Org Mobile Site
Originally Posted by Papewaio:
From Wikipedia http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoh...ance#section_3
"The tolerance to alcohol is not equally distributed throughout the world's population, and genetics of alcohol dehydrogenase indicate resistance has arisen independently in different ethnic groups.[2] People of European descent on average have a high alcohol tolerance and are less likely to develop alcoholism compared to Aboriginal Australians, Native Americans and some East Asian groups.[3][4][5] This is related to an average higher body mass, but also to the prevalence of high levels of alcohol dehydrogenase in the population.[6][7] The high alcohol tolerance in Europeans and some other ethnic groups has probably evolved as a consequence of centuries of exposure to alcohol in established agricultural societies.[8][2]"
We must be arguing two different thing because this does not negate my point. I am not denying that a degree of tolerance to relatively new substances can occur. I am saying that when you make the point of being able to create a new mechanism to allow you to not die when you eat relatively large quantities and actually convert the new material into nutritional or energetic benefit, alcohol is a crappy example because despite thousands of years of growing tolerance it still isn't good for us at all. Thus making your point, "won't we just adapt to our new diets" moot unless you are talking about the really, really long term.From Wikipedia http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoh...ance#section_3
"The tolerance to alcohol is not equally distributed throughout the world's population, and genetics of alcohol dehydrogenase indicate resistance has arisen independently in different ethnic groups.[2] People of European descent on average have a high alcohol tolerance and are less likely to develop alcoholism compared to Aboriginal Australians, Native Americans and some East Asian groups.[3][4][5] This is related to an average higher body mass, but also to the prevalence of high levels of alcohol dehydrogenase in the population.[6][7] The high alcohol tolerance in Europeans and some other ethnic groups has probably evolved as a consequence of centuries of exposure to alcohol in established agricultural societies.[8][2]"
Originally Posted by therother:
As is sugar: I can't say it any better than Robert Lustig, Professor of Paediatrics in the Division of Endocrinology at UCSF:
Youtube Video .
The poison is the dose, sugar is toxic in the way vitamin A is toxic. We need it for vital purposes but too much will create an imbalance in the mechanisms of our body. You cannot say the same for alcohol.As is sugar: I can't say it any better than Robert Lustig, Professor of Paediatrics in the Division of Endocrinology at UCSF:
Youtube Video .
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy:
Your thinking in terms of today when generally water in the West is safe to drink, back in the day People might often drank beer as a safer alternative to water. Remember these people probably didnt understand that boiling the water would purify it, but they knew fine well not to drink from the local river that was downstream of the local tannery.
I am not getting at what the purpose of all this is.Your thinking in terms of today when generally water in the West is safe to drink, back in the day People might often drank beer as a safer alternative to water. Remember these people probably didnt understand that boiling the water would purify it, but they knew fine well not to drink from the local river that was downstream of the local tannery.
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name:
The poison is the dose, sugar is toxic in the way vitamin A is toxic. We need it for vital purposes but too much will create an imbalance in the mechanisms of our body. You cannot say the same for alcohol.
Sugar, or at the least fructose in sugar, is essentially metabolised in the same way to alcohol. It's likely to be the main cause of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, for instance. Like alcohol, there is a safe limit to how much and how fast you can absorb. Observational epidemiological studies (*) have associated drinking a glass of red wine a day with decreased risk of heart disease but potentially worse risk of breast cancer (probably lot more by now). For sugar that limit is unknown, but I'd guess about 30g/day (less than one 330ml can of coke) is safe enough and even that should be taken with fibre (e.g. in fruit) to stop your pancreas going mental and over expressing insulin. Also, the body doesn't need sugar (or any dietary carbohydrates, for that matter).The poison is the dose, sugar is toxic in the way vitamin A is toxic. We need it for vital purposes but too much will create an imbalance in the mechanisms of our body. You cannot say the same for alcohol.
(*) this should be taken with a pinch of salt as such studies can't demonstrate cause, so could be other (unaccounted for) behaviours of red wine drinkers that is responsible for this.
Out of curiosity what's your stance on having an "added sugar tax" like we had a thread about a few weeks ago?
Originally Posted by therother:
Observational epidemiological studies (*) have associated drinking a glass of red wine a day with decreased risk of heart disease but potentially worse risk of breast cancer (probably lot more by now).
That is due to certain (possibly) beneficial organic compounds within grapes (specifically the skin if I remember correctly) that are present within the wine. Not at all due to the alcohol within it.Observational epidemiological studies (*) have associated drinking a glass of red wine a day with decreased risk of heart disease but potentially worse risk of breast cancer (probably lot more by now).
Originally Posted by :
For sugar that limit is unknown, but I'd guess about 30g/day (less than one 330ml can of coke) is safe enough and even that should be taken with fibre (e.g. in fruit) to stop your pancreas going mental and over expressing insulin. Also, the body doesn't need sugar (or any dietary carbohydrates, for that matter).
Sure it does. Your body needs energy and simple sugars are a high source of energy. Fructose and sucrose found in HFCS is the same as the fructose and sucrose your body gets from cane sugar and fruits. The issue are the high concentrations of it in drinks like soda or in meals. They trigger insulin spikes which is bad, something that fruits generally don't do unless you liquefy a pound of strawberrys and chug that.For sugar that limit is unknown, but I'd guess about 30g/day (less than one 330ml can of coke) is safe enough and even that should be taken with fibre (e.g. in fruit) to stop your pancreas going mental and over expressing insulin. Also, the body doesn't need sugar (or any dietary carbohydrates, for that matter).
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro:
Out of curiosity what's your stance on having an "added sugar tax" like we had a thread about a few weeks ago?
Hmm. It often annoys me that sugary drinks are often the cheapest available, sometimes cheaper than bottled water. Sugar in liquid form is particularly bad for you. So I'd probably be in favour of a tax similar to the alcohol tax on Coke and the like. For other products, I think I'd be more in favour of proper labelling and banning anything with high sugar content being labelled with words like "diet" or "healthy".Out of curiosity what's your stance on having an "added sugar tax" like we had a thread about a few weeks ago?
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name:
That is due to certain (possibly) beneficial organic compounds within grapes (specifically the skin if I remember correctly) that are present within the wine. Not at all due to the alcohol within it.
Interesting, thanks.That is due to certain (possibly) beneficial organic compounds within grapes (specifically the skin if I remember correctly) that are present within the wine. Not at all due to the alcohol within it.
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name:
Sure it does. Your body needs energy and simple sugars are a high source of energy. Fructose and sucrose found in HFCS is the same as the fructose and sucrose your body gets from cane sugar and fruits. The issue are the high concentrations of it in drinks like soda or in meals. They trigger insulin spikes which is bad, something that fruits generally don't do unless you liquefy a pound of strawberrys and chug that.
The body requires glucose to function and glucose is a sugar (when we say blood sugar we mean blood glucose). We don't need to eat sugars though: fats can be transformed into glucose. There's a brief description of the process on wikipedia.Sure it does. Your body needs energy and simple sugars are a high source of energy. Fructose and sucrose found in HFCS is the same as the fructose and sucrose your body gets from cane sugar and fruits. The issue are the high concentrations of it in drinks like soda or in meals. They trigger insulin spikes which is bad, something that fruits generally don't do unless you liquefy a pound of strawberrys and chug that.
Originally Posted by :
Hmm. It often annoys me that sugary drinks are often the cheapest available, sometimes cheaper than bottled water. Sugar in liquid form is particularly bad for you. So I'd probably be in favour of a tax similar to the alcohol tax on Coke and the like.
Where do you shop? In my experience, water's usually half the price of a bottle of colaHmm. It often annoys me that sugary drinks are often the cheapest available, sometimes cheaper than bottled water. Sugar in liquid form is particularly bad for you. So I'd probably be in favour of a tax similar to the alcohol tax on Coke and the like.
Originally Posted by therother:
The body requires glucose to function and glucose is a sugar (when we say blood sugar we mean blood glucose). We don't need to eat sugars though: fats can be transformed into glucose. There's a brief description of the process on wikipedia.
Yes, fats are also another energy source for the body. However, fats have their own problems when consumed in relatively large amounts and relying on fats to be the main provider of energy instead of carbohydrates or sugars is just swapping one set of problems for another. Which leads me back to my original statement of everything in moderation makes most of these non issues.The body requires glucose to function and glucose is a sugar (when we say blood sugar we mean blood glucose). We don't need to eat sugars though: fats can be transformed into glucose. There's a brief description of the process on wikipedia.
Originally Posted by Greyblades:
Where do you shop? In my experience, water's usually half the price of a bottle of cola
In the supermarket, yes. At my local sandwich shops the cheapest drink is often a can of Coke.Where do you shop? In my experience, water's usually half the price of a bottle of cola
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name:
Yes, fats are also another energy source for the body. However, fats have their own problems when consumed in relatively large amounts and relying on fats to be the main provider of energy instead of carbohydrates or sugars is just swapping one set of problems for another.
Fats in relatively large amounts appear to have few (if any) side effects. The reason we know this is because of native populations who eat such diets without ill effects and that fat more than likely constituted the majority of calories in pre-agrarian societies. Anyway, even if you don't want to eat a mainly fat diet, you still don't need to eat sucrose or fructose. Starchy foods with a low glycemic index (eg nuts, seeds and beans) are much preferable to both, as starches are just long chains of glucose. BTW, sugars are carbohydrates.Yes, fats are also another energy source for the body. However, fats have their own problems when consumed in relatively large amounts and relying on fats to be the main provider of energy instead of carbohydrates or sugars is just swapping one set of problems for another.
Originally Posted by therother:
Fats in relatively large amounts appear to have few (if any) side effects. The reason we know this is because of native populations who eat such diets without ill effects and that fat more than likely constituted the majority of calories in pre-agrarian societies.
Those societies do not reflect today's modern societies. The effects of a high fat diet are taking their toll on america right now.Fats in relatively large amounts appear to have few (if any) side effects. The reason we know this is because of native populations who eat such diets without ill effects and that fat more than likely constituted the majority of calories in pre-agrarian societies.
Originally Posted by :
Anyway, even if you don't want to eat a mainly fat diet, you still don't need to eat sucrose or fructose. Starchy foods with a low glycemic index (eg nuts, seeds and beans) are much preferable to both, as starches are just long chains of glucose.
Are you advocating for a no fruit diet?Anyway, even if you don't want to eat a mainly fat diet, you still don't need to eat sucrose or fructose. Starchy foods with a low glycemic index (eg nuts, seeds and beans) are much preferable to both, as starches are just long chains of glucose.
Originally Posted by :
BTW, sugars are carbohydrates.
Yes, but for all intents and purposes I talk about sugars as separate to distinguish between having lots of fruit/soda/sugary snacks and having lots of breads and other grain/wheat based foods.BTW, sugars are carbohydrates.
Thread Ratings provided by
Thread Ratings (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO