Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
While you are making the better choice with the orange in terms of nutrition, The part where you say "Sugar is sugar" is definitely incorrect.
Refined/processed sugars are digested too rapidly which causes a persons Blood Sugar levels to skyrocket which then leads to complications.
The rapid breakdown of refined sugar also causes the body to feel unsatisfied no matter how much someone consumes over the recommended limit of calories. Leading to a needlessly bigger appetite and the chain reaction of problems ultimately continues from there.
Guys look. I'm not trying to be a smart ass. I just really think that spreading this info can save a lot of people from wrecking their bodies.
Sugar is sugar. Atoms and molecules don't have memory. A molecule of glucose that comes out of table sugar, is identical to one that came out of an apple, or a bucket of oil (with the possible exception of chirality).
On a molecular level sure, but they are not digested the same way. So I say from a dietary perspective that sugar is sugar is not entirely true.
But if two objects are identical, then they must be digested the same way. If they aren't identical, then the last 200 years of chemistry needs a serious overhaul. This is what makes me so skeptical.
Sugar from fruit is digested slower than sugar from processed foods because the fiber content allows for the steady breakdown rather than the rapid breakdown of sugar content. That is where I'm coming from.
Sugar does not contain fiber, the fiber comes from the orange (fruit). No one is claiming that eating an orange, and eating some high fructose corn syrup is the same thing. We are claiming the glucose is glucose (or that sugar is sugar), which you told us is incorrect.
Also many processed foods contain a much higher fiber to sugar ratio than fruit. For example pasta (a processed food) has about a 12 times higher ratio of fiber/sugar than an orange. Another good example would be a dark chocolate bar, more than 4 times higher ratio of fiber/sugar than an orange. So your statement that sugar from fruit is digested slower than processed food because of fiber content is problematic; as processed food often contain lots of fiber.
-------------------------------
Perhaps this is just nitpicking; but if by steady you mean linear, then that is problematic as well because as far as I know, all sugar uptake by the body is linear, with or without fiber.
-------------------------------
Nutrition is complicated, so people develop these rules of thumb so they can get on with their lives; I get it. Ideas like: processed food is somehow magically bad, that "organic" is somehow better than "regular", that the fructose in an orange is somehow different that the fructose in corn syrup. And while I have a lot of respect for LogicForTW, this one was a doozy:
I've been around the block a few times; long enough to see these grossly over simplified nutritional rules of thumb come and go a few times. They never seem to withstand even the slightest scrutiny, and will just be replaced in a few years by some other silly rule of thumb. Maybe next time it will be that red foods are better for you than non-red ones (and don't laugh, even as we speak there are people going around telling others that purple foods are better than non-purple).
If you been alive long enough to have lived around that block a few times, then you must also be aware that in your lifetime we have seen a large rise in obesity rates, diabetes rates in western society.
I agree the fad diet thing is bad. This color not that color, paleo vs atkins vs gluten free, on and on, while people run around and do that, and lose a few pounds then gain them back.
But as far as I am aware, the real experts, the PHD nutritionist, the people that spent their lives studying food, doing controlled experiments, not doing it for the money etc. Nearly all these experts conclude highly processed foods, like fast food, foods high in sugar, super refined flours and other simple carbs etc are very detrimental to long healthy lives. The scientist in this field have a consensus on that idea similar to: climate scientist strong majority that believe human caused climate change is real.
@LogicForTW: "large rise in obesity rates, diabetes rates in western society"
Our local paper has a story about a woman with diabetes under the headline "Putting her Trust in Faith." I mentally groaned when I first saw it because I thought maybe she was turning to prayer instead of insulin. However, it turns out that Faith is the name of her guide dog, which has also been trained to detect the smell of isoprene in her breath. Isoprene is an indicator of low blood sugar. The dog reacts by picking up a squeaky toy and making lots of noise. So is this a case of faith in science or science in Faith?
Ok Nyar I get it, you're looking too deep into my message here. "We are claiming the glucose is glucose" I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing against the effect of that line of thinking towards nutrition. Especially for those who are at at risk for diabetes hereditarily. According to my studies the speed at which sugar is not the same when considering processed and organic. My source for this is the reading material for my PT course if you want to check it out it's called "Fitness: The Complete Guide"
Section 5 Nutrition (chp19 Nutritional science)
Now I suspect what your source (I couldn't find a copy) is saying is something along the lines of "fruit is better for you (than say rock candy) because it has fiber and additional nutrients". Which I don't think anyone would disagree with. But if it is in fact telling you that glucose from fruit behaves different than glucose from corn syrup (or any other glucose that is homochiral); then you should be extremely skeptical of that source.
And that goes for any topic. If anyone tells you 2 identical objects behave differently; your skeptic klaxons should start blasting.
Im picking up what you're putting down Nyar. I'll review it and see If I can explain it better.
I think we are getting hung up on talking about two different things.
First I am no expert and this is just going from memory: I am not taking the time to look this all up at the moment.
Obviously an orange is different than pure refined white sugar. A 2 year old could tell you that.
The sugar from an orange is different than pure refined sugar, in both its density in the orange as a whole, and I believe in slight variations of its molecular break down. Kind of like how there is jet fuel, 91 octane gas, all the way down to 83 (81?) octane gas sold at the pumps, they are all a type of gas, some just have more accessible carbon hydrogen chains for more energy from the split than the other types.
Our digestive systems were designed to break down the food we eat, eventually to glucose, the primary fuel our body runs on. A highly complex process that occurs all throughout the body. I think what you really mean to say is: glucose is glucose once the body has created it/stored it.
The eons of evolution has designed a system of energy extraction in the form of glucose, that was designed around: both food, and easy glucose scarcity. Evolution designed us to seek out easy forms of food for easy/efficient glucose extraction, and to live to the age where we can reproduce and care for offspring.
Fast forward to today, where easy sources of glucose food is incredibly abundant for many people, caloric needs are greatly reduced, and we all expect to live into our 80's or longer. The millions of years of evolution that designed our digestive system is now working against us, instead of for us. Our digestive systems were never designed for such easy glucose foods in such quantity. We now need to compensate for that by consuming foods that are not "easy" sources of glucose. Pure refined white sugar, that never occurs in nature is the easiest to convert to glucose it is also the easiest to consume these concentrated sugars in large quantities.
An orange has simple sugars in as well, not as quite as simple/quickly converted as refined sugars, but close. However to eat an orange, even if presliced, requires more time. To get the same amount of sugar (and remember this sugar is slightly better for our purposes) in oranges (9g of sugar each) as in a 20 ounce bottle of pepsi, you would to eat nearly 8 oranges (7.75 to be precise) How many people regularly eat 8 oranges in one sitting, versus how many people drink one 20 oz pepsi in one sitting?
Glucose is not created just from what we call sugars. Our digestive system is quite adept at turning many types of food into glucose for fuel, we are not humming birds. However the other types of foods can be to varying levels much harder and slower to extract glucose from. These harder to convert to glucose foods smooth out the glucose spikes and rapid injections from the body in insulin to account for. That is why a diet avoiding the easy sources of glucose foods, can help a diabetic that can no longer naturally create the vast quantities of insulin quickly to account for the giant spikes of glucose that our modern diet imposes on our system.
While I agree with the statement, it is not what I said, it is not what I meant to say; because it isn't strong enough. The glucose in an orange is identical, in every way to the glucose in high fructose corn syrup (and the same goes for the fructose in the orange). Consider the following Gedanken experiment:
or he will do nothing.
Glucose is glucose, no matter where you find it (if its homochiral), because molecules are simple enough that they don't have "memory" of their former conditions. The belief that molecules do have memory of their former conditions is a principle of homeopathy, not chemistry.
Yeah, we were arguing the same point, just in different ways :)
Glucose is glucose, Sugar is sugar.
But I think we also can easily agree not all food is created equal, even if the end result in our system is glucose.
Just like you can die drinking too much water too quickly, You can slowly die from too much glucose shocks to the system as our natural insulin system begins to shut down from overuse. Just like one cigarette won't kill you, but a million of them over a lifetime probably will very likely cut your life short. Someone with a compromised lung will avoid smoking and all forms of lung irritants, a diabetic can control their system by minimizing glucose shocks to the system.
Yikes! these people are discovering my secret.
It depends. Tolerance. Does one acquire more of it over time or does it slowly dwindle and take with it the desire to live? All who I've known who died we completely drained of it. Some were tired of their afflictions while others saw life as an affliction in itself.
I feel as though that depends upon the individual. Some do lose their tolerance. Many, in fact. But some value their life more than they value relief from pain. Not that that makes them any stronger than the others. Just that they have a different outlook.
Pages