Refined sugar

[fred]

Refined food, whether table salt, white sugar, etc. are more harmful by what they don't contain rather than by what they contain. Would you prefer to eat a heavily processed refined food that is lacking nutrients rather than a less processed whole food ?

[overkees]

That's exactly how I see it. Everything in nature comes with a package and otherwise your body needs to draw things from the body to utilize these empty isolated substances. This process of drawing things from the body is what harms the system. You need to prevent this mechanism at all costs if you ask me.

Same story as with the acid-alkaline theory. Certainly if you also eat a lot of cooked animal foods in ratio with plant foods. Your body always needs to buffer. That's not a good thing. It is much better to eat foods that don't ask put a burden on the sytem and only help the system. This is pure logic. But RRM is way too scientific in my opinion. He fails to see things as a whole system. He oversimplifies things, doesn't look at other systems (the breathing system for example) and how they affect the metabolism. Always isolating everything and only looking at ways to ingest as less harmfull substances through diet. Using his own definitions of what is harmful and never looking beyond those.

I, contrary to RRM, have other definitions about health, see it in relation with well being, see it in relation with energy, see it as something that comes in conjunction with spiriutually, psychologically and vitality and can't be isolated from these concepts. In short: I see it as something that the diet is only a small part of.

See it as a painting, choosing only basic colors you will get a very abstract picture of the truth. Choosing alot more colors and mixing things will result in much more realistic pictures. It is this what happens with the body too. The body will immediately recognize these realistic pictures, while the abstract pictures require interpreting. And in a lot of cases the interpreting will not even come close to the real meaning of the picture. The body needs to put its own things in it to utilize it.

It is so very simple and logic to me: the body is used to battle with alot of different kind of substances through evolution. It is however not used to eat things that have been isolated from their original package. This is very very new. The body needs alot more energy, enzymes, mechanisms to utilize these isolated things, which is more harmful than ingesting trace amounts of harmful substances.

Your body is a house, every now and then somebody (food) comes to your house. Some people have a key (unrefined and recognizable) and can walk in very easily. However, some people don't have a key and they are forced through the door (because you choose to eat refined stuff), breaking the whole door that needs to be repaired.
You need to constantly repair the door instead of only letting persons through that have the required key. And of course, some of these persons with a key can start to make a little mess (trace amounts of harmful substances) and be rude while they are in the house. But hey, the housecleaner comes again on mondays, so that coffee that fell on the ground is not a problem!

It is simply useless to have these discussions, fred. Your believes differ from the believes of RRM. (Why?? Because of your own experience!) If you want to have this discussion with RRM, you need to adapt your believes and start to isolate everything and look for the research of these isolated substances. Because that is the only thing RRM will look at. If it is not presented in that particular manner he will automatically not even hesitate to believe it. If there is no comparitive research done correctly, then it is way too dangerous to just jump to conclusions and better to be "safe" and focus on the things that have been researched.

[RRM]

Refined food, whether table salt, white sugar, etc. are more harmful by what they don't contain rather than by what they contain.

That depends.
If you already ingest all the nutrients that you need, additional nutrients are not beneficial.
Health is not just about ingesting all required nutrients, but also about ingesting as little harmful substances.

Brown sugar, for example, is white sugar with some of the molasse added back in.
That molasse contain all kind of impurities, including Maillard reaction products.
So that when you can chose between pure, refined sugar (100% sucrose) and brown sugar (containing Maillard products),
white sugar may be more healthy than brown sugar.
And if you are lacking vitamins or minerals, consuming brown sugar will not be of much help.
In that case, you need to adjust your diet.

Would you prefer to eat a heavily processed refined food that is lacking nutrients rather than a less processed whole food ?

Thats a different case.
Heavily processed foods will contain HCAs, acrylamide, styrene, PAHs or other harmful compounds.

[RRM]

Everything in nature comes with a package and otherwise your body needs to draw things from the body to utilize these empty isolated substances. This process of drawing things from the body is what harms the system. You need to prevent this mechanism at all costs if you ask me.

Okay, lets analyze this.
Yes, your body need minerals and vitamins to process carbs, protein fats and all other nutrients.
So that when you consume pure white sugar, you will need vitamin B1 (and other nutrients) to process that sugar.
This means that there is a negative balance for vitamin B1 (and other nutrients) regarding the consumption of white sugar.
All true.
But what if this is compensated by other foods?
Our vitamin B1 requirements are limited; its not that when your actual requirements are met,
more is better.
For example:
Say, you need about 2 mg of vitamin B1 daily, because you add a lot of sugar to your OJ.
Then drinking 3 L of orange juice daily (2.8 mg B1) will meet your B1 requirements,
and added sugar to meet your energy requirements.
Question: would your body be more healthy regarding your vitamin B1 status drinking 5L of OJ without sugar
instead of drinking 3L of OJ with sugar?
Remember, in both cases your B1 requirments are met.
In both cases, no vitamin B1 is drawn from the body.
In both cases, surplus B1 will be excreted.

It is much better to eat foods that don't ask put a burden on the sytem and only help the system.

What is helping the system?
whatever food you eat is burdening the system, in the sense that whatever you eat,
its digestion will require nutrients.
whatever food you eat will also 'help' the body by contributing nutrients.
In the case of white sugar, this is sucrose (glucose + fructose).
You may see this is a non-contribution, but its extremely essential.
Actually, if you eat Wai foods only, you may lack energy before lacking any other nutrient.
So, yes, white sugar is a great contributor.
Only if you are lacking other nutrients, you will have to eat other foods first.
Once all nutrient requirements are met, its perfectly allright to take care of your energy requirements too.
White sugar is a great tool for that.
Brown sugar would contribute only trace amounts of other nutrients,
and more importantly; impurities such as Maillard products.

doesn't look at other systems (the breathing system for example) and how they affect the metabolism.

Im all for breathing properly.

Using his own definitions of what is harmful and never looking beyond those.

My own definitions?
I dont have my own definitions.
I learn from what science gives me.

In short: I see it as something that the diet is only a small part of.

I totally agree.
But that doesnt mean we should be less scientific about nutrition.
It doesnt mean we should be less rational about things we can analyze.

See it as a painting, choosing only basic colors you will get a very abstract picture of the truth.

Are you saying that im using too little colors in my paintings?
Actually, if you recall a discussion about (non-)climacteric fruits, its sometimes me who is more open to using more colors than others.
Officially, fruits are either climacteric or not.
I said that 'there probably are more shades of grey' to this.
That nature is often more complex than perceived.
And after research that appeared to be true; the more colourful painting that i had made,
appeared to be closer to the truth than the more black-and-white image suggested.

It is so very simple and logic to me: the body is used to battle with alot of different kind of substances through evolution. It is however not used to eat things that have been isolated from their original package.

that may be an oversimplification (too little colours used).
It appears that the body is very capable in distracting energy from sugar or oil.

The body needs alot more energy, enzymes, mechanisms to utilize these isolated things, which is more harmful than ingesting trace amounts of harmful substances.

If your body needs more energy, you need to give it that (sugar!!)
If it needs more enzymes, it will make them from proteins (need more protein?)
or are you suggesting we need to use dietary enzymes absorbed into our blood?

Your body is a house, every now and then somebody (food) comes to your house. Some people have a key (unrefined and recognizable) and can walk in very easily. However, some people don't have a key and they are forced through the door (because you choose to eat refined stuff), breaking the whole door that needs to be repaired.

So, how exactly does oil or sugar break the door?
How does sugar or oil, as opposed to say oranges, cause damage?
Remember, the processing of all foods causes oxidative stress.

Using experience and sense and looking beyond the (mis)belief that diet is the only way to achieve a healthy life

Overkees, you always accuse me of this, but i have never expressed such a belief,
and i have never believed so.
where did you get this notion?
And why is is so hard for you to perceive all the other colours that comprise the RRM painting?

[fred]

RRM, I appreciate your rigorous approach but I can't follow you on this one. We will simply never know the exact components of any food on the planet, nor the exact list of nutrients (and antinutrients) we need (we can tolerate) at a specific moment. Only by ingesting real whole food according to our instinct can we ensure correct nourishment of the body.

As for brown vs white sugar, you have to look at the effect of these sugars on your system. White sugar lacks all micronutrients to be properly assimilated and to nourish the body. It shocks the body because of its high glycemic index and purity. Brown sugar, on the other hand, is more complete than white sugar but contains Maillard products. So I really have no idea which one is less worst. All I know is that both are not healthy food, and that white sugar is known for decades to be highly toxic.

[RRM]

We will simply never know the exact components of any food on the planet, nor the exact list of nutrients (and antinutrients) we need (we can tolerate) at a specific moment.

But we get closer.
We know a lot more than we used to.
And because of that, we can make better informed decisions.

Only by ingesting real whole food according to our instinct can we ensure correct nourishment of the body.

If only we could distinguish our instinct from all other 'impulses'.
Unfortunately, we cannot.
So many people have made bad decisions made on what they presumed their 'instinct'.
There are too many things that influence you, and its impossible to tell what exactly is your instinct, and what is not.

As for brown vs white sugar, you have to look at the effect of these sugars on your system. White sugar lacks all micronutrients to be properly assimilated and to nourish the body.

Here, assimilation is the uptake and utilization of sucrose.
Are you seriously suggesting that our body cannot properly utilize the sucrose from white sugar???

It shocks the body because of its high glycemic index and purity.

We dont eat pure sugar.
We add sugar to something, eg orange juice. Then it is no longer pure sugar.
After that, this OJ with sugar (as an example) is consumed,
which means that it will be further dilluted, because its not the only thing your stomach and intestines contain.
To what extend it triggers your insulin system depends on the total volume of sugars and protein absorbed into your blood
at the same time, once your blood sugar level has been replenished.

So, its not the sugar that 'shocks' your body,
but the total load (at the same time) of insulin-triggering compounds.
And this highly depends on the size of the meal,
rather than the purity of an added ingredient.
It even highly depends on how fast you eat.
Wiki: "Many of the differences between low and high glycemic foods would disappear if a meal was eaten slowly[49][50]"

On this diet, we dont take in big meals.
And with OJ, we take sips.
A few years ago there was a diabetic-1 person on this diet.
And while on this diet (with lots of simple sugars), he needed 40% less supplementary insulin,
compared to a low-sugar normal diet with bigger meals.

white sugar is known for decades to be highly toxic.

What?!?
How exactly is sugar highly toxic?

[fred]

What?!?
How exactly is sugar highly toxic?

White sugar is detrimental to health, that's what I wanted to say but impossible to edit my post. Why don't you allow editing like on all forums ?

[RRM]

How exactly is sugar highly toxic?

White sugar is detrimental to health

How exactly is white sugar detrimental to health?
White sugar is nothing but sucrose (glucose + fructose), nutrients.
Yes, if your diet is too low in vitamin B1 (or any other nutrient involved in sugar metabolism),
consuming sugar will aggravate B1 depletion. But if your diet contains sufficient B1 (eg from OJ),
there is nothing wrong with consuming white sugar that totally lacks B1.

White sugar lacks all micronutrients to be properly assimilated and to nourish the body.

Are you still claiming that humans cannot utilize ('assimilate') this sugar for energy?
If so, that would be good news for people who drink lots of coco cola etc,
because it would mean that you cannot gain weight from drinking too much cola!

[fred]

The body cannot correctly assimilate white sugar because it causes many illness like diabete on the long run.
Becoming fat after drinking lots of coca cola precisely proves that white sugar is toxic : it makes you fat!

[RRM]

The body cannot correctly assimilate white sugar because it causes many illness like diabete on the long run.
Becoming fat after drinking lots of coca cola precisely proves that white sugar is toxic : it makes you fat!

Assimilation in biology:
The first is the process of absorbing vitamins, minerals, and other chemicals from food within the gastrointestinal tract. In humans this is done with a chemical breakdown (enzymes and acids) and physical breakdown (oral mastication and stomach churning.) The second process of bio assimilation is the chemical alteration of substances in the bloodstream by the liver or cellular secretions.

So, sugar (sucrose) is assimilated if your body can absorb and subsequently use it for energy (ATP) or store it as glycerol (in adipose fat).
Please tell me: How can white sugar make you fat if you cannot assimilate it?

[fred]

Sure, white sugar is taken up by the cells for energy or storage. So we can say that it is technically assimilated. But at a high cost!
For me, a food is CORRECTLY assimilated when the body is nourished by it without taping in its stocks. The food does not exhaust the body, it participates in its balanced. Big difference!

[fred]

And a real food is not addictive, it cannot make you fat...

[RRM]

Sure, white sugar is taken up by the cells for energy or storage. So we can say that it is technically assimilated. But at a high cost!
For me, a food is CORRECTLY assimilated when the body is nourished by it without taping in its stocks.
The food does not exhaust the body, it participates in its balanced. Big difference!

Sugar is sucrose, which is glucose + fructose.
These are nutrients.
So, white sugar nourishes the body with glucose and fructose, 'taping in on the stocks of vitamin B1' (and others).
In your view, is oil not correctly assimilated either?
Oils contain fats, which are also nutrients, and they also contain vitamin E, K and a tiny bit of minerals.
So, technically, (like sugar) oil supplies nutrients, but also 'tapes in on B vitamins' and also 'tapes in on other nutrients',
like vitamin C, D, A etc etc

And what about meat; its very low in vitamin C...
Does meat 'tape in on vitamin C'?
Or about fruits, which lack B12, and therefore 'tape in on vitamin B12' ?
Are all these foods therefore not correctly assimilated?

One food can never supply all nutrients.
Each food supplies specific nutrients in abundance, and lacks others.
That is why we eat different foods, as they are complementary.

To what extend foods are assimilated does not depend on their nutrient-balance,
but on to what extend they can be digested properly,
how much anti-nutrients they contain, and if they dont contain too much bacteria or parasites,
or decay products, which might evoke rejection (vomitting, diarrhea).
As long as your diet supplies you with all required nutrients,
it does not matter what food contributes what nutrient,
and whether individual foods lack specific nutrients.

[fred]

I understand your point of view.

Oil is indeed also a processed food, but it is not highly refined like white sugar, so that the part that has been removed is not the most nourishing (mainly fibres like all fruit juices). So we can guess that raw oil does not weaken the body system. If my digestive system could handle the fibres, I would certainly eat only whole food.

I don't see the point for meat and fruits. Meat does not require vitamin C to be correctly assimilated, and fruits does not need vitamin B12, right ? So I don't see why they would rob these nutrients?

[RRM]

I don't see the point for meat and fruits. Meat does not require vitamin C to be correctly assimilated, and fruits does not need vitamin B12, right ? So I don't see why they would rob these nutrients?

Are you talking about assimilation again?
We already had figured out that sugar is biologically assimilated.
You acknowleged that...
So, sugar does not need to contain B vitamins to be biologically assimilated.
Without containing any B vitamins at all, sugar will anyway be digested by sucrase, absorbed into the blood, and subsequently converted (into glycogen, glycerol, ATP etc). This constitutes proper biological assimilation.
Do we agree on that?