sugar in it's refined state is indigestable
Not true.

Phew. Glad we got that sorted.
( Ring Of Fire A petty, drooling belming butthurt retard., Sun 4 Dec 2011, 12:35, 1 reply)

http://www.thedoctorwithin.com/sugar/sugar-the-sweet-thief-of-life/
The problem comes in with processed sugar and processed starch. White table sugar has no nutrients. White bread is a processed, artificial starch. These are not foods – they do not nourish. We call them simple carbohydrates. Even when they are broken down to individual glucose molecules by digestion, it is completely different from the glucose end-product of a digested apple, for example. That’s because apples don’t simply break down into isolated glucose molecules. Other nutrients and co-factors are present, which are necessary for the body to make use of the glucose: enzymes, minerals, vitamins.

White sugar and white bread require enzymes, vitamins, minerals, and insulin from the body in order to act. And the action is one of irritation, removal, and defense instead of nutrition.

All enzymes and nutrients have been purposely removed from white sugar and white flour by processing. The result is a synthetic manmade carbohydrate, occurring nowhere in nature. The body regards such as a foreign substance, as a drug.

Another way to look at it is this: when complex carbohydrates are broken down, the result is a usable glucose molecule. When simple (refined) carbohydrates are allowed to ferment in the digestive tract because they can’t be broken down, the results are alcohol, acetic acid, water, and carbon dioxide. (Dufty p 183)

Not so usable, except for the water.

In addition to these by-products, simple carbohydrates do increase blood glucose by an unregulated, unnatural amount. And this is the real problem with refined sugar: the quantity of pure glucose suddenly taken in.
(CADmonkey rollllllllled another one, just like the other one, Sun 4 Dec 2011, 12:42, closed)

Still not true.
It's amazing to see so many lies, half truths, and misunderstandings refined to such a high purity.
( Ring Of Fire A petty, drooling belming butthurt retard., Sun 4 Dec 2011, 13:00, closed)

What's more amazing
Is you seem to assume some authority in your dismissive statements that forgoes the need to back up much of what you say. I fail to see it, myself.
(CADmonkey rollllllllled another one, just like the other one, Sun 4 Dec 2011, 13:24, closed)

Go and find a copy of "The Demon-Haunted World"
by Carl Sagan. Flip to the chapter called "the dragon in my garage". Read. And PLEASE then try and understand how retarded your reply to RoF is.

See also: Teapot, Russell's.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Sun 4 Dec 2011, 13:38, closed)

There's no point in backing up. Either you're a troll or a 'tard who believes this nonsense.
( Ring Of Fire A petty, drooling belming butthurt retard., Sun 4 Dec 2011, 14:10, closed)

Oh my fucking christ.
I'm clearly wasting my time here.

it's perfectly alright not to know about stuff. People specialise in different areas. The problem here is that you're trying to play in an area you know nothing about, and backing it up by fucking googling stuff.

You know that it being on the internet does not make it right, yes? If you want resources to back up a scientific argument, two pieces of advice. One, don't start if don't know the field, but if you ignore that, two - at least use google scholar. It's far from foolproof but it does weed out the utter fucktards.

For the record, in the above - both white bread and table sugar contain nutrients. They do nourish. Starch is a complex carb, not a simple one. There are no "different types of glucose" - it's all C6H12O6. (well, strictly there are 3 optical isomers but I'm really not going there. Suffice to say it's more or less irrelevant for this debate). Your body cannot use "enzymes" from food - it treats them as the proteins they are and digests them. It makes its own enzymes. Your body does not regard it as a drug. Carbohydrates are well known by the body and with the exception of polymer carbs are too small to trigger an immune response anyway. Oh, and the whole "fermentation in the digestive tract", when it does happen, is mostly caused by fructose not glucose.

Anything else you need any help with?
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Sun 4 Dec 2011, 13:34, closed)

Well you live and learn
Never heard of google scholar before now.

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijc.2910550308/abstract

www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306452202001239

gut.bmj.com/content/29/9/1202.abstract
(CADmonkey rollllllllled another one, just like the other one, Sun 4 Dec 2011, 13:54, closed)

OK, would you like me to address those one by one?
in the first case, the sample size is too small for the RRs to be statistically significant. In the second, it's a whole dietary study, and in the third, it's a response study. As in patient's own opinion, not medical tests.

There are way too many factors interlinked (as the second study points out) for this to be easily analysed in a single paper, so you perform something called a meta-analysis of the field and try and pick out meaningful data.

As an aside, I've never said here that eating sugar in massive excess is necessarily any good, which is what those papers all address. I've just pointed out the idiocy of suggesting the "type" of sugar is particularly important.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Sun 4 Dec 2011, 14:19, closed)

If the subject was GM food
I'm sure you'd piss all over anything I said on the subject, but only after ignoring any point i made about patented seeds and massive vested interests.

Not being a scientist means i don't have to validate or objectify anything. I don't like the FACT that sugar is one of the biggest industries on the planet, is a supply led operation (therefore pushed onto the market throughout it's inglorious history), and it's produce is 99% pointless. It makes McDonalds look like Holland & Barrett. I don't like it, and I find plenty of lucid reasons to sustain that preference.
(CADmonkey rollllllllled another one, just like the other one, Sun 4 Dec 2011, 15:02, closed)

its

( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Sun 4 Dec 2011, 15:25, closed)

This is the best reply in this thread

( Ghoti Fingers, Sun 4 Dec 2011, 20:08, closed)

He's already pissed all over everything you've said.
You're scientifically illiterate. Your opinion, in the nicest possible way, is worthless.
( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Sun 4 Dec 2011, 17:24, closed)

I actually have plenty of concerns about GM food.
Not a single fucking one of them has anything to do with "patented seeds" and "vested interests" because I'm not a paranoid idiot.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Mon 5 Dec 2011, 8:51, closed)

Jesus
Did your science eduction end when you were 15 ?

You talk simple crap.

Your body doesn't give a fuck about the source of the glucose molecule, whether it be a nice organic apple or something that Dr Evil created in a stainless steel reactor. Chemicals are fucking chemicals.
(Bitter and Twisted, Sun 4 Dec 2011, 22:55, closed)