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, 1 reply)

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)