File: 1712343157381077.jpg (50 KB, 858x499)

50 KB JPG

i like a banana for breakfast

File: 1749391497282964.png (8 KB, 336x291)

8 KB PNG

>>76706552
>>76706662
>>76706662
glucose

growing up is realizing that sugar in moderation is completely fine.

>>76706552
So what are we going to do about those women who breastfeed their children?
Their milk is full of lactose, oligosaccharides and even fructose if the mother eats enough fruits.
Mandatory baby formula for all of humanity?

>>76706879
>hyperfast growing infant body has the same needs as a fully grown body
Hurrr, meet durrr

>>76706932
You know nothing about biology, nigger

>>76706552
lesson one: glycolysis

www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VrRl0UTlA8

enjoy

you have a lot of studying left to do

File: Screenshot_20251009-13424(...).jpg (491 KB, 1080x2280)

491 KB JPG

>>76706879
In our natural state, the milk is fermented in the gut.

>>76706552
A little bit later in the day is okay but you can't stay lean having sugar before dinner

Nothing triggers midwits on this board more than trying to explain the difference between added sugar and natural sugar
>BUT THEY'RE THE SAME MOLECULE AHHHHHHHHH
yes they are but they're still different

>>76706552
Growing up is not making this thread over and over and over again.

>>76707726
reread OP

>>76707746
I know what OP said an OP is a retard. Natural sugar is fine, added sugar is the problem. Retard OP doesnt know the difference between the 2, neither does anyone else here and the shrieking will soon commence about how there is no difference because they are the same molecule, which is true, but they're different

>>76707712
Why is that? Wouldn't it be the other way around?

>>76707712
let's seen your lean body you got from not "having sugar before dinner"?

What about honey?

>>76707837
In the body it acts as added sugar
>BUT HONEY IS NATURAL AND ITS STILL THE SAME MOLECULE
yeah but its different

>>76707752
So, what's the difference? They show up in the recipe at different times? How can that make such a big difference?

>>76707862
holy shit you're stupid.
Dont for any reason take 1 minute of your time away from posting frog memes to google it and learn what it is before opening your mouth and displaying how stupid you are.

>>76707879
>doesn't know
>just screams
Ngmi

>>76707889
>wont google it
>just cries
Do I look like your 11th grade health class teacher?

>>76707898
Yes?

>>76707752
I'm agreeing with you. My point wasn't that he was incorrect and you were providing clarity, it was that trying to provide clarity to someone with that view is a waste of time.

>>76706552
Right because Americans are unhealthy because they eat too much fruit.

>>76707898
>just google it. dont make me defend my position.
you are the problem with any discourse

>>76706662
You are going to die

>>76706932
>imagine being this guy and talking like this

File: IMG_9058.jpg (1.57 MB, 1170x1523)

1.57 MB JPG

I eat a bag of candy every day. Either these or sour skittles. I also eat a ton of cookies and ice cream :)

And I absolutely MOG every last one of you losers who cry about sugar being bad. Nobody who is actually in shape cares or even thinks about this.

>>76708125
Funny post.

>>76708105
>how dare anyone suggest you should have the most basic understanding of a topic before you shoot your big fat mouth off about it

>>76708297
Did you fall into the manlet pit by any chance? No-one over 6ft is this buttmad

>>76708474
>spoon feed me every fact and detail
>go google it faggot
>WHY ARE YOU SO MAD AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

>>76707752
It's not that there's a big difference between natural sugar and added sugar per se, it's all the other junk that comes with foods with added sugar. But you could say the same about fatty food like takeaway food, and people do rightly say it about that food, but it's not the fat or the sugar, it's the fact of it being shitty food.

You're giving the sugar=bad crowd too much respect by - well first by responding at all to them, secondly by this kind of admission that added sugar is bad. No it's not. Artificial food full of calories is bad, period. You could eat almost 100% sugars in your diet (fruit) and you would lose weight and feel great - source, have done it. The main problem with being like that "fruitarian" is it's not exactly good for gaining muscle. But you can certainly do it if you only care about energy. Here's an elite endurance athlete and all he eats is fruit:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KE5Z1gKiD1s

the only reason more people aren't fruitarian is because guys especially like muscle rather than being rakes. If I wanted to be as skinny as possible I would only eat fruit, ie. mainly sugar, ie. the EXACT opposite of what they say would happen. But if I drank some soda it wouldn't hurt my diet much or at all.

So how can so many millions of people all be wrong? How can all the """"science"""" about sugar being bad be wrong? Because they are crazy people, crazy, crazy and retarded, they really are. It's generally all fat people who have been driven crazy by trying to stay away from food and they get these ideas and this culty attitude about it. Humans have been full of crazy beliefs and superstitions throughout history and ketards are one of these groups today. They were crazy yesterday and will be crazy tomorrow, no need to dignify their nonsense by saying natural sugar is different or anything like that.

File: oregon-trail-rfk-jr.png (79 KB, 320x313)

79 KB PNG

>>76706552
Cool troll thread bro; just Google Scholar "fruit" and "all-cause mortality" to see the polyphenols more than cancel out the sugar in terms of health effects, kek.

>>76708523
>guy replies to my post about natural vs added sugar with paragraphs and paragraphs and he still has no idea what he's talking about

>>76708543
because natural sugar isnt bad, added sugar is and nobody here will learn the difference.

>>76708125
For me, it's sour patch kids watermelon

>>76708552
Do you think that the sugar from sugarcane or corn is unnatural?

>>76708765
another midwit appears

>>76708788
Do you know what the word "natural" means?

>>76706552
And surpassing false enlightenment is realizing sugar, in any shape or form, natural or processed, is really good for you.

>>76707843
>he thinks fruit won't spike your blood glucose and cause an insulin response.
Get a load of this guy

>>76708297
You need to go back

>>76708827
You're not just a midwit, but a literal dipshit.

>>76708817
yes and it has nothing to do with this discussion.
Natural sugar and added sugar have specific definitions in nutrition.
You retards still refuse to learn the difference.

>>76708818
based

t. fruit, honey, hell even corn syrup enjoyer

>>76708857
>everyone else needs to use my terminology exactly as some other authority defines it.
>if you ask me to define it, I'll refuse and also insult you.
Are you a tyranny, by chance?
Actually, I take that back. A tyranny would at least have the decency to define the terms they're using in a discussion.

>>76708876
>I want to just make up my own definitions and use whatever words I want to describe specific defined things because I'm too retarded to spend 60 seconds learning about the topic on google
you are a transvestite who thinks "women" means what you want it to mean

>>76708859
OP probably doesn't even have kids and talking about sugar bad.

Meanwhile all I basically eat is sugar and i'm on kid three.
I'm pretty sure OP just has bad genetics and a metabolic disorder.

>>76708884
I looked it up on Google. The first three sources I saw say that only fructose (from fruit) and lactose (from dairy) are natural. This would exclude honey, which is WRONG.
The fourth source I looked at said that "added" sugars do not come with "vital nutrients like fiber (lmao)". If they're considering honey to be "added", then they're also WRONG. Honey has a lot of micronutrients.

>>76708895
You still dont bother to read the difference between the two beyond sources.
Yes honey is found "naturally" but the body treats its as an added sugar. Having micronutrients is not part of the equation.
Are all you people really this helpless you can even type shit into google without fucking it up?

>>76708906
>I told you that you should look up the definition of things!
>no not like that!
You must have a lot of friends. Maybe your comrades on Reddit would be a better social group for you.
>Having micronutrients is not part of the equation.
Google says you're wrong.
Before you get all pissy, Google is what YOU said to use.

>>76708915
ok you fucking retard spoon feeding time since you didnt read past the first line of grok.
Natural sugar like in anapple is in the cells of the food and is released slowly though digestion and doesnt spike blood sugar nor insulin.
Added sugar (like a gummy bear) is not bound to anything and goes to the bloodstream faster and spikes blood glucose and insulin
Do you understand now now you useless retarded faggot ?

>>76708935
>doesnt spike blood sugar nor insulin
Yes they do, and they do so to different degrees depending on the fruit. Have you never looked at the glycemic index chart? Some fruits cause a greater spike than ice cream.

>>76708953
>cries and whines because its not being spoonfed to him
>spoonfeed him
>muh glycemic index because some fruits digest faster than others
Go do a thesis on it then about how everything is wrong and the cane sugar in your chocolate cake is the same as a piece of fruit because its natural and comes from nature

>>76708969
......... okay, so do you agree that fruit does, in fact, spike blood sugar and cause an insulin response?

>>76708977
>ACKTCHUALLY these handful of outliers (that have simple sugars not bound within the cells and gets treated by the body as added sugars) disproves everything about this topic
You want to to know the difference between added and natural sugars and I told you.
What your choose to do with that knowledge is between you and your autism.
Go eat a fucking chocolate cake and pretend its the same as an apple faggot

>>76708935
>Natural sugar like in anapple is in the cells of the food
Lactose is considered a natural sugar, but is not within cells. It's just free floating in the milk.
>doesnt spike blood sugar nor insulin.
Fruits do spike blood sugar and insulin.
>>76708983
I don't think you are actually knowledgeable on this topic. Have a good night.

>>76709007
lactose has to be digested into simpler sugars. Its doesnt go right in the blood stream like added sugar does.
Its like the less you know the louder you get about it.
>BUT YOU SAID IN CELLS!!!! ITS NOT IN A CELL!!!!!!
I said in an apple its in the cells. I also said slowly digested

File: Screenshot_20251009-22184(...).jpg (717 KB, 1080x2280)

717 KB JPG

>>76709025
>I said in an apple its in the cells
The way that you structured your sentence implied that all natural sugars are in cells, and that an apple was just one example. Are you an ESL? I'll give you a pass on that one.
>lactose has to be digested into simpler sugars. Its doesnt go right in the blood stream like added sugar does.
Picrel. You're 0/3.
Very disappointing. Many such cases.
It's not the qualities of the lactose itself that delays glucose addition to the bloodstream. The fat in the dairy slows it down.

>>76709074
>YOU DIDNT WORD YOUR EXPLAINATION COMPLETELY AND PROPERLY ON AN ANIME PEDO IMAGE BOARD THE WAY A COLLEGE PROFESSOR WOULD TEACH IT (because I refuse to learn it myself)
>THESE HANDFUL OF EXCEPTIONS AND GREY AREAS THAT YOU DIDNT PREVIOUSLY DISCLOSE DISPROVE THE ENTIRE CONCEPT
ok you win. Eat your fucking cheesecake fatty and pretend its the same as eating an apple and every discussion here must presented with a syllabus and course outline before discussing it so autistic ACTCHUALLYcels like you wont spazz out when talking in generalities.

>>76709088
>autistic ACTCHUALLYcels like you wont spazz out when talking in generalities
Jesus christ you're the most emotional person I've ever talked to.
Remember earlier in the thread when you sperged out at that other anon for not knowing the exact definitions of the words you wanted to use?

>>76709088
>>76709102
You spent like two hours pissed off at this guy >>76707862 for not knowing your textbook definitions, and you can't even understand English grammar.

>>76709102
Because he was insisting NATURAL meant "found in nature" and that's not what's meant at all by natural sugar. I didnt invent the terminology. Why is that so hard to understand?
But apparently because I didnt list every single fucking sugar source in the world and describe exactly how its digested, the entire concept is debunked?

>>76706552

Growing up is realizing what sugar is, what it does in relation to how body produces energy through metabolic pathways, and differentiating different kinds of carbs for different occasions, can be beneficial for you.

Thank you.

>>76708906
>but the body treats its as an added sugar.
This is not a thing. Your body does not know where food came from. The term you're looking for is simple sugar.

>>76706552
I'm coming off the midwit peak about sugar and carbs.

>>76706552
glucose or fructose?
you're basically at the midwit peak

*Good for you
Fixed that for you, OP. Sugar is very good. The perfect diet is fresh raw meat and fruit. Vegetables are poison. Most candy in the U.S. has toxic bullshit in it like Skittles or Baby Food with the heavy metals.

>>76709661
Fruit causes glycation, so it's suboptimal unless you want to store some fat for winter. Though eating low fructose fruit should solve this more or less.

>>76709952
literally need fructose for sperm to have healthy children.
there is a reason keto faggots have less children. basically sterile.

>>76709956
Nonsense, that seminal fructose is produced by your body, you don't need to supplement it

>>76709952
Fruit-causing glycation is a non-issue. Stop listening to YouTube Grifters.

>>76710005
>humans eat less fruit worldwide
>populations crashing everywhere

>NO THE HUMAN BODY CREATES IT SAAR
rrrrrright

>>76710030
>HFCS literally everywhere
>we need more fructose
Genuine retard

>>76709956
Your body makes that fructose from the glucose in your bloodstream. All digestible carbs become blood glucose after digestion.

>>76709644
you're another one splitting hairs over wording.
>It acts like an added sugar in the body.
Is that better for your autism and ocd?

Sugarfags still can't explain where prehistoric people would get large amounts of sugar, especially year-round

>>76706662
glucose is fine

>>76710951
Again, your body has no idea where it came from. The term you're looking for is simple sugar. The sugars that are added to products are not complex carbohydrates. They are simple - stripped of their fiber and nutrients, purified, and easily digested. If you don't want to be corrected, use the proper terminology.

>>76710960
Probably because zero people made that claim

>>76710978
bananas have fructose as well. fructose literally means fruit sugar.

>>76711002
yes

>>76710022
>Fruit-causing glycation
Nobody said that glycation causes fruit

and why is it bad?

>>76711061
Quick thing, I never claimed that.

>>76710982
"where it came from" has nothing to do with it and its just something you pulled out your ass and inserted into the conversation and then got mad at ME for saying it.
Yes, honey is "natural" because its found in nature. No shit we all know that. But its considered an added sugar by the way its digested.

>>76711089
I'm not going to continue replying since you're getting so viscerally emotionally upset.

>>76711079
Not him, but:
Putting a hyphen between the words "fruit" and "causing" implies that the fruit is being caused by the glycation, which makes no sense.
Another example of improper English causing a misunderstanding.

>>76711091
>let me tell you about added sugar......
>NOOOOO SHUT UP ARE EMOTIONALLY UPSET AHHHHHH

>>76711079
It says it right there
>Fruit-causing glycation

>>76711143
It is a distinct possibility that poster is either a jeet or retarded.