sugar isn't bad for you, you're just unhealthy and your body doesn't know how to properly metabolise it.simple as.
>>77057707If calories are not in excess, then "bad" aspects of a given food get greatly reduced. It just so happens that most shit food is calorie dens, very palatable, and easy to overeat.
>>77057772wrong way of looking at things. there are healthy and unhealthy things, regardless of calorie content.
>>77057707>easy to overeat.And why do you think that is? Why do you think carnivores rave about eating 4 pounds of meat in one sitting? If this is your thread >>77055732 then i will respond what i meant to over there. The conclusion of the post that this thread was responding to was to eat 10 pounds of berries. A full bag. Yet they were still complaining.
>>77057707>eat carb>carb turns to sugar>this is not a problem>eat sugar>body doesn't need to waste time converting it to sugar>this is a problemif sugar is bad then protein powder is bad.
>>77057707Refined sugar really is bad for you though. It's too concentrated in nearly every food item we eat. Think of it this way. An average apple weighs around 175 grams. If you were to eat 175 grams of m&ms, the body would respond the same way as if you had just eaten 15 apples all at once. The body's sugar uptake mechanism is not calibrated to consume copious amounts of refined sugar. It's calibrated to eat natural foods that we've been eating for millennia.
>>77057918I never said there isn't bad foods but much of the "badness" (but not all) usually comes from the excess calories. Obviously there are exceptions like trans fats and alcohol that are just plain bad in any amount, but most "bad" foods, the main bad aspect is people overeat them. Not saying there's not other bad aspects (lack of micronutrients, inflammation etc).
>Collagen scientist
>>77057918Stop trying to argue with people about things they didn't say.
>>77058203>If I were to eat something that's 50% fat and 50% sugar, your body would respond in the exact same way as if you ate 100% sugar.Just stop posting.
>>77058369We’re talking about sugar and diabetes. The insulin spike you’ll see from eating 15 apples is equivalent to the insulin spike you’ll see from eating one apple’s weight(175g) of m&ms. The thing is the 15 apples still contain 300g of carbohydrates whereas the 175g of m&ms will only have 130g of carbohydrates. The type of and concentration of carbs in the candy is what makes the insulin spike so aggressive.
>>77058668Sir, you were told to stop posting.
>>77058936I wouldn’t have to correct your idiocy if any of you apes knew how to actually read.
>>77057707Post body, Veronica
>>77057978Protein is broken down into amino acids.
>>77057707Sugar isn't bad, overconsumption is.>1850: 5-8lbs of sugar a year per american>1900: 40-80lbs of sugar a year per american>2020: 170-190lbs of sugar a year per american
>>77057707Sugar is perfectly fine if you exercise a lot
>>77057707Why are Peatardian cult members so easy to spot?
>>77057707can't properly metabolise it? ok sugar is bad for you, got it
>>77059148Which the liver can turn to sugar using lactic acid, so you're not getting out of this by only going so far into your reasoning. Rather the problem is the atoms know when they're supposed to make you fat and you can only reprogram them so many times before they just get stuck being fat atoms. Or rather, atoms with the propensity to make you fat. That's why I only eat lean food I make from my own atoms, mainly excrement. Some may call it intracolonial nepotism, though you can only find stuff relating to bees with that. What I'm talking about is my colon.
>>77058203>Refined sugar really is bad for you thoughhow long it stays in the blood depends on insulin sensitivity/resistance. if eating lots of sugar (not bad in itself) causes high blood sugar, then you just have insulin resistance. reverse that, and problem is solved>The body's sugar uptake mechanism is not calibrated to consume copious amounts of refined sugar.this only applies if you are insulin resistant, or when your glucose metabolism is impaired. most people who have an inefficient metabolism get fat from eating sugar. but again, it's completely absurd to blame sugar. your body just doesn't know how to treat it>>77059193there exists literally no refutation against the peat philosophy. >>77060043yes, when you can't metabolise it properly, sugar is bad for you. but it's still a retarded way of looking at it, because it places the blame on the sugar and makes you blind to the reality
>>77060727>when you can't metabolise it properlyThe point is that the inordinately high insulin spikes caused by the consumption of highly concentrated refined sugars will likely lead you to a point where you cannot metabolize it properly. Making your metabolism less efficient will come back to bite you in the ass when you’re not young and capable of maintaining a healthy metabolism. GLP-1 drugs are bad for similar reasons.
