Chemicals In White Sugar

_lppaiva

Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2019
Messages
116
I looked around and didn't see a lot of posts addressing the obscene amounts of chemicals used in white refined sugar?

Sulfur Dioxide, Phosphoric Acid, Calcium Hydroxide, more recently Polyacrylamides, etc.

Wouldn't it be safer to use brown sugar, even if it contains a little bit of iron?
 

michael94

Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2015
Messages
2,419
I looked around and didn't see a lot of posts addressing the obscene amounts of chemicals used in white refined sugar?

Sulfur Dioxide, Phosphoric Acid, Calcium Hydroxide, more recently Polyacrylamides, etc.

Wouldn't it be safer to use brown sugar, even if it contains a little bit of iron?
phosphoric acid and calcium hydroxide are very safe,not sure about the other ones. Depends on the amount
 
Joined
Jul 21, 2019
Messages
597
Location
Near the Promised Land
This doesn't sound like much of an argument or "anti-Peat"-esque post.

Couldn't you find anything "wrong" correlated with anything "good" if you look hard enough? You could live in a CO2 rich environment, but if there are excessive toxins, deadly zombie brigades or other environmental downsides/etc. you could say "CO2 is bad because..." and combine any reason with it.

Does this make CO2 bad or the things that may exist alongside it in certain times/contexts bad (or the improper utilization, etc.)? It's like saying PUFA isn't bad or estrogen is good because on some level both can be, but with so many other things to consider you get way more cons than pros down the line usually (think like a reverse-to-reverse "anti-Peat" post).

If you choose to search for anything "wrong" in anything "right" (or the inverse) then the subject/consensus is open to, well, anything -- not just sugar or anything "Peaty." I think a real "anti-Peat" argument would need solid, sensible evidence that the underlying, low-level understanding of his theories are wrong as demonstrated by proper, well-designed studies, interpretations and/or understandings of the deeper level, particular mechanisms in biochemistry and etc. Just citing a random study for example that says differently than what another asserts doesn't wholly make you "right" nor the opposing side "wrong" -- that's why the whole foundation of science has become partially joke-like in ways since some can use any reference/counter-position as a way of saying, "Ha! Got'cha. It's science, sucka! I win!" Science/studying isn't to be used as a "weapon" but to assert a viewpoint of understanding for something -- that isn't to say it's some solidified fact that trumps anything else just because 'X' concluded something different than 'Y' for various reasons (different study design, testing, approach, theory, insight, restrictions, environment, malice, etc.).
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom