Sugar (refined, not Lord Alan)
Hidden in plain sight for years. Refined sugar is not a food, but a chemical. It's the only item in Tesco's that doesn't have a sell-by date. Apparently, it almost conforms to the medical definition of a poison.

It's in more than just your cakes. Check the labels on your gravy or your bread.
Huge amounts of the stuff were generated by slave labour a couple hundred years ago and no-one was quite sure what to do with it. They tried feeding livestock with it. They all died. They gave to WW1 soldiers as 'instant energy bars' and they fared a little better than the livestock(Kendal mint cake is the legacy).

Refined sugar is the result of processing sugar cane. Cane sugar is a food. A food contains enzymes and the like that enable the food to be digested in your tum. Sugar is unable to do this, so it leaches what it needs from everything else you have eaten. It is a parasite on your system.

All those 'house' spirits behind the bar, going cheap? Flavoured sugar alcohol. No relation to real gins or whiskies. Any rum-based drink (eg Breezers) is also flavoured sugar alcohol. Like confusing orange juice with sunny delight.

The cocaine industry is broadly similar to the sugar industry. They take a product (Coca leaf has many nutrients and minerals and vitamins, in addition to the celebrated marching powder) and extract the useful ingredient. Morally, the cocaine industry is less evil than the sugar industry because at least you get to choose when to ingest it and, last time I went shopping, the baby food did not contain added cocaine.

Anyone who knows drugs knows that there is no free lunch. You get high or up, then you get low or down. Only a fool would put off the comedown indefinatley by getting shit faced all over again every day. This is not acknowledged with sugar. It is addiction in denial. Sugar is the ultimate gateway drug, and we shower our children with it.

Raw sugar FTW!
(CADmonkey rollllllllled another one, just like the other one, Sat 3 Dec 2011, 18:03, 121 replies)

wow
I just googled "refined sugar" and this came up in 2nd place:
www.globalhealingcenter.com/sugar-problem/refined-sugar-the-sweetest-poison-of-all
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Sat 3 Dec 2011, 18:07, closed)

Fucking hell
Shocking news that sugar, by it's self, isn't a balanced diet and the body needs other nutrients.
( Ring Of Fire A petty, drooling belming butthurt retard., Sat 3 Dec 2011, 18:23, closed)

the internet is crazy for it!
there are pages and pages of "sugar is poison"!

It's news to me.

edit: ha, here's a good fact:
Doctors used to treat the problem of excessive amniotic fluid by injecting a sweet substance into the liquid, she says. The appealing taste would prompt the fetus to swallow more fluid, which was then flushed out through the umbilical cord and the mother's kidneys.

from www.webmd.com/food-recipes/features/health-effects-of-sugar
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Sat 3 Dec 2011, 19:00, closed)

My father in law was having lunch in Cave Shepard in Bridgetown and drank four pints of nice natural unrefined cane juice
He had a funny turn,I genuinly thought he was going to die.
( Ring Of Fire A petty, drooling belming butthurt retard., Sat 3 Dec 2011, 19:21, closed)

Apparently, the rest of this sentence is going to be complete nonsense.

...not just that sentence, every single line of that post is glorious nonsense.
( Ring Of Fire A petty, drooling belming butthurt retard., Sat 3 Dec 2011, 18:14, closed)

Gosh well that put me in my place
I bow to your irrefutable logic. (backwards, with my trousers down)
(CADmonkey rollllllllled another one, just like the other one, Sat 3 Dec 2011, 18:24, closed)

Pfft. Looks like you need more roughage

( Ring Of Fire A petty, drooling belming butthurt retard., Sat 3 Dec 2011, 18:30, closed)

Pfffffffffffft
Looks like you've never noticed what a bowl of smarties will do to a kid's party. Or ever received your children back from a weekend at Grandma's where they've been force-fed ice creams and biscuits for 2 days.
(CADmonkey rollllllllled another one, just like the other one, Sat 3 Dec 2011, 18:35, closed)

Well,
looks like you've not noticed either:
www.bmj.com/content/337/bmj.a2769.full

The relevant bit:
"At least 12 double blind randomised controlled trials have examined how children react to diets containing different levels of sugar. None of these studies, not even studies looking specifically at children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, could detect any differences in behaviour between the children who had sugar and those who did not. This includes sugar from sweets, chocolate, and natural sources. Even in studies of those who were considered “sensitive” to sugar, children did not behave differently after eating sugar full or sugar-free diets."
(TheCastrator, Sat 3 Dec 2011, 18:45, closed)

Is this the BMJ?
No, it's 'conspiricy theories' so that's just the kind of thing they WOULD say.

PS bollocks to the BMJ. Parents know from experience.
(CADmonkey rollllllllled another one, just like the other one, Sat 3 Dec 2011, 18:48, closed)

Oh my God.
We're through the looking glass, people!

Oh, and don't say bollocks to the BMJ because if it wasn't for scientific method and experimentation and reason, we'd be drinking Radium Water from lead jugs before dying of Smallpox once we reach twenty-five.
(TheCastrator, Sat 3 Dec 2011, 18:49, closed)

Glucose syrup (corn syrup) tends to be used in cheap mass-market sweets anyway,
rather than refined sugar beet.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Sat 3 Dec 2011, 18:56, closed)

Watch this.
youtu.be/60xb4Isdslc
(Vigilante Man weeps because you're stupid., Sat 3 Dec 2011, 19:41, closed)

Reactionary state-educated parents, maybe.

( The Mock TurtIe ™ --- Thinks you are a cunt, on, Sun 4 Dec 2011, 0:03, closed)

As opposed to what? snobs?
And reactionary? how?
(CADmonkey rollllllllled another one, just like the other one, Sun 4 Dec 2011, 0:11, closed)

Expressing opinions without permission or prior education is textbook behaviour for reactionaries.
You should be more tolerant of other people's views.
( The Mock TurtIe ™ --- Thinks you are a cunt, on, Sun 4 Dec 2011, 0:27, closed)

Now I'm intolerant?
On top of everything else im guilty of for bothering to offer anything on this topic that's quite a burden
(CADmonkey rollllllllled another one, just like the other one, Sun 4 Dec 2011, 11:09, closed)

From MGTs 'bollocks' linky above:
"While preparing his epochal volume, A History of Nutrition, published in 1957, Professor E. V. McCollum (Johns Hopkins university), sometimes called America's foremost nutritionist and certainly a pioneer in the field, reviewed approximately 200,000 published scientific papers, recording experiments with food, their properties, their utilization and their effects on animals and men. The material covered the period from the mid-18th century to 1940. From this great repository of scientific inquiry, McCollum selected those experiments which he regarded as significant "to relate the story of progress in discovering human error in this segment of science [of nutrition]".

Professor McCollum failed to record a single controlled scientific experiment with sugar between 1816 and 1940. unhappily, we must remind ourselves that scientists today, and always, accomplish little without a sponsor."
(CADmonkey rollllllllled another one, just like the other one, Sun 4 Dec 2011, 11:35, closed)

Yeah
Because scientists never destroy orthodoxy and progress human knowledge do they. It's not as if such behaviour would be rewarded with a rich prize, fame and fortune is it.


You're entering 'dumb as fuck' territory now.
( Ring Of Fire A petty, drooling belming butthurt retard., Sun 4 Dec 2011, 12:49, closed)

My son is one of those children who you're trying to say goes mental on sugar.
It's bollocks. It's not sugar. It's really not. From what I can see, it's probably food additives and things like caffeine (present in a lot of fizzy drinks), and certain food colourings. He'll go mental on orange cordial, but he'll go just as mental on sugar-free orange cordial or diet coke. If you don't use the sugar you consume, you don't have bursts of manic energy, you get fucking fat.
( Wicca'd Witch needs ideas for a new sig on..., Sun 4 Dec 2011, 21:28, closed)

Spot on..
it's the artificial colourings, Sunset Yellow and the vicious blue one that was banned for a while in scandinavia are the worst. I wasn't allowed food colouring at all until I turned 18 and moved out from my parents' because it turned me into destructo-spasmo-child of doom and then slammed me with a hangover worse than micro-brew hangover.
(darras jeg har en grevling i hodet. Grevling, grevlang, Mon 5 Dec 2011, 10:51, closed)

It's crisps that worry me,
one time I was in LiDL and there was this kid, must have been about 5, just bouncing off the walls, knocking stuff over, just generally being loopy (which went completely unchecked by his dad, who didn't seem to know what to do).

"Too many crisps" I thought to myself.

After going through the checkout I saw the kid, placated at last, hugging a huge multipack bag of cheap crisps.

And cheap LiDL crisps are NASTY. They're about 90% MSG. A couple of friends and I did a load of them one night and we all went a bit funny.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Sat 3 Dec 2011, 18:48, closed)

No, I've never noticed my kids behavior change after eating sweets. I've seen kids go fucking nuts with excitment at parties, with or without smarties. I know the recieved opinion is people are supposed to spaz out on sugar, never seen it in real life.
( Ring Of Fire A petty, drooling belming butthurt retard., Sat 3 Dec 2011, 19:04, closed)

I know a 13-year-old who does,
but I think she does it on purpose and uses the sugar as an excuse.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Sat 3 Dec 2011, 19:11, closed)

I am Cornholio
and you will give me TP. For my bungholeeeeee
(Rsoles, Sat 3 Dec 2011, 19:21, closed)

yeah pretty much

( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Sat 3 Dec 2011, 19:23, closed)

I spaz out on sugar.
But then I'm type 1 diabetic.
( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Sat 3 Dec 2011, 19:42, closed)

Which one is that? fat pig or born with insides all wrong?

( Ring Of Fire A petty, drooling belming butthurt retard., Sat 3 Dec 2011, 19:49, closed)

My immune system got a bit peckish and ate my pancreas.

( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Sat 3 Dec 2011, 19:57, closed)

fuck.

( Ring Of Fire A petty, drooling belming butthurt retard., Sat 3 Dec 2011, 20:02, closed)

I'm so manly that parts of my body actually fight other parts TO THE DEATH.

( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Sun 4 Dec 2011, 9:51, closed)

If the was a fight to the death between your penis and your arsehole, who would you be cheering for?

( Ring Of Fire A petty, drooling belming butthurt retard., Sun 4 Dec 2011, 16:46, closed)

The Universe.

( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Sun 4 Dec 2011, 17:37, closed)

Best B3ta conversation ever.

( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Mon 5 Dec 2011, 12:48, closed)

Pancreas spacker.

( Wicca'd Witch needs ideas for a new sig on..., Sun 4 Dec 2011, 21:30, closed)

You credulous fucking moron.
I hope you die young. I say "hope". I mean "expect". You're clearly too fucking stupid to survive far into adulthood.
( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Sat 3 Dec 2011, 19:41, closed)

blah blah fuck you blah blah
sounds like you died a while back
(CADmonkey rollllllllled another one, just like the other one, Sat 3 Dec 2011, 20:32, closed)

Awwww. It thinks it's people.

( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Sat 3 Dec 2011, 21:08, closed)

Here, trolly trolly trolly....
....have a peanut
(CADmonkey rollllllllled another one, just like the other one, Sun 4 Dec 2011, 0:03, closed)

Yes, dear.
You posted some garbled new-age health-paranoia bollocks and people "trolled" you by pointing out that you're a credulous dick. You've got me bang to rights.
( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Sun 4 Dec 2011, 9:15, closed)

Sad to say
My garbled new-age health-paranoia bollocks is bang on topic. Calling it bollocks or me a cunt does nothing to undermine any of it.
(CADmonkey rollllllllled another one, just like the other one, Sun 4 Dec 2011, 10:46, closed)

Bless.

( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Sun 4 Dec 2011, 10:51, closed)

Shambles has been into the lollies again.

(Misery McUglywife an attention seeking sociopathic fuckstain., Sat 3 Dec 2011, 21:25, closed)

I particularly like the attempt to distinguish between cheap flavoured sugar alcohol
and premium flavoured sugar alcohol. Do you think it works for Diageo or something?
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Sun 4 Dec 2011, 11:45, closed)

I only drink alcohol that contains free trade ethanol who were willing partners in the anaerobic respiration of college-educated yeast.

( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Sun 4 Dec 2011, 17:47, closed)

I hope this is a troll
Because your "science" is fucking shit
(Bitter and Twisted, Sat 3 Dec 2011, 23:18, closed)

I woz right
This is the fucking BMJ
(CADmonkey rollllllllled another one, just like the other one, Sat 3 Dec 2011, 23:29, closed)

pp 173-180 of "Food of the Gods" by Terence McKenna
is a good read.
(Misery McUglywife an attention seeking sociopathic fuckstain., Sat 3 Dec 2011, 23:38, closed)

Thanks, could only find this much at this late hour
"Sugar is culturally defined by us as a food. This definition denies that sugar can act as a highly addictive drug, yet the evidence is all around us. Many children and compulsive eaters live in a motivational environment primarily rule by mood swings resulting from cravings for sugar."

I can dig it.
(CADmonkey rollllllllled another one, just like the other one, Sat 3 Dec 2011, 23:58, closed)

"sugar is culturally defined for us as a food"
Fucking jesus wept. "culturally defined" ? You might as well say breathing is "a lifestyle choice"

You are aware that every single organism on the planet - every one - relies on respiration to survive? respiration - that being the conversion of sugar (glucose specifically, about as refined as you can make it, seeing as it's reduced to its constituent carbon ring) and oxygen to carbon dioxide and water and ENERGY. Without this, you would be dead in a very short period of time.

Our bodies are remarkably adapted to break down sugar dimers if necessary (sucrose, lactose, maltose) or polymers (starch etc) into glucose, fructose and galactose and convert the monomer galactose to glucose for metabolism. If anything, refining sugar helps.

the only sugar that really causes problems is the one that you probably think is the best as it's "natural" - fructose. Because it requires a different metabolic pathway, is absorbed differently in the gut and is not regulated in the same way as glucose metabolism (it runs very fast and tends to veer towards long-term energy storage rather than short-term release). Hence one of the reasons why if you exist entirely on fruit you'll fairly rapidly make yourself quite unwell

However, it's Sunday, you're not paying me to teach you this shit, although thankfully I've never come across a student at any level with beliefs as idiotic as this - so I think I'll leave it there.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Sun 4 Dec 2011, 12:09, closed)

strange how the OP hasn't responded to you here...

( janet aylia y'all motherfuckers need jesus, Sun 4 Dec 2011, 14:32, closed)

Blimey give me a break
this is all over the place
(CADmonkey rollllllllled another one, just like the other one, Sun 4 Dec 2011, 15:06, closed)

When you say "this", you are presumably referring to your increasingly bizarre and desperate attempts to justify being a moron, right?

( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Sun 4 Dec 2011, 17:37, closed)

Moron
or troll
(W3BOPLASTY, Sun 4 Dec 2011, 6:19, closed)

Christ on a bike
If I'd said Bert & Ernie killed JFK I wouldn't have copped this level of abuse
(CADmonkey rollllllllled another one, just like the other one, Sun 4 Dec 2011, 10:28, closed)

You're not being abused.
You're a moron and people are telling you that you're a moron.
( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Sun 4 Dec 2011, 10:35, closed)

We must have different dictionaries
Your colourful personal descriptions of me are abusive. If you can't see that, then you really have a problem. Digital Tourettes?
(CADmonkey rollllllllled another one, just like the other one, Sun 4 Dec 2011, 10:51, closed)

Have you ever been on the internet before?
It must be confusing for you. Perhaps you should have some sugar.
( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Sun 4 Dec 2011, 10:52, closed)

CAD, Shambles is a toy to be played with.
Enjoy.
(Misery McUglywife an attention seeking sociopathic fuckstain., Sun 4 Dec 2011, 11:10, closed)

Funny i was thinking the same thing
He's the analogue version of this:

www.therandomshop.co.uk/polly-the-swearing-parrot-keyring-p-595.html?zenid=7811cc2f7ab58675a8e630767ebc9bbb
(CADmonkey rollllllllled another one, just like the other one, Sun 4 Dec 2011, 11:23, closed)

Sweet. The puppies are making friends.
I wonder if they'll try to play-fuck.
( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Sun 4 Dec 2011, 11:25, closed)

lol
arse! feck! girls!
(CADmonkey rollllllllled another one, just like the other one, Sun 4 Dec 2011, 11:37, closed)

This, mostly, is because Bert and Ernie killing JFK
is merely implausible. Not your weapons grade retardedness with a lack of understanding of basic science that a toddler would be embarrassed of.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Sun 4 Dec 2011, 11:47, closed)

Why didn't you just go 'pfft'...
...and save needless wear on your keyboard? It's not like you could be bothered to communicate much else. 'Tw@' is even less typing. God forbid you (or any of the other smug bastards on this page) should challenge my post on anything other than my perceived lack of branes.

BTW wot science? I'm just going on what i read and experience subjectively. No science is intended.
(CADmonkey rollllllllled another one, just like the other one, Sun 4 Dec 2011, 12:11, closed)

Did you not read what I posted up there?
In any case, I answered your question about exactly why you'd have got less abuse if you'd posted about Bert and Ernie. Because it would have been less stupid.

Typing "twat" would be pointless abuse. I had the good courtesy to at least point out why you're an idiot.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Sun 4 Dec 2011, 12:16, closed)

Did you not read what I posted up there?
What about the idea that sugar in it's refined state is indigestable? Or creates a cycle of highs and lows in your day that you blindly top up? Or that sugar is an added ingredient in 4-month baby food? These aren't really science issues, they are more cultural and societal than anything else.

It's not me that's saying all this, it's Terrence McKenna and the guy that wrote the Sugar Blues. Personally, I'm driven by sanctimonious parental self righteousness. I'd rather my kids drank neat gin than coca-cola, but I guess I'm just wrong, because you say so.
(CADmonkey rollllllllled another one, just like the other one, Sun 4 Dec 2011, 12:32, closed)

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, closed)

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)

no, you're wrong about this
because it's entirely wrong. I know this because I've spent 20 years training, working and publishing in medical research and you haven't, and you're taking the word of an areshole charlatan with no grounding in science simply because it's published in a book called the sugar blues.

Can I ask you something? Do you believe in Hogwarts as well? because that's in print so it must be true.

I am sure that there are plenty of things out there that you know more about that me. However, believe me, this is very much not one of them. Therefore, if you wish to put forward an idea in the public domain, be it yours or some other fruitcakes, which is so transparently and obviously wrong that a 7 year old could explain it to you using crayons, do you not think you're going to get a tiny little bit of abuse, perhaps?
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Sun 4 Dec 2011, 13:19, closed)

"you're wrong because I'm right"?
There's a bunch of what I'm saying that has little to do with medical research.

I'll let you in on a secret. Occasionally, i eat mcvities plain chocolate digestives. Like, a whol packet of them in an evening. I've even mugged my own children for one of their maltesers. That said, the similarities between attitudes to recreational drugs as they are generally defined and children bingeing on sugar until they're 18 and then moving on to Breezers are pretty hard to deny even if you are a chemist.

Over a few hours, a can of coke will leave you thirsty and drained of energy. What is the point of that then? Sugary treats create an anticipation and expectation of nothing but pleasure. Personally, I've known what cravings and addictions feel like. We as a society have an invisible monkey on our backs, but all i can really do is influence my own family.

In the words of Kahlil Gibran: "Comfort enters your house as a guest, but over time becomes host, and finally master."
(CADmonkey rollllllllled another one, just like the other one, Sun 4 Dec 2011, 13:38, closed)

No, because this is my area.
And therefore I know what I'm talking about, and you are wrong.

And over a few hours, a pint of water will leave you thirsty and devoid of energy. As will nothing, or a beer, or a cup of tea. The issue is nothing to do with sugar being "bad" for you.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Sun 4 Dec 2011, 13:41, closed)

People like to eat things that have sugar in because they taste nice.
I don't have much of a sweet tooth, personally. I guess cheese and pickled onions are addictive as well, though.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Sun 4 Dec 2011, 15:34, closed)

I went to Hogwarts

( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Sun 4 Dec 2011, 15:27, closed)

I love you.

( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Mon 5 Dec 2011, 8:42, closed)

Sorry
I realise I have been a fool

Forgive me ?

Please ??
(Bitter and Twisted, Mon 5 Dec 2011, 22:52, closed)

I've eaten nothing but a bowl of refined sugar three times a day for the last 30 years
and I'm just fine
( Peej, Sun 4 Dec 2011, 9:32, closed)

Madness
Don't you realise that sugar is CHEMICALS!

Apparently, sugar is made of atoms as well. That's right, it's atomic. And when you eat it, sugar atomics invade deep into your body and replace the nice natural atomics with it's nasty sugar ones.
( Ring Of Fire A petty, drooling belming butthurt retard., Sun 4 Dec 2011, 11:06, closed)

Well, at least it's organic.

( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Sun 4 Dec 2011, 11:45, closed)

its

( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Sun 4 Dec 2011, 15:28, closed)

it's

(CADmonkey rollllllllled another one, just like the other one, Sun 4 Dec 2011, 16:35, closed)

nope,
not in "it's nasty sugar ones."

"It's" is a contraction of "it is" or "it has".
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Sun 4 Dec 2011, 16:45, closed)

well i was looking at 'at least it's organic'
No grammer for you! You come back, one year!
(CADmonkey rollllllllled another one, just like the other one, Sun 4 Dec 2011, 17:28, closed)

"grammar"

( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Sun 4 Dec 2011, 17:38, closed)

I will have to tell my uncle to stop putting 3 heaped teaspoonsful of the stuff in his tea
he is almost 92 years old and has only ever been in hospital once in his life!
(Mackeson_drinker, Sun 4 Dec 2011, 11:52, closed)

Well you've got a point, TBH
We do live longer in this day and sugar-saturated age. Possibly we are embalming ourselves throughout the course of our lives. I wouldn't mind being toothless and diabetic and allergic to everything if I could be 92 as well.
(CADmonkey rollllllllled another one, just like the other one, Sun 4 Dec 2011, 12:14, closed)

Tell you what CAD monkey
Best thing to do is not bother posting at all because when you dare to join in on this forum there are only a handful of people who actually possess basic common sense and a little respect.
The rest are made up of liberal self righteous " intellectuals" who will throw academic achievements and qualifications at you but generally are incapable of tying their own shoe laces or parking a car straight.
When the world goes tits up i'm sure they will be really useful at building shelters or keeping water clean or generating electricity.They'll be more concerned for the rights of the surviving ants and cockroaches.
Chin up!!
(boarders You won't catch me with my trousers, Sun 4 Dec 2011, 15:08, closed)

Truth i sense in the speaks you word
but masochism mode is fully engaged. It's been a busy old week.
(CADmonkey rollllllllled another one, just like the other one, Sun 4 Dec 2011, 15:15, closed)

Qualified biochemists don't know shit about biochemistry.
It's the paranoid cranks on the internet we should be listening to.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Sun 4 Dec 2011, 15:30, closed)

You say that
but that 'TheMightyBadger' is undoubtedly sucking from the pendulous tit of the sugar companies.
( Ring Of Fire A petty, drooling belming butthurt retard., Sun 4 Dec 2011, 16:50, closed)

I can't swear to this ... take it with a pinch of salt ... but I heard that he has the Tate and Lyle tractor tattooed inside his anus.
(well ... don't take it with a pinch of salt ... salt is probably even more EEEEVIL than sugar)
( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Sun 4 Dec 2011, 17:26, closed)

Roman soldiers used to be paid in salt,
so it's a sort of money, and money is the root of all evil. Which would work, except salt isn't a root, unlike sugar!
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Sun 4 Dec 2011, 17:30, closed)

Deep, man. Deep.

( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Sun 4 Dec 2011, 17:38, closed)

Ahem
Money is not the root of all evil. Rather; the love of money is.
( Ghoti Fingers, Sun 4 Dec 2011, 20:13, closed)

Well I'm glad it's not pedantry, anyway.

( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Sun 4 Dec 2011, 20:18, closed)

British Sugar give me a fucking solid reaming every week.
Just so I stay balanced.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Mon 5 Dec 2011, 8:44, closed)

qualified biochemists
probably cant tie their own shoelaces.
(boarders You won't catch me with my trousers, Sun 4 Dec 2011, 19:10, closed)

yeah but we're not discussing shoelace tying here, are we?

( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Sun 4 Dec 2011, 19:34, closed)

That chip on your shoulder must properly stink.

( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Sun 4 Dec 2011, 19:38, closed)

Fucking liberals fucking everything up.
I was brought up on a croft and can pretty much live off the land (and sea)if I needed to. Luckily I also have the capacity for rational thought.

That Study that CADmonkey linked to, that linked cancer to how many sugars somebody has in their tea proved nothing.

The are many other environmental factors that may also be linked to sugar consumption that could be the causal link with the cancer. For example, the group that had the higher cancer rate also on average; owned more teaspoons. Obviously this proves the existence of the teaspoon cancer menace.
( Ring Of Fire A petty, drooling belming butthurt retard., Sun 4 Dec 2011, 16:42, closed)

Jesus wept.
Did somebody inject insecticide into the yank woodwork?
( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Sun 4 Dec 2011, 17:27, closed)

omg chemtrails

( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Sun 4 Dec 2011, 17:31, closed)

They were much better back in the '80s.

( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Sun 4 Dec 2011, 17:39, closed)

And they'll be using gobby plebs like you as slave labour.

( The Mock TurtIe ™ --- Thinks you are a cunt, on, Sun 4 Dec 2011, 18:45, closed)

excellent.
let's encourage weapons grade stupidity than, shall we? Nothing like taking humanity back to the brink of a new stone age by encouraging the paranoid and patently wrong.

And we don't need to build shelters. We'll just take yours when you die because you apparently believe the single most fundamental human nutrient is a poison.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Mon 5 Dec 2011, 8:55, closed)

I remember when this site used to be funny.
But there again I remember being bummed into madness by my uncle, although he and my mum now seem pretty sure it didn't happen.
(judgetheobscure used to sweep in butchers' shops., Sun 4 Dec 2011, 17:04, closed)

Are you any good at pinball?

( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Sun 4 Dec 2011, 17:27, closed)

Totally worth it
just for the Tw@ retort
That is the most useful thing I have learnt on line in the past 24h!
Thanks CAD
(W3BOPLASTY, Sun 4 Dec 2011, 17:59, closed)

Not really trying to be an arsehole here but...
Raw sugar FTW!
The "raw" sugar you buy in the shop is still processed or refined sugar - just slightly less so.
(Misery McUglywife an attention seeking sociopathic fuckstain., Sun 4 Dec 2011, 22:15, closed)