Re: To sugar or not to sugar, that is the question!
- From: outsor1@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: 23 Nov 2005 16:41:58 GMT
"This pattern, which was high in sugar-sweetened soft drinks, refined
grains, diet soft drinks, and processed meat but low in wine, coffee,
cruciferous vegetables, and yellow vegetables, was associated with an
increased risk of diabetes" Now we have something to discuss. This study,
and others, suggest that diet is in part related to the risk of diabetes.
Refined carb sources and saturated fat sources are two of the things that
hold up over these various studies, and is reflected in the above also.
But most people with a similar dietary pattern don't get diabetes, it also
requires a genetic propensity for the bodies' cells to react in a
particular way that starts a cascade that leads to diabetes and during
that cascade the level of inflammation rises.
The two keys are first genetic and second the ever increasing and over
consumption of saturated carbs and fats which leads to decreased beta cell
viability and increased insulin resistance in other cells; which in turn
feedback into the cascade of many many other factors to amplify it.
As with most things health related, there is a minimal, an optimal, and a
maximal level of consumption of any nutritional substance. The min to
gain at least some benefit, the opt to balance all factors to best effect,
and the max at which point the balance is going toward the negative effect
side. In the case of diabetes it is clearly the latter with regard to
sugar/carb consumption.
You first started by making an overly general unsupported assertion that
any amount of sugar cause inflammation, or some similar, at which point I
asked that you might want to modify it to fit the evidence. You
didn't/couldn't and even with the present evidence before you as support
to the contrary, we still have not any such modification. On the contrary
we get:
"The fact that you are questioning such a basic concept as sugars and the
chronic inflammation effects of sugars shows clearly that you are either
completely ignorant of the basic health effects of sugar or you have an
agenda. Denying the poisonous effects of sugar is akin to arguing that the
world is not spherical."
All of which is perfect confirmation of a previous observation, your grasp
of science is limited/misunderstood/misused as an expression of the saying
that a "little information is dangerous". Mix that with an agenda which is
the starting and ending point of your notions and we get the sloppy
science you so often display. Btw, the earth only approximates a sphere.
.
- References:
- Prev by Date: Basic question
- Next by Date: Re: Basic question
- Previous by thread: Re: To sugar or not to sugar, that is the question!
- Next by thread: Re: To sugar or not to sugar, that is the question!
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
