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.
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.