How bad is boiled candy? I'm thinking of munching on boiled candy when I am desperate: run out of juice, energy low, on the road ... relative to say a sandwich or a similar snack, boiled lollies can't be too bad? No protein so no cooked protein. I find I am sensitive to cooked protein and additives like MSG. So eating instant noodles in a cup from a 7-11 store wouldn't work for me. I could go for lollies - it would give me an energy boost .. I am talking about a suituation when planning has gone awry and have run out of healthy munch food and am forced to buy something from a convenience store because of hunger and low energy. I am not particularly fond of chocolates so I wouldn't be indulging in that but am thinking along the lines of hard boiled candy like peppermints .... although I have been known to eat a whole bag of them at one sitting. But I don't think from memory they stimulated me to go on a cooked food binge.
I know boiled candy of course is not part of Wai's diet; am trying to get it evaluated as munch food. What harmful substances are in it and how would it stimulate appetite? I don't suffer from acne but from overweight.
I have never considered hard boiled candy as munch food and have usually snacked on crisps, cup noodles, a small sandwich when I'm starving and my energy level is low and I have not prepared any juice or similar snack to take with me when I am on the road. I do long trips daily - 4 hours on the road traveling so am thinking of portable snacks I can take with me when I feel low in energy.
Boiled candy
-
spring
- Posts: 128
- https://cutt.ly/meble-kuchenne-wroclaw
- Joined: Sat 13 Aug 2005 00:01
Makes sense. I'll find candy that has the least amount of additives. Experiment a little. I bought a bag of hard boiled candy and ate one or two when I had been on long train trips or in between meals at work when I've run out of food. They were the plain kind made from sugar, a little flavoring: lime, lemon, orange. I found I didn't oversnack on them and even though I could suck on them all day, one after the other, if I let myself go and was being lazy, I could control myself with a little bit of discipline - just being conscious of whether I really desired the candy or was just eating it out of habit or boredom. When I have access to proper food like fruit, I have no desire to eat candy. I guess it's like eating sachets of sugar but with a few undesirable chemicals mixed in. The brand I tried didn't appear to have too many addictive chemicals. It's been three days and a bag of candy has lasted me and I have some candy left, probably enough for 1-2 more days. I find an advantage with them is that they're convenient to store and I can suck on them unobtrusively: I am eating without looking like I am eating. I can keep them in the drawer of my desk at work so I don't have to panic if I run out of food. They're also not messy; just remove the wrapper: no chances of spillage or having to wash up afterwards and I can carry and easily store them in my purse and just forget about them until I need them. I really did long to eat a cooked lunch that was ordered by the others, but I prevented myself from doing that and just stuck to my fruit and sucked on candy when I hadn't eaten anything for 2 hours. I ate one piece of candy on the long train trip home. Usually I'm ravenous on these train trips and will buy a snack at some point in the trip - something greasy and cooked and heavy or else laden with MSG and if I do so, say eat something like a hotdog - then that will mean I will be tempted for the rest of the day to eat more cooked food as the addictive chemicals have been set off. This way, just by snacking on hard boiled sugar candy, I was able to make the trip home without thinking about cooked food too much - and when at home, was able to eat good food - raw fish and raw veggies - without feeling like I was dying to eat. IOW the candy deal seems to help me with managing my energy levels. I realize the fasting and then overeating is not a good pattern; I have to consume just enough energy not to feel hungry and avoid allowing my energy levels to drop too low for too long. Dried fruit has been hard on my teeth and I don't like dried fruit all that much. I'll keep experimenting with this.
I don't really crave candy which is funny as I used to really be mad about candy as a kid. The only reason I bought them this time was to serve as munch food or else I wouldn't think of buying candy. I would normally buy candy once in a blue moon in the past.
I found that they served the job of caffeine drinks. Normally I drink caffeine every three four hours - out of boredom or a bit of an energy boost. But coffee and tea has caffeine which is bad for the system in many ways as well as containing artificial creamer wrt coffee (I use the instant kind of coffee from a sachet). I did drink 2 cups of caffeine today but the candy prevented me from drinking more which is a good thing - the adrenaline overshoot is really bad for me.
I don't really crave candy which is funny as I used to really be mad about candy as a kid. The only reason I bought them this time was to serve as munch food or else I wouldn't think of buying candy. I would normally buy candy once in a blue moon in the past.
I found that they served the job of caffeine drinks. Normally I drink caffeine every three four hours - out of boredom or a bit of an energy boost. But coffee and tea has caffeine which is bad for the system in many ways as well as containing artificial creamer wrt coffee (I use the instant kind of coffee from a sachet). I did drink 2 cups of caffeine today but the candy prevented me from drinking more which is a good thing - the adrenaline overshoot is really bad for me.
Artificial dyes
I like to eat sugar candy (pastilles, etc.) very much myself but the artificial coloring in some seems to have various effects.
Some say (anecdotally, not completely scientifically) that some dyes like the American FDA-approved Red #40 may cause insomnia in some.
Special diets like the Feingold diet restrict many of these colorings and flavorings for this reason.
There are now brands that are colored more 'naturally' with annatto dye, etc. But pure sugar candy is a pleasure and save for ingredients I avoid, I do enjoy buying and eating it. I do not add sugar-- just oil-- to juice and always have candy in my pockets every day.
Some say (anecdotally, not completely scientifically) that some dyes like the American FDA-approved Red #40 may cause insomnia in some.
Special diets like the Feingold diet restrict many of these colorings and flavorings for this reason.
There are now brands that are colored more 'naturally' with annatto dye, etc. But pure sugar candy is a pleasure and save for ingredients I avoid, I do enjoy buying and eating it. I do not add sugar-- just oil-- to juice and always have candy in my pockets every day.
Sugar candy
I often am in situations where I cannot sip off a juice bottle, and I take compressed dextrose candy instead. They are for the most part grape sugar (=dextrose, a monosaccharide-- same as glucose) with a small amount of fat added along with citric acid.
I can't buy the compressible dextrose myself-- which is a candymaker's supply for making this type of candy-- but I would if I could. It is very easy when you are learning to eat for energy needs with this diet to monitor energy intake with a simple sugar like this, in easily metered out units like small round tablet candies.
A lot of these candies are dextrin, not dextrose, so I look carefully when I shop-- but this type of candy taught me as much or more about evenly-spaced energy intake as a bottle of juice with oil and sugar did.
I can't buy the compressible dextrose myself-- which is a candymaker's supply for making this type of candy-- but I would if I could. It is very easy when you are learning to eat for energy needs with this diet to monitor energy intake with a simple sugar like this, in easily metered out units like small round tablet candies.
A lot of these candies are dextrin, not dextrose, so I look carefully when I shop-- but this type of candy taught me as much or more about evenly-spaced energy intake as a bottle of juice with oil and sugar did.
And doesn't have food colorings and artificial flavors besides.
It's funny - on other so-called health sites, they talk about sucrose, table sugar or sugar used in manufacturing as a sweetener, as the worst food you can eat whereas here we are debating the merits of eating sugar as a filler-in when low in energy.
I've never bought the idea that 'white' sugar is one of the worst foods you can eat, along with white flour which is often included as a combo of bad foods.
And this emphasis on 'white' as in "white sugar" is also ridiculous and ignorant. Refined sugar is not that different from its unrefined state, molasses or its less-refined state, brown or raw sugar in terms of calories and 'nutritional value' or lack thereof.
I find the prejudice against sugar silly and overboard and while I recognize it's not the best food to eat, it's not that bad either. In fact most of what we eat, even the so-called health foods, is composed of 'sugars', fructose or something with a similar composition.
Nobody would say an apple is bad for you but some of the same people who promote apple-eating scream loudly against sugar and fructose even though apples contain fructose and which is I think the main sugar in apples.
People in general are confused about the terms 'sugar' and 'sugars'. Both are similar and we can't live without sugars - carbohydrates. They don't understand that complex carbs like starches in plant food and fruit are really a string of simple sugars and after digestion complex carbs end up being simple sugars including glucose.
In fact, pure sugar being unadulterated with opioids and betacarbolines even in the refined state, is pretty harmless in terms of causing addictions when consumed by itself. It is just energy food: consume it when you need energy levels are low but consuming it when you don't need the energy will make you fat.
Correct me if I am wrong about this but pure sugar has very little or no addictive substances added to it as far as I know.
Of course candy is different and there could be little or a lot of addictive substances depending on what's added to the sugar.
It's funny - on other so-called health sites, they talk about sucrose, table sugar or sugar used in manufacturing as a sweetener, as the worst food you can eat whereas here we are debating the merits of eating sugar as a filler-in when low in energy.
I've never bought the idea that 'white' sugar is one of the worst foods you can eat, along with white flour which is often included as a combo of bad foods.
And this emphasis on 'white' as in "white sugar" is also ridiculous and ignorant. Refined sugar is not that different from its unrefined state, molasses or its less-refined state, brown or raw sugar in terms of calories and 'nutritional value' or lack thereof.
I find the prejudice against sugar silly and overboard and while I recognize it's not the best food to eat, it's not that bad either. In fact most of what we eat, even the so-called health foods, is composed of 'sugars', fructose or something with a similar composition.
Nobody would say an apple is bad for you but some of the same people who promote apple-eating scream loudly against sugar and fructose even though apples contain fructose and which is I think the main sugar in apples.
People in general are confused about the terms 'sugar' and 'sugars'. Both are similar and we can't live without sugars - carbohydrates. They don't understand that complex carbs like starches in plant food and fruit are really a string of simple sugars and after digestion complex carbs end up being simple sugars including glucose.
In fact, pure sugar being unadulterated with opioids and betacarbolines even in the refined state, is pretty harmless in terms of causing addictions when consumed by itself. It is just energy food: consume it when you need energy levels are low but consuming it when you don't need the energy will make you fat.
Correct me if I am wrong about this but pure sugar has very little or no addictive substances added to it as far as I know.
Of course candy is different and there could be little or a lot of addictive substances depending on what's added to the sugar.
sugar
don't be ridiculous
we're all addicted to sugar here
we're all addicted to sugar here
While searching the internet, I came across these forums (not this topic in particular), and read several threads. The ideas about health that you guys talk about here, and Wai's ideas on the main site are extremely interesting, so I just had to make an account. Maybe I'll stay, maybe not; for now, though, I'll sit back and read a little more, and maybe contribute a little.
Needless to say, this is the first health concerned community I've come across that condones the addition of sucrose to the diet, and for that I applaud you.
However, I feel that I should defend the anti-sugar movement for its intentions. Looking past the exaggeration that has grown up over the years creating a hysteria around the consumption of sugar, the movement still has a very credible basis. It is not so much the actual consumption of sugar that is the problem. Rather, the cause for concern is the WAY in which people consume it.
Refined white sugar, as we know, is pure, nutritionless energy. This is not harmful until people begin to replace foods containing nutrients (ie. fruits) with processed foods containing sugar that also have a low nutrient density. This becomes a big problem for the individual, and with such foods as the social norm, quite a segment of the population suffers from malnutrition.
Compounding this, foods containing sucrose generally are composed of other ingredients that are detrimental to health. Products that precisely embody this include most "boxed" cookie and snack products that are made up of bleached wheat flour, sugar, and cheap vegetable oil (usually hydrogenated) with various ingredients to improve consistancy, enhance flavor, or prolong shelf life. In such products, the addition of sugar is dangerous because it actively increases the intensity of the problems that the product causes.
In particular, the blood sugar spike that the sugar (and wheat) in these foods causes is the main subject that attracts criticism to sugar. This spike creates numerous problems, but most can be lumped into the anabolic state which the body assumes. Initiated by the spike, the body releases several hormones to begin the metabolic processes involed in the conversion of sugar (now primarily glucose, although some sucrose still remains) to energy or storage. The highly anabolic hormone insulin, as well as insulin-like growth factor 1, released to transport blood glucose across cell membranes, initiate cell processes increasing the rate of mitosis and cell turnover, speeding up the rate at which cells divide, and, consequently, die off. I believe Wai discusses the repercussions of this process on the main site.
Obviously, because of the blood sugar spike, the body increases the rate at which energy is burned, producing by-products of metabolism, and increasing oxidative stress. This is a normal and essential process, but individuals who are malnourished do not have the necessary nutrients to completely prevent damage from normal daily energy production. This damage includes damage to cellular DNA by highly reactive oxygen (and other compounds, such as nitrogen, to a lesser extent) molecules produced during the conversion of fat or sugar to energy (ever heard the term, "free radicals?").
Increased rate of mitosis or cellular division combined with damage to DNA creates the classic, textbook pretense to one of the most dreaded diseases the developed world faces: cancer. Of course, although certainly not out of the realm of possibility, this is quite a bit to attribute to one food. Cancer is a very complicated "disease" (quotes intentional), and there are many more facets that need to be taken into account before anything is blamed. I am not saying that sugar causes cancer, but it has the possibility of becoming a contributor, depending on the diet and lifestyle of the individual.
Because cancer is a very provoking and controversial topic, I am going to avoid it and return to the discussion about the blood sugar spike after consuming a processed (and oftentimes natural) product containing sucrose and the resulting insulin released. If sugar is consumed properly, and a large spike in blood sugar does not result, then insulin is released normally and gradually for a specific period of time before negative feedback mechanisms reduce output. However, during a blood sugar spike, a great amount of insulin is released to normalize blood sugar levels, flooding the bloodstream and bodily tissue with insulin to rapidly clear sugar from the bloodstream. This has two more nasty consequences: a) the affected cells lose sensitivity to insulin over time, with repeated spikes in blood sugar, which can progress to another "disease" that afflicts developed countries: diabetes; b) the vast amount of sugar that is transported into the cells by insulin is not burned all at once, so the body begins to store the sugar, chaining glucose into glycogen, and then later into fatty glycerol stored in adipose tissue. This leads to yet another "disease" developed societies are familiar with: obesity. Although both of these conditions are more closely tied to sugar than cancer may be, it is still impossible to pin them to sugar alone, especially in the case of obesity. I am still merely demonstrating why there is obsession in the health community with sucrose.
Back to the blood sugar spike, sugar presents another possible problem for those consuming processed foods (I know you guys are beyond that, right? RIGHT?). I'm sure most of the contributors to this forum know that the gastrointestinal tract is inhabited by many species of bacteria. Fewer people know that it is also home to many species of yeast and mold. A few species of yeast are beneficial, but the majority are harmful. In a healthy individual, intestinal flora keeps the growth of harmful yeasts, mold, and bacteria at bay.
However, in a person who consumes processed foods, this balance is easily reversed because beneficial flora did not evolve with the human body to metabolize the poor diet that many people consume today. The favorite food of those harmful species? Sugar. It is also known that blood is not completely sterile. Blood is populated by small amounts of beneficial species of bacteria, as well as pathogenic species that make us sick. The human immunes system constantly removes all species from the blood as it can, but small amounts of each remain. Blood examined after blood sugar is spiked, however, shows a large increase in mold density (and it is safe to assume this correlation is greater in unhealthy individuals who consume processed foods than those who endulge in a primarily fruit based diet). Molds produce by-products of their metabolism known as mycotoxins which are extremely harmful to tissue at the cellular level. One of the most studied and most dangerous is the mycotoxin aflotoxin, which has numerous negative effects, but one of the most intimidating is its ability to induce a cell to become cancerous when combined with protein, most notably cooked animal protein (Wai knows what she's talking about when she advises a reduction in protein-- I may discuss this more later). Another of the consequences of mold growth due to a blood sugar spike is the stress the immune system undergoes to remove the organisims from the bloodstream. After some time (years) of repeated blood sugar spikes due to consumption of processed foods containing sugar, the immune system certainly becomes weakened fighting off pathogens that are provided with the food they need to grow by the human body itself. A weakened immune system is a prerequisite to an immense host of diseases, including cancer. Cancerous cells are produced every hour of the day, even in the most healthy individuals. The process is natural and unavoidable. However, it is the immune system's job to locate and destroy these cells, which it does quite sucessfully under normal conditions. It is only after the immune system is weakened after many years that....
I think you see where I'm going with that. I will stop here because I'm now ranting.
One more topic I'd like to cover about sugar, and this one may directly affect you unlike the previous chunks of this thread:
Sucrose is a special molecule. Like mentioned in this thread, sucrose is the combination of glucose and fructose into one disaccharide. The body cannot use sucrose for energy unless the glucose and fructose are seperated. In order to make sucrose availible for metabolism, the body must produce the hydrolytic enzyme invertase. Invertase breaks sucrose into its glucose and fructose components. However, the enzymatic system of the body is delicate, and because very little of any enzyme is ever needed, even during digestion, surplus enzymes are rarely produced. With a healthy diet composed of fruit, the body produces just enough invertase too thoroughly digest the sucrose found in fruits (on average, 11-16% of the sugar content in fruits is sucrose. There are exceptions: over 60% of the sugar in pineapples is sucrose). However in a diet higher in sucrose, such as our example processed food diet, the enzymatic system of the body is stressed to produce more invertase, and the pancreas must draw on other digestive enzymes and systemic enzymes (enzymes that regulate bodily processes) to make up the deficit. Over time, if a person maintains high sucrose consumption, the ability of the body to produce invertase is exhausted, and much of the sugar remains undigested. Because of this, unbroken molecules can retain water while not being used (similar to protein and water retention described by Wai), and they feed yeasts (both beneficial and harmful) in the gastrointestinal tract, but most species of bacteria cannot metabolize sucrose. A digestive sensitivity towards sucrose may also develop, which may escalate into allergic responses. The draw on other bodily enzymes by the pancreas to produce invertase may also interfere with essential processes. These latter resulsts occur
only after having consumed excessive sucrose for many years--in most individuals. There are also many who will never have a problem with sucrose, just as there are many who will not have (much of) a problem with protein.
Anyway, in conclusion:
The purpose of this post was not to attack your use of sugar. I believe sucrose is perfectly fine if consumed properly. Like I wrote at the beginning, it is not sugar that is dangerous, it is the WAY in which it is consumed. The Sample Diet described by the main site eliminates most of consequences of consuming sugar by preventing a spike in blood sugar. One should also try to exercise the same care when eating fruits high in sugars (including those sugars other than sucrose) as a blood sugar spike is still not something a healthy individual with an excellent diet would desire. The sample diet offers the salad, complete with high quality fats, to prevent such a spike. Comparatively, a dip in blood sugar can be just as detrimental as a spike, and it is important to maintain moderate blood sugar levels throughout the day by consuming fruit at regular intervals (or hard candy as spring proposed-- which is a good solution if you do find that it prevents you from eating cooked food and that it maintains your energy, although may I suggest dried fruits such as rasins? In many cases they contain more sugar (although not sucrose) than hard candy...).
Sorry, I have really said far too much already, but I had to reply to this:
Needless to say, this is the first health concerned community I've come across that condones the addition of sucrose to the diet, and for that I applaud you.
However, I feel that I should defend the anti-sugar movement for its intentions. Looking past the exaggeration that has grown up over the years creating a hysteria around the consumption of sugar, the movement still has a very credible basis. It is not so much the actual consumption of sugar that is the problem. Rather, the cause for concern is the WAY in which people consume it.
Refined white sugar, as we know, is pure, nutritionless energy. This is not harmful until people begin to replace foods containing nutrients (ie. fruits) with processed foods containing sugar that also have a low nutrient density. This becomes a big problem for the individual, and with such foods as the social norm, quite a segment of the population suffers from malnutrition.
Compounding this, foods containing sucrose generally are composed of other ingredients that are detrimental to health. Products that precisely embody this include most "boxed" cookie and snack products that are made up of bleached wheat flour, sugar, and cheap vegetable oil (usually hydrogenated) with various ingredients to improve consistancy, enhance flavor, or prolong shelf life. In such products, the addition of sugar is dangerous because it actively increases the intensity of the problems that the product causes.
In particular, the blood sugar spike that the sugar (and wheat) in these foods causes is the main subject that attracts criticism to sugar. This spike creates numerous problems, but most can be lumped into the anabolic state which the body assumes. Initiated by the spike, the body releases several hormones to begin the metabolic processes involed in the conversion of sugar (now primarily glucose, although some sucrose still remains) to energy or storage. The highly anabolic hormone insulin, as well as insulin-like growth factor 1, released to transport blood glucose across cell membranes, initiate cell processes increasing the rate of mitosis and cell turnover, speeding up the rate at which cells divide, and, consequently, die off. I believe Wai discusses the repercussions of this process on the main site.
Obviously, because of the blood sugar spike, the body increases the rate at which energy is burned, producing by-products of metabolism, and increasing oxidative stress. This is a normal and essential process, but individuals who are malnourished do not have the necessary nutrients to completely prevent damage from normal daily energy production. This damage includes damage to cellular DNA by highly reactive oxygen (and other compounds, such as nitrogen, to a lesser extent) molecules produced during the conversion of fat or sugar to energy (ever heard the term, "free radicals?").
Increased rate of mitosis or cellular division combined with damage to DNA creates the classic, textbook pretense to one of the most dreaded diseases the developed world faces: cancer. Of course, although certainly not out of the realm of possibility, this is quite a bit to attribute to one food. Cancer is a very complicated "disease" (quotes intentional), and there are many more facets that need to be taken into account before anything is blamed. I am not saying that sugar causes cancer, but it has the possibility of becoming a contributor, depending on the diet and lifestyle of the individual.
Because cancer is a very provoking and controversial topic, I am going to avoid it and return to the discussion about the blood sugar spike after consuming a processed (and oftentimes natural) product containing sucrose and the resulting insulin released. If sugar is consumed properly, and a large spike in blood sugar does not result, then insulin is released normally and gradually for a specific period of time before negative feedback mechanisms reduce output. However, during a blood sugar spike, a great amount of insulin is released to normalize blood sugar levels, flooding the bloodstream and bodily tissue with insulin to rapidly clear sugar from the bloodstream. This has two more nasty consequences: a) the affected cells lose sensitivity to insulin over time, with repeated spikes in blood sugar, which can progress to another "disease" that afflicts developed countries: diabetes; b) the vast amount of sugar that is transported into the cells by insulin is not burned all at once, so the body begins to store the sugar, chaining glucose into glycogen, and then later into fatty glycerol stored in adipose tissue. This leads to yet another "disease" developed societies are familiar with: obesity. Although both of these conditions are more closely tied to sugar than cancer may be, it is still impossible to pin them to sugar alone, especially in the case of obesity. I am still merely demonstrating why there is obsession in the health community with sucrose.
Back to the blood sugar spike, sugar presents another possible problem for those consuming processed foods (I know you guys are beyond that, right? RIGHT?). I'm sure most of the contributors to this forum know that the gastrointestinal tract is inhabited by many species of bacteria. Fewer people know that it is also home to many species of yeast and mold. A few species of yeast are beneficial, but the majority are harmful. In a healthy individual, intestinal flora keeps the growth of harmful yeasts, mold, and bacteria at bay.
However, in a person who consumes processed foods, this balance is easily reversed because beneficial flora did not evolve with the human body to metabolize the poor diet that many people consume today. The favorite food of those harmful species? Sugar. It is also known that blood is not completely sterile. Blood is populated by small amounts of beneficial species of bacteria, as well as pathogenic species that make us sick. The human immunes system constantly removes all species from the blood as it can, but small amounts of each remain. Blood examined after blood sugar is spiked, however, shows a large increase in mold density (and it is safe to assume this correlation is greater in unhealthy individuals who consume processed foods than those who endulge in a primarily fruit based diet). Molds produce by-products of their metabolism known as mycotoxins which are extremely harmful to tissue at the cellular level. One of the most studied and most dangerous is the mycotoxin aflotoxin, which has numerous negative effects, but one of the most intimidating is its ability to induce a cell to become cancerous when combined with protein, most notably cooked animal protein (Wai knows what she's talking about when she advises a reduction in protein-- I may discuss this more later). Another of the consequences of mold growth due to a blood sugar spike is the stress the immune system undergoes to remove the organisims from the bloodstream. After some time (years) of repeated blood sugar spikes due to consumption of processed foods containing sugar, the immune system certainly becomes weakened fighting off pathogens that are provided with the food they need to grow by the human body itself. A weakened immune system is a prerequisite to an immense host of diseases, including cancer. Cancerous cells are produced every hour of the day, even in the most healthy individuals. The process is natural and unavoidable. However, it is the immune system's job to locate and destroy these cells, which it does quite sucessfully under normal conditions. It is only after the immune system is weakened after many years that....
I think you see where I'm going with that. I will stop here because I'm now ranting.
One more topic I'd like to cover about sugar, and this one may directly affect you unlike the previous chunks of this thread:
Sucrose is a special molecule. Like mentioned in this thread, sucrose is the combination of glucose and fructose into one disaccharide. The body cannot use sucrose for energy unless the glucose and fructose are seperated. In order to make sucrose availible for metabolism, the body must produce the hydrolytic enzyme invertase. Invertase breaks sucrose into its glucose and fructose components. However, the enzymatic system of the body is delicate, and because very little of any enzyme is ever needed, even during digestion, surplus enzymes are rarely produced. With a healthy diet composed of fruit, the body produces just enough invertase too thoroughly digest the sucrose found in fruits (on average, 11-16% of the sugar content in fruits is sucrose. There are exceptions: over 60% of the sugar in pineapples is sucrose). However in a diet higher in sucrose, such as our example processed food diet, the enzymatic system of the body is stressed to produce more invertase, and the pancreas must draw on other digestive enzymes and systemic enzymes (enzymes that regulate bodily processes) to make up the deficit. Over time, if a person maintains high sucrose consumption, the ability of the body to produce invertase is exhausted, and much of the sugar remains undigested. Because of this, unbroken molecules can retain water while not being used (similar to protein and water retention described by Wai), and they feed yeasts (both beneficial and harmful) in the gastrointestinal tract, but most species of bacteria cannot metabolize sucrose. A digestive sensitivity towards sucrose may also develop, which may escalate into allergic responses. The draw on other bodily enzymes by the pancreas to produce invertase may also interfere with essential processes. These latter resulsts occur
only after having consumed excessive sucrose for many years--in most individuals. There are also many who will never have a problem with sucrose, just as there are many who will not have (much of) a problem with protein.
Anyway, in conclusion:
The purpose of this post was not to attack your use of sugar. I believe sucrose is perfectly fine if consumed properly. Like I wrote at the beginning, it is not sugar that is dangerous, it is the WAY in which it is consumed. The Sample Diet described by the main site eliminates most of consequences of consuming sugar by preventing a spike in blood sugar. One should also try to exercise the same care when eating fruits high in sugars (including those sugars other than sucrose) as a blood sugar spike is still not something a healthy individual with an excellent diet would desire. The sample diet offers the salad, complete with high quality fats, to prevent such a spike. Comparatively, a dip in blood sugar can be just as detrimental as a spike, and it is important to maintain moderate blood sugar levels throughout the day by consuming fruit at regular intervals (or hard candy as spring proposed-- which is a good solution if you do find that it prevents you from eating cooked food and that it maintains your energy, although may I suggest dried fruits such as rasins? In many cases they contain more sugar (although not sucrose) than hard candy...).
Sorry, I have really said far too much already, but I had to reply to this:
Technically, sugar itself (all forms, glucose and fructose, etc. included, though sucrose and glucose more so) is addictive. Consumption and thoughts of consuming sugar or sugary foods usually causes the brain to release dopamine, triggering the "reward" centers of the brain, which generates addictive tendencies. However, the situation becomes a true addiction when sugar levels have been allowed to spike for some time. When a spike occurs, a wave of dopamine floods receptors in the brain, however the large insulin response to a spike causes blood sugar levels to drop off rapidly, halting dopamine production and stimulation of the receptors. In the absense of dopamine, the previously intensely stimulated receptors generate a "reverse" signal similar to the trough of a wave in a sinusoid of a sine function, or the dip in water following an oceanic wave, which creates a yearning for the sugar induced dopamine to be released again. Satisfying that yearning repeatedly creates a cycle that is ingrained into neural pathways, establishing the addiction for sugar. Because blood sugar spikes are common due to the processed food that most people consume, much of the population of developed countries are addicted to foods containing sugars.spring wrote:Correct me if I am wrong about this but pure sugar has very little or no addictive substances added to it as far as I know.
Exactly. the more conversions, the more oxidative damage. That is one of the reasons we advocate consuming very small meals very frequently, so that there is little need for extra conversions. (subsequently storing and setting free energy)CY wrote:This damage includes damage to cellular DNA by highly reactive oxygen (and other compounds, such as nitrogen, to a lesser extent) molecules produced during the conversion of fat or sugar to energy (ever heard the term, "free radicals?").
dont mention sugar if you dont mention fat and protein as well. If you are talking oxidative damage due to energy conversions, all sources of energy can equally 'cause' such extra conversion.I am not saying that sugar causes cancer, but it has the possibility of becoming a contributor, depending on the diet and lifestyle of the individual.
Sugar has no higher potention in that regard than fat or protein.
Animal studies have shown that one can increase lifespan by simply reducing energy intake.
11-16% on average?(on average, 11-16% of the sugar content in fruits is sucrose.
I dont think thats true; Sucrose contents as % of total carbs available:
77% muskmelon
72% mango
70% mandarin
64% peach
63% pineapple
60% apricot
51% banana
51% litchi
43% papaya
41% orange
40% grapefruit
37% sapodilla
36% longan
33% plum
32% granadilla
31% dates (deglet noor)
28% watermelon
25% avocado
22% kiwi
22% apple
20% carambola
20% raspberry
18% strawberry
15% pear
11% dried figs
5% guava
2% raisin
1% dates (medjool)
Pineapple is not an 'exception'; its merely on the high end of the list.There are exceptions: over 60% of the sugar in pineapples is sucrose
the SAME indeed. whatever you eat; fruits or non-fruits, high in sugar, or not, the SAME care is required making sure you eat enough and not too much; just about right to keep your blood sugar level at the right level.One should also try to exercise the same care when eating fruits high in sugars
The same is true for consuming protein or fat (or cholesterol); there are various pathways through which the body / brain is 'rewarded' (ie by increased neurotransmitter activity)Technically, sugar itself (all forms, glucose and fructose, etc. included, though sucrose and glucose more so) is addictive. Consumption and thoughts of consuming sugar or sugary foods usually causes the brain to release dopamine, triggering the "reward" centers of the brain,spring wrote:Correct me if I am wrong about this but pure sugar has very little or no addictive substances added to it as far as I know.
So, yes, all types of energy are addictive.
Please dont make it seems as if sugar is any different.
Last edited by RRM on Wed 21 May 2008 21:11, edited 1 time in total.
My post was focusing on the sugar sucrose. Of course, every nutrient has the potential to be dangerous in many different ways.RRM wrote:dont mention sugar if you dont mention fat and protein as well. If you are talking oxidative damage due to energy conversions, all sources of energy can equally 'cause' such extra conversion.
Sugar has no higher potention in that regard than fat or protein.
Animal studies have shown that one can increase lifespan by simply reducing energy intake.
...
The same is true for consuming protein or fat (or cholesterol); there are various pathways through which the body / brain is 'rewarded' (ie by increased neurotransmitter activity)
So, yes, all types of energy are addictive.
Please dont make it seems as if sugar is any different.
You mean sucrose (the percentages you posted are % sucrose of in total carbs). I was wrong about 11-16%. It was a statistic I looked up quickly, I'm ashamed to say.RRM wrote:11-16% on average?
I dont think thats true; Glucose contents as % of total carbs available
Thanks for the heads-up
