High fructose corn syrup, made by enzymatic conversion of about half the glucose to fructose, or cane sugar, which is a disaccharide consisting of paired molecules of glucose and fuctose, are not so fine. The fructose has to be processed by the liver before it can be used.
I just wish we could get some regulations banning it and salt as a flavour enhancer in partially prepared food products like frozen stuff and the pre-made components.
Sure, it does cause an insulin spike that causes insulin resistance in the long term but in selective use of blood sugar spiking lies its utility.
Perhaps the invisible hand did demonize animal fats and promote sugar but how is that in any way related to my argument?
"The pharmacologically active ingredient of coca is the cocaine alkaloid, which is found in the amount of about 0.3 to 1.5%, averaging 0.8%" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca
Can you clarify what your argument is?
2. On the other hand, sugars have a very important purpose in the body and is present in fruits/vegetables.
3. Like my comment states, prolonged abuse of sugars certainly have negative effects, but as evident from the comment chain, people argue that any and all use of sugar is bad. That's the kind of coarse thinking that I think is harmful.
"Cocaine is not a naturally occurring compound but one generated through a synthetic process specifically to inhibit re-uptake of certain neurotransmitters"
No, cocaine is extracted from coca leaves, it is not synthesized. Refined sugar is also extracted from plants - same thing.
I do know that cocaine alkaloids are extracted from plants. Sugar is not necessarily extracted from plants. Its not the same thing. You can simply eat 1-2 servings of most fruit to get the same amount of sugar as a can of soda. It doesn't have to be potent to be found in nature.
Still, I don't see where your argument is going, we're arguing about the moderate use of sugar. The incans chewed on coca leaves and it seemed to enhance their long distance endurance. Are you arguing that any amount of sugar is de facto bad?
You're the one who mentioned refined sugar. Nowhere have I said that any amount of sugar is bad. On the other hand, the parts of fruit that are beneficial are not the fructose (which is even worse for you than sucrose, which I assume is what you're talking about) but the vitamins, flavonoids and other compounds.
We can agree that sugar is not de facto bad. Where we apparently disagree is that refined sugar is not bad. I still eat it - doesn't make it good.
I would argue that coca leaves are not de facto bad, but refined cocaine is much closer to bad (though I hear it's really the impurities in street stuff that are bad.)
2. If you need a source to prove that table sugar is sucrose here it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_sugar
3. Finally, you're close to understanding my point (and what I presume is the orignal commenter's).
As far as we know, a moderate amount of refined sugar is not bad once in a while since it helps to increase blood glucose levels like any other source of sugar. (I'm intentionally disregarding the insulin spiking aspect of it here since I've already addressed that in a previous comment.) The fact that you and various other are against moderate sugar consumption (the original commenter's claim), shows how brainwashed the masses are.
So is cyanide and ricin.
None of what you are saying is correct. You do not need to consume refined sugar to have "ample levels" in your body.
Is consuming refined sugar vital for the healthy functioning of the human body?
FYI, it's not 100% clear whether humans produce DMT but it's highly likely https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45812-w.
Anyways, I did read it and if you don't realize by now, my questions are rhetorical since you don't seem to have a strong logical foundation.
>> Is consuming refined sugar vital for the healthy functioning of the human body?
This is what I'm referring to as strawmanning my argument. Surely this is true of sugar in general and while I was referring to refined sugar as a potential vehicle for getting sugar into the body you decided to act as though I'm proposing getting 100% of your sugar intake from refined sugar.
Your link strengthens what I just said. If DMT is produced endogenously surely its different from sugar that has to be consumed.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8075769, https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/42756923.pdf
Sugar does not have to be consumed. Your body can convert protein into glucose. Your microbiota can convert fiber in short-chain fatty acids that feed your cells. You can also function without sugar (look up the ketone diet).
Maybe you should be more precise and not expect others to read your mind.
Sigh...just think about it a little more carefully before responding. Did I ever make the argument that sugar is never produced endogenously? And does that invalidate my point that some consumption of sugar is one way to keep the body functioning healthily?
I don't have a doctorate but I'm very comfortable with reading academic articles - your condescension is not welcome here.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8075769 Discusses the various impurities illicit cocaine contains. What is the purpose of citing this exactly? This is so far related from the original argument.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/42756923.pdf Breaks down the various alkaloids in cocaine leaves and is unrelated to what your point is.
"In-depth chromatographic analyses of illicit cocaine and its precursor, coca leaves."
At this point I can't tell if you're trolling or just can't handle disagreement.
> And does that invalidate my point that some consumption of sugar is one way to keep the body functioning healthily
That certainly wasn't your claim. The above is a very vague statement that no one would disagree with.
You made the point that sugar is a naturally occurring substance, so I and others pointed out that being "natural occurring" is in no way sufficient to suggest that a substance is healthy or not, especially if the substance is refined (e.g. cyanide, ricin, cocaine, DMT, on and on..)
...And your point is? Why do you get the impression that we disagree on this? I have already known this for many years.
>> "natural occurring" is in no way sufficient to suggest that a substance is healthy or not
This is not something I claimed at all. It is absurd to extrapolate this from my argument.
If you read closely, it was in the context of it being engineered for a dopamine spike, aka a drug. Maybe the argument could have been better stated by stating that moderate use of sugar typically equates to the same amount that is generally found in a diet consisting of natural, unprocessed and healthy foods.
I didn't think it would be possible to interpret the argument in such a non-nuanced and obtuse way, evidently I'm wrong.
I now realize you don't quite pass the Turing test but honestly it was close, hats off to the programmers.