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, 1 reply)

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)