the liver for processing.

Did you not read the very next sentence?

The go on to say
>the small intestine probably starts to get overwhelmed with sugar halfway through a can of soda or large glass of orange juice.

Then were does it go? Well if you read that next sentence straight to the liver. So if you eat a pear small intestine takes 90% of it and the liver the rest. You drink a soda? hello liver.

I send you an article that says 90% of fructose is metabolised in the small intestine and NOT the liver as previously thought.

You send me a link by a doctor who thinks ethanol is a carbohydrate.

We are arguing if fructose is bad for human consumption. You've said it isn't, I've said it is. You also previously argued that the liver was not involved in metabolizing fructose. You sent this article (https://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/abstract/S1550-4131(17)30729-5) which is a summary of a study completed by several individuals including specifically Joshua D. Rabinowitz.

While we should review/read the entire summary you are interested in this one part here which you repeat a lot:
>Low doses of fructose are ~90% cleared by the intestine

but for some reason you want to ignore these other statements that are present in that same summary:
>...strong ties between fructose and disease

and this

>High doses of fructose (≥1 g/kg) overwhelm intestinal fructose absorption and clearance, resulting in fructose reaching both the liver

You've sent me a study where in the summary they (the authors, in both the study summary and interviews) agree with my position that fructose is strongly associated with diseases in humans and "high" doses of fructose end up being metabolized in the liver and ~10% of "low" doses are metabolized in the liver.

If you read more than just the summary of your study to get a clearer picture on what your source thinks (so far we only have that they think fructose is strongly associated with diseases in humans and that high doses get passed to the liver). We still need to know what they consider a high dose? I sent back this article (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/02/180206140645.htm) which is an interview with one Joshua D. Rabinowitz about the study you referenced (he is one of the authors of that study) in the previous link and he provides us with the information we need.

Joshua says:
> the small intestine probably starts to get overwhelmed with sugar halfway through a can of soda or large glass of orange juice.

So we now know the amount of sugar (half a can of soda) that overwhelms the intestine and gets passed onto the liver. Your source says that fructose is bad, fruit is ok because it gets caught by the intestine but half a can of soda's worth of sugar and then it starts hitting the liver.

The source you've provided does just as well for my argument. Your study doesn't overturn anything I've claimed only validated it and offered a reason for why fruits and veggies aren't a health problem (they don't go over the high dose fructose threshold) while half a can of soda, fruit juice, or processed foods go over the limit and are a problem for human health.

Let's get this straight. 1g sugar per kg is the limit not 1/2 a can of soda that's 3 litres. Polishing off the sugar equivalent of 3 litres of Coke in one sitting is not only considered excess but very abnormal.

The American Chemistry Association states that drinking 6 litres of water will kill you. Using the same flawed logic as you water is dangerous and we should not drink it. Taking 40k IU of vitamin D a day is toxic and will kill you therefore we should not take vitamin D.

Where does this nonsense stop? Taking anything to excess is bad for you. Anything.

Hey it's your source.

but seriously I think they are saying 1g per thousand so by weight of fructose in the food/drink. They don't clearly say it in the interview but we know that they explicitly say that half a can of soda will put you over the limit. I'd assume they understand their own results.

a 12 oz can of coke has 39 grams of sugar. If we assume that is regular sugar it will break down to about 19.5g of fructose. A 12 floz soda weighs about 390g so the fructose would come in about 5% by weight. That is still within the same order of magnitude so it seems right just as a check.

I found this (https://f1000.com/prime/732607607) from that same study which says
>...shows that the primary site of metabolism is the intestine, but that this is saturable above 0.5g/kg in mice, or they project about a 3g fructose dose in humans.

They quote 3g of fructose in humans to put it over the limit which is less than our 1/2 can of soda (10G fructose) but still on the same order. I also assumed a 12fl oz can where no specific size was specified (could have been 7.5fl oz).

The 3g limit is a good number to have, basically I think it means that you shouldn't consume more than 6g of sugar in a sitting (50% fructose) if you want to keep it out of your liver (good to know!). They also say that eating other foods offers a protective effect because it slows down how fast the fructose hits the small intestine so it can get more of it before it hits the liver

I'd agree with you that it isn't the drug it is the dose. Alcohol is clearly a toxin but I enjoy taking it in and there are health benefits to moderate consumption. The problem is that we consume much more sugar than we ever have before (on average), the change occurring even in the last 30 years. Most of that is hidden... on average (I seem to recall) maybe 1/3 from sugary drinks and 1/6 from deserts/treats but around 50% is just mixed into our food (tomato sauce, yogurt, peanut butter, fast food etc).

This has turned into a pretty fruitful discussion (if anyone else has stuck around for it!). Understanding that some of the fructose gets dealt with by the intestine and we need to limit single sitting level doses to around 3g before it starts most (all?) of the negative health effects is good to know. (also dilute it with lots of other food). Of course further studies pending and they just gave us estimates based on what they saw in mice.

https://www.themesotheliomaprognosis.com/mesothelioma-prognosis/

So sad. Sugar is sometimes the only thing that makes me eat or drink something, indeed. I mean, I know how harmful it is, but what would be life without sugar?
I'll share just an isolated opinion, cause I actually like your post and appreciate all the information in it... In my case, I'm already living a life which is ruled by scarcity and lack of many things, because I'm Venezuelan and... Well, that's enough said. So I wouldn't remove sugar from my already depressing diet unless it were necessary :(

I am fascinated by reading your post, surprise, amazement, wonderful, beautiful Good luck for me to see such a post. I want to stay with you at steemit.😃

Want to see more of this post. It's completely new. And made with a lot of intelligence. It includes many intelligence Which is not a common man. There is something in it that is really unimaginable. I learned a lot about this post.😇

People got new ideas at the intelligence of the intellect. There is nothing that man can do. I understand what I saw in this post. Your post really impressed me. I'm happy to be with you If you want. I believe you can give me a lot. New intelligence, something new, new ideas I would like to create such posts. I want you to vote. Nothing else.

I would be very fortunate. Please vote for me.🙂

If possible please follow me @akramsteemit04

I am fascinated by reading your post, surprise, amazement, wonderful, beautiful Good luck for me to see such a post. I want to stay with you at steemit. Want to see more of this post. It's completely new. And made with a lot of intelligence. It includes many intelligence Which is not a common man. There is something in it that is really unimaginable. I learned a lot about this post. got new ideas at the intelligence of the intellect. There is nothing that man can do. I understand what I saw in this post. Your post really impressed me. I'm happy to be with you If you want. I believe you can give me a lot. New intelligence, something new, new ideas I would like to create such posts. I want you to vote. Nothing else.I would be very fortunate. Please vote for me.If possible please follow me @akramsteemit04

Sugar is commonly used in the recipes for sweeteners, and these sweet dishes are very tasted and eaten,
but enjoy this taste - but we are forgetting that these sweetness of sugar gradually helps us Slow poison is slowing down in the body .
Whose bitterness will face some time later in the form of diseases because you must also have heard that Chinese is a white poison.
In this case, it is necessary to know that what is the reason that the sugar filled with sweetness is called white poison
so that we can also prevent anyone from playing with their health.
So let's know today that this white truth of sugar -

1) The digestive system gets Diminished - The excessive amount of sugar begins to form acid in the body which causes the gas to become in the stomach. 500 calories is spent to digest sugar .
That is, the body has to work very hard and if the sugar is not eaten after the physical work, then the harmful chemical reaction starts in the body which slow down the digestion speed.

2) Obesity and diabetes - There is a lack of nutrients in the sugar and the amount of calories is very high, which causes obesity problems in people who eat more sugar.
Which brings with it a lot of diseases, including diabetes, which is a disease caused by the amount of insulin in the body being unbalanced.

3) Aging comes quickly - Acidity in the blood increases with excessive sugar, which leads to harmful effects on the skin, such as wrinkles before the skin starts prematurely and the signs of old age on the skin begin to appear clearly.

4) Increase in cardiovascular diseases - Excessive use of sugar reduces good cholesterol and enhances bad cholesterol and triglycerides, thereby increasing the chances of having high BP and cardiovascular disease.

5) Damage to teeth - Excessive intake of sugar removes the top cover of teeth. Sugar does not contain any nutrients and sugar causes bad bacteria to grow easily in the mouth, which damage the teeth.

6)Harmful to the bones - The calcium required for digestion of sugar is taken from bones and teeth, resulting in the balance of phosphorus and calcium in the bones and the bones become weak, causing osteoporosis such as bone disease.

7) Uncomfortable change in nature - By consuming more sugar, a person starts to feel moody and feels stress. Such people have mood swings and they start feeling tired of being happy anywhere.

A spoonful of sugar contains about 50 calories and taking more sugar than the body's necessity means giving an open invitation to diseases. In such a situation, limit the quantity of sugar so that it will keep the energy of giving energy to the body, not the white poison and attacking the body.

Very good post for Diabetes patients. No doubt it is silent killer

Good comment to reafirm what I have been learning for years.

You got my post nice thank you all guys

Posted using Partiko Android

Great info! thanks

Of course sugar is bad .. most of it is artificial. Now natural sugar coming from fruits is just fine!

sugar is worse than meth

Appreciative. I am a regular visitor of your website. Thanks for informative and tremendous work. Thanks for sharing and keep publishing good articles.

Sugar is so bad for you. It is horrible what it does to your body.

Like alcohol, tobacco and oil, sugar is a commodity that kills us all, but because it provide profit to it's manufacturers and special interests, they are a protected class in society. Capitalism demands profits over safety and health.

Excelente información. Soy nuevo y estoy descubriendo las mejores etiquetas. Por algo se le ha llamado la "peste blanca" GRACIAS

While I was doing a keto diet this time last year it was amazing to see just how many foods we eat in the US that contains sugar. Since sugar is addictive and or your brain/body craves it this would explain why food and beverage companies put it in their products. The food and beverage companies know that sugar is a problem in the US considering that 80%+ Americans are overweight or obese. Going full keto is rough, but you will drop weight as your body reaches ketosis. Sugar is one of the main reasons people have trouble losing weight. As long as the body can run on sugar it will never burn the fat you're trying to get rid of.

Sugar is not at all healthy, I use honey and gudh instead of it. that's healthy and more sweet than sugar.

As always in life: it's about balance. I've never been a huge fan of food trends. Nowadays one even needs to apologize if eating a steak.

Sugar doesn't kill anybody if applied in the right dosis. Of course drinking coke instead of water may kill you over time, but that's no news. During the past 37 years of my life I haven't ever gone on any type of diet, and the annual cross check at the hospital always shows me best values.

If we go ahead with these food trends there will be a point in time when we're actually not allowed to eat anything at all.

great info dude.. thank you!

Cant agree more!

U r right.... Nice post

Posted using Partiko Android

Congratulations @infocentral!
Your post was mentioned in the Steemit Hit Parade in the following category:

• Pending payout - Ranked 7 with $ 186,19

I've stopped using granulated white sugar and only use cane sugar and even at that I really try to limit my consumption of it. Also try to use honey and eat fruit. Also try use honey. But everything within limits.
As the Ancient Greeks used to say everything in moderation.

I started the carnivore diet about a month ago and feel way better. I think it's mostly because cutting sugar out of my diet. Sugar makes you completely impulsive.

I started the carnivore diet about a month ago. I feel light years better both mentally and physically. I think a large part of it has to do with cutting sugar out.

how are you making so much money for your post? =) cool! and thanks for sharing! voted!

Facts about American Food!

https://steemit.com/food/@kuklamasha/facts-about-american-food

Yea I agree 100% my friend, sugar is very unhealthy and we do not need it in our daily diets.

ummm but its sooooo good :( nutellaaaaaaa, oreo´s... so bad but so gooooood :(

Definitely all about balance and certainly not all ways of diet have an equal effect on all people. I think the important thing is that as a human collective we seen to be learning how much sugar is actually in the food/drink we consume and to be more mindful of that consumption.

https://www.themesotheliomaprognosis.com/mesothelioma-prognosis/

because sugar is a carbohydrate that is naturally present in a number of foods such as milk, fruits and honey. For one particular condition, sugar is so needed in the daily diet as energy that is useful to keep the muscles and brain functioning properly.

However, now there are countless more how many foods and drinks are given additional sugar with a considerable amount. As a result, the level of blood sugar in the body also increases.

Even experts have blamed sugar as the cause of obesity and the obesity epidemic in the world. And also includes risk factors for type two diabetes, heart disease, and Alzheimer's.

Usually, when we talk about sugar, we will refer to table sugar derived from sugar cane. Table sugar is also known as sucrose, a combination of 50 percent glucose and 50 percent fructose. Glucose and fructose are needed because they will be processed differently in the body. But processing both have serious consequences for health.

naturally fructose is found in foods such as fruits, vegetables, and nuts, but that does not mean to your health. Glucose is processed in the intestine during digestion and is used by all cells in the body.

High-fructose-rich foods have been linked to a number of chronic health conditions, such as slow metabolism, high cholesterol, heart disease, liver cirrhosis, hypertension, obesity, and gout.

Fructose also causes leptin resistance, which is a hormone that determines satiety.

The American Heart Association and WHO recommend that additional daily sugar intake should be nine teaspoons (38 grams) for men and six teaspoons (25 grams) for women

i use three spoon sugar at tea.

Most people in India prefer jiggery after meals. 
But do you know that many secrets of health are hidden along with taste? Yes, jaggery removes diseases related to your stomach. This strengthens the digestive tract and also enhances the skin. Let's know what else jaggery is beneficial for you.

Sodium and potassium are found in jar. It is helpful in controlling the amount of acid in the body, which also keeps blood pressure in control.
Jigs contain antioxidants and minerals which strengthen our immune system. Its use provides relief from diseases such as colds and colds.

It brings out harmful toxins from our blood and improves the blood flow in the body. It keeps our liver healthy.
Iron Source-
Junk contains plenty of iron. This is very beneficial for people with anemia.

Posted using Partiko Android

As they have replaced healthy fats with toxic sugar in many processed foods, society's health will continue to decline unless these evil corporations are held accountable for poisoning our food supply.