How can refined white sugar not be awful?

[Thalgo]

It feeds cancer: all anticancer protocols include cutting out refined sugar.

It destroyed my teeth.

It makes my feet and lower legs tingle really bad.

It caused me hypoglycemia crashes. I cured my hypoglycemia by stopping eating sweets.

It is the driver of the obesity epidemic.

It makes my wife's disorder flare up, also her acne flares up like crazy.

Feeds the bad bacteria.

It was not part of the human diet until recently. The human body isn't adapted to all those empty calories.

Isnt it connected to diabetes?

Dont otherwise healthy populations get all sort of western civilization disorders when processed food is introduced?

If white sugar is healthy all my most basic concepts of what an healthy diet means will fall apart.

What's next? Trans fat is healthy?

 

[I'm.No.One]

It feeds cancer: all anticancer protocols include cutting out refined sugar.

Every cell in your body requires glucose, cancer is your cells mutated. Stop eating sugar & your cells will begin sourcing glucose from your muscles.

Great way to make cancer spread is to make it seek out glucose from surrounding tissue.

It destroyed my teeth.

Yeah?

Maybe it's poor gut health, horrible mineral status of your body, chemical ridden tooth paste, poor oral hygiene, chlorinated tap water, not enough calcium/magnesium/vit D?

It makes my feet and lower legs tingle really bad.

How are your kidneys doing? Cardiovascular?

It caused me hypoglycemia crashes. I cured my hypoglycemia by stopping eating sweets.

You mean your livers not doing great so it's not able to store glucose well?

It is the driver of the obesity epidemic.

Can't tell if this is just a post to bait people, I'm killing time so kinda just jumping in.

So, ya set on sugar being the primary driver of obesity & not the rancid industrialized PUFA oils they put in basically everything?

It makes my wife's disorder flare up, also her acne flares up like crazy.

Sure it's the sugar and not the other crap that's typically present with sugar?

Feeds the bad bacteria.

Define bad bacteria because that's kinda a blanket statement.

It was not part of the human diet until recently. The human body isn't adapted to all those empty calories.

Humans have been doing anything & everything possible to source carbohydrates throughout our entire existence.

They were just out there taking liquids from trees & turning it into refined sugars.

Getting stung by bees for honey.

Growing swaths of sugar cane.

Learned to extract sugar from tons of varying root vegetables.

Simple sugars have been a part of the human diet for a very long time.

Isnt it connected to diabetes?

Sure, in the way that a body that's saturated with rancid seed oils has a hard time utilizing the glucose it desperately needs to function.

Dont otherwise healthy populations get all sort of western civilization disorders when processed food is introduced?

Yeah, but you're seemingly just seeing the words sugar in labels.

You've got the sugar blindness

That's where you can't see the other ingredients that are actually causing the problems.

If white sugar is healthy all my most basic concepts of what an healthy diet means will fall apart.

Welcome. Take it one step at a time.

What's next? Trans fat is healthy?

Eat some sugar, will make it easier for you to take all of this in.



Seriously though everything you've been taught about sugar from mainstream health is pretty much a lie.

Like many can/will tell you here it can take time to repair your metabolism/health etc enough that you can properly utilize sugar.

 

[WombOfFuturity]

Have you read any of Ray's articles about sugar?

http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/glucose-sucrose-diabetes.shtml
http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/glycemia.shtml
http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/sugar-issues.shtml

In short,

Refined granulated sugar is extremely pure, but it lacks all of the essential nutrients, so it should be considered as a temporary therapeutic material, or as an occasional substitute when good fruit isn't available, or when available honey is allergenic.

If white sugar is healthy all my most basic concepts of what an healthy diet means will fall apart.

What's next? Trans fat is healthy?

Nutr Cancer. 1985;7(4):199-209. Isomeric fatty acids and tumorigenesis: a commentary on recent work. Hunter JE, Ip C, Hollenbach EJ. “Neither epidemiological nor experimental studies published to date have demonstrated any valid association between trans fatty acid ingestion and tumorigenesis. A recent study showed that under controlled conditions, a fat with a high content of trans fatty acids did not promote the development of mammary tumors induced in rats by 7,12-dimethylbenz[a]anthracene to any greater extent than did a comparable fat with a high content of cis fatty acids. In addition, in this study a high trans fat was less tumor promoting than was a blend of fats that simulated the dietary fat composition of the United States and had a lower level of trans fatty acids.”

This one's an interesting study, as it argues against the commonly touted mantra that decries trans-fatty acids as the harbinger of destruction in processed foods. Those with ready access to unhealthy food sources experience higher rates of cardiac arrest, but the researchers found that, in the population studied, not only did no relationship exist between the circulating levels of trans-fatty acids and the rate of sudden cardiac arrest, but that people living near to unhealthy food sources had a lower level of circulating trans-fatty acids.

The study suggests that some other factor is at play. Could it be perhaps the polyunsaturated fats?

"...our procedure for estimating food outlet density within each tract for each year comprised: 1) geocoding each businesses’ reported address, 2) using SIC codes and business names to classify each retail establishment into potentially health relevant categories informed by previous literature, of which healthy food sources (e.g. supermarkets, fish markets) and unhealthy food sources (e.g. fast food restaurants, bakeries)."​

​

"We explored links between food environments, dietary intake biomarkers, and sudden cardiac arrest in a population-based longitudinal study using cases and controls accruing between 1990 and 2010 in King County, WA. Surprisingly, presence of more unhealthy food sources near home was associated with a lower 18:1 trans-fatty acid concentration (−0.05% per standard deviation higher count of unhealthy food sources, 95% ConfidenceInterval [CI]: 0.01, 0.09). However, presence of more unhealthy food sources was associated with higher odds of cardiac arrest (Odds Ratio [OR]: 2.29, 95% CI: 1.19, 4.41 per standard deviation in unhealthy food outlets). While unhealthy food outlets were associated with higher cardiac arrest risk, circulating 18:1 trans fats did not explain the association."​

​

Neighborhood food environment, dietary fatty acid biomarkers, and cardiac arrest risk - ScienceDirect​

J Nutr. 2009 Nov 18.
Dietary Vaccenic Acid Has Antiatherogenic Effects in LDLr Mice.
Bassett CM, Edel AL, Patenaude AF, McCullough RS, Blackwood DP, Chouinard PY, Paquin P, Lamarche B, Pierce GN. Canadian Centre for Agri-Food Research in Health and Medicine, St. Boniface Hospital Research Centre, and Department of Physiology, Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg R2H 2A6, Canada.
Epidemiological evidence has associated dietary trans fatty acids (TFA) with
heart disease. TFA are primarily from hydrogenated fats rich in elaidic acid, but dairy products also contain naturally occurring TFA such as vaccenic acid. Our purpose in this study was to compare the effects of consuming a commercially hydrogenated vegetable shortening rich in elaidic TFA (18:1t9) or a butter rich in vaccenic TFA (18:1t11) in the absence and presence of dietary cholesterol on atherosclerosis. LDL receptor deficient (LDLr(-/-)) mice were fed 1 of 8 experimental diets for 14 wk with the fat content replaced by: regular (pork/soy) fat (RG), elaidic shortening (ES), regular butter (RB), vaccenic butter (VB), or an atherogenic diet containing 2% cholesterol with RG (CH+RG), ES (CH+ES), RB (CH+RB), or VB (CH+VB). Serum cholesterol levels were elevated with cholesterol feeding (P < 0.001), whereas serum triglyceride levels were higher only in the CH+RB (P < 0.001) and CH+VB (P < 0.001) groups compared with 6 other groups. Serum cholesterol and triglyceride levels were significantly lower in the CH+VB group than in the CH+RB group (P < 0.001). Atherosclerosis was stimulated by dietary ES compared with RG (P = 0.021), but CH+ES did not stimulate atherosclerosis beyond CH+RG alone. In contrast, VB did not induce an increase in atherosclerotic plaque formation compared with the RG and RB diets and the CH+VB diet reduced atherosclerosis compared with the other diets containing cholesterol (P < 0.01). In summary, consuming a hydrogenated elaidic acid-rich diet stimulates atherosclerosis, whereas a vaccenic acid-rich butter protects against atherosclerosis in this animal model.

Przegl Lek. 2007;64 Suppl 4:32-4.
[Atherogenic properties of milk fat--facts or myths?]
[Article in Polish]
Cichosz G. Katedra Mleczarstwa i Zarzadzania Jakościa Uniwersytet Warmńsko-Mazurski w Olsztynie. Since long time edible fats are classified into two groups of food products:
atherogenic or antisclerotic ones. Animal fats are considered as atherogenic ones because of high content of saturated fatty acids and cholesterol, and margarines and plant oils are, without reason, counted as food with antisclerotic activity. Milk fat, included among animal ones, does not impend over sclerosis, on the contrary, it prevents diseases of cardiovascular system, because it contains various bioactive constituents, that: limit synthesis of liver cholesterol and triglycerides (short chain saturated fatty acids, Omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids, oleic acid); intensify estrification and metabolism of cholesterol (phospholipids, oleic acid, Omega-6 and Omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids in optimal proportions); prevent cholesterol oxidation (conjugated linoleic
acid--CLA, alpha-tokoferol, coenzym Q10, vitamins A and D3, phospholipids), reduce level of LDL-cholesterol in blood plasma (linolenic acids Omega-3, linoleic acid W-6, also oleic acid). Unique components of milk fat i.e. short chain saturated fatty, conjugated linoleic acid, vaccenic acid (natural trans isomer), and other milk components possess additionally anticancerogenic activity.

Lipids. 1988 Jul;23(7):713-9.
Trans fatty acids. 1. Growth, fertility, organ weights and nerve histology and conduction velocity in sows and offspring.
Opstvedt J, Pettersen J, Mork SJ.
Norwegian Herring Oil and Meal Research Institute, Bergen.
Effects of dietary trans fatty acids on the pre- and postnatal growth and
development in pigs were studied with special emphasis on nervous tissue. In experiment 1, female pigs were fed partially hydrogenated fish oil (PHFO) (28% trans) or soybean oil (PHSBO) (36% trans), in comparison with lard (0% trans) from weaning (3 wk) through the first reproduction cycle (up to 2 yr). In experiment 2, female pigs were fed two fish oils (33 and 19% trans) in comparison with coconut oil (0% trans) in diets with low and high levels of linoleic acid (18:2n-6 cis, cis) from gestation until their offspring were three wk old. Compared with the trans-free fats, the trans-containing fats had no effect on growth and development, feed consumption and utilization or on the weight of the brain, heart, kidneys, liver, lungs or spleen in the adult sows and their offspring. No effects from the experimental fats were found on histology and conduction velocity of the peroneal nerve. An increased number of the sows fed PHFO had fertility problems compared with those fed lard and PHSBO in Expt. 1, but no similar effects were seen in Expt. 2. It is concluded that consumption of trans fatty acids with 18-22 carbon atoms from PHFO and with 18
carbon atoms from PHSBO at levels that were 5 to 12 times higher than those normally consumed by humans had no detrimental effects on female pigs or their offspring during pregnancy and lactation.

 

[MarcelZD]

White sugar isn't so bad when thiamine, magnesium etc. are abundant. A lot of it will depend on individual factors like genes and your general constitution. It's still much better to eat fruit though.

I think other staples of the standard diet are far worse though. A diet mainly based on wheat can cause all the problems you listed much more quickly, plus a list of other issues.

 

[Thoth]

Seems like someone has not read any of Peat's articles..

 

[peateats1]

I think the main problem with it is nutrient depletion. Fruits, grains, milk, and other foods come with the necessary nutrients to process the carbs/fats/proteins in them. Sugar is devoid of any of the nutrients needed to process it. So then when you run into nutrient depletion from eating too much sugar it is impossible to fix that issue simply by eating whole foods. You are then forced to guess what you are deficient in and use supplements and it sucks. It can be useful in times of stress but maybe should only be used for short periods.

 

[tankasnowgod]

It feeds cancer: all anticancer protocols include cutting out refined sugar.

Wrong. Not EVERY cancer protocol.

It is the driver of the obesity epidemic.

Wrong again. What really spiked since the 1980s is Poly-Unsaturated Fat.

Isnt it connected to diabetes?

Sure. But so is fat. If you are going to join a place called the "Ray Peat Forum," I would think you might check out his publicly available articles, first-

Glucose and sucrose for diabetes.

Since the first doctor noticed, hundreds of years ago, that the urine of a diabetic patient tasted sweet, it has been common to call the condition the sugar disease, or sugar diabetes, and since nothing was known about physiological chemistry, it was commonly believed that eating too much sugar...

raypeat.com

In an earlier newsletter, I wrote about P. A. Piorry in Paris, in 1864, and Dr. William Budd in England, in 1867, who treated diabetes by adding a large amount of ordinary sugar, sucrose, to the patient's diet. Glucose was known to be the sugar appearing in the diabetics' urine, but sucrose consists of half glucose, and half fructose. In 1874, E. Kulz in Germany reported that diabetics could assimilate fructose better than glucose. In the next decades there were several more reports on the benefits of feeding fructose, including the reduction of glucose in the urine. With the discovery of insulin in 1922, fructose therapy was practically forgotten, until the 1950s when new manufacturing techniques began to make it economical to use.

Glucose and sucrose for diabetes.

Diabetes was named for the excessive urination it causes, and for the sugar in the urine. It was called the sugar disease, and physicians were taught that sugar was the problem. Patients were ordered to avoid sweet foods, and in hospitals they were sometimes locked up to keep them from finding...

raypeat.com

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28m4pVRwwFg

Dont otherwise healthy populations get all sort of western civilization disorders when processed food is introduced?

Why do you think that only means refined sugar? It usually included refined wheat and high PUFA oils as well.

If white sugar is healthy all my most basic concepts of what an healthy diet means will fall apart.

Well, what was it based on, in the first place?

Anyway, if you listen to Peat, he suggests that white sugar can be a useful and therapeutic tool, but doesn't suggest using sugar to displace nutrient dense foods. Peat isn't alone in this idea. There are many athletes that use soda as well-

The Athletes Who Train With Soda

Aaron Rodgers, Tour de France cyclists and Olympic medalists cling to Coke or Crush.

www.wsj.com

What's next? Trans fat is healthy?

And in both the RCTs and Observational studies that were used to demonize Trans Fats, what was the main source of the Trans Fats? Partially Hydrogenated Vegetable Oils, which also had a whole lot of Omega 6 PUFA in them as well. It's quite possible that the Trans Fats were a surrogate marker for higher PUFA intake. Since the main "complaint" against Trans Fats is that they basically act more like Saturated Fats, I don't know how bad they are (if they are bad at all). The demonization of Hydrogenation has, if anything, made things worse, as now, more restaurants and food manufacturers are using Non- Hydrogenated Oils, which are higher in PUFA than the partially hydrogenated ones.

Trans Fats do occur naturally, especially in meat, but you can really only get high intakes from Partially Hydrogenated Vegetable Oils. And those are always going to come with a large amount of PUFA, too, so there really isn't a "safe" food that has high Trans Fats, even if they are neutral or beneficial.

 

[nomoreketones]

Doesn't Ray Peat put a lot of emphasis on "context"? For someone who can turn all the sugar into ATP, sugar can be health promoting. For someone who can't, sugar can be health destroying.

Like OP, sugar makes everything worse for me.

 

[RealNeat]

Doesn't Ray Peat put a lot of emphasis on "context"? For someone who can turn all the sugar into ATP, sugar can be health promoting. For someone who can't, sugar can be health destroying.

Like OP, sugar makes everything worse for me.

And what's the alternative? Trying to produce energy out of other macros is deleterious in a way carbohydrates aren't, and that is they weren't meant to be regularly used as energy, hence all the adaptive, secondary mechanisms attributed to them (GNG) etc.

The solution is to figure out what's keeping one from oxidizing properly, or else nothing is actually being fixed, even if symptoms may be less.

OP @Thalgo have you read any of Rays material? Might want to take about a month or two just listening and reading, I wouldn't suggest trying to figure out your biases and assumptions on the forum, your human nature may get the best of you. Try learning without being directly challenged, you may find yourself more receptive.

I can say with confidence that if you don't understand why Ray suggests consuming a majority of your calories as carbohydrates, you haven't grasped much of what Rays philosophy on physiology is.

Robust oxidative metabolism is the goal, and if you have trouble with all carbs that's something you should address, not get defensive about.
If you can handle carbs well, but just can't tolerate white sugar, first it may be your mindset towards it causing your issues and second it may be impurities or nutrient deficiencies, either way, white sugar isn't a must.

 

[Xin]

Peat said that sugar should be used temporarily when fruit is not available. In other words, there's no reason to eat it really as honey and fruits are always available in today's society.

 

[GreekDemiGod]

Then why almost every anecdote of people that experiment with quitting sugar sees them having massive benefits, including and not just weight loss?

 

[DonLore]

Isnt it pretty obvious that white sugar is much worse option than eating a nutrient dense diet of milk, meat, liver, fruit where you actually get all the B vitamins, magnesium, etc? This isnt really complicated topic. Most modern humans already get too little micronutrients. Add to that white sugar, it only gets worse.
Just eat real food, thats how we thrived before.

 

[Vins7]

Every cell in your body requires glucose, cancer is your cells mutated. Stop eating sugar & your cells will begin sourcing glucose from your muscles.

Great way to make cancer spread is to make it seek out glucose from surrounding tissue.

Yeah?

Maybe it's poor gut health, horrible mineral status of your body, chemical ridden tooth paste, poor oral hygiene, chlorinated tap water, not enough calcium/magnesium/vit D?


How are your kidneys doing? Cardiovascular?

You mean your livers not doing great so it's not able to store glucose well?

Can't tell if this is just a post to bait people, I'm killing time so kinda just jumping in.

So, ya set on sugar being the primary driver of obesity & not the rancid industrialized PUFA oils they put in basically everything?

Sure it's the sugar and not the other crap that's typically present with sugar?

Define bad bacteria because that's kinda a blanket statement.

Humans have been doing anything & everything possible to source carbohydrates throughout our entire existence.

They were just out there taking liquids from trees & turning it into refined sugars.

Getting stung by bees for honey.

Growing swaths of sugar cane.

Learned to extract sugar from tons of varying root vegetables.

Simple sugars have been a part of the human diet for a very long time.

Sure, in the way that a body that's saturated with rancid seed oils has a hard time utilizing the glucose it desperately needs to function.

Yeah, but you're seemingly just seeing the words sugar in labels.

You've got the sugar blindness

That's where you can't see the other ingredients that are actually causing the problems.

Welcome. Take it one step at a time.

Eat some sugar, will make it easier for you to take all of this in.



Seriously though everything you've been taught about sugar from mainstream health is pretty much a lie.

Like many can/will tell you here it can take time to repair your metabolism/health etc enough that you can properly utilize sugar.

How long can It take to repair my metabolism to utilize sugar?
I have been avoiding seed oils and my main fat intake comes from extravirgin olive oil, butter, eggs and dairy. These foods are not grain free feeded because I can't get them un my country but with this diet I avoid most pufas.

 

[CastorTroy]

White sugar isn't so bad when thiamine, magnesium etc. are abundant. A lot of it will depend on individual factors like genes and your general constitution. It's still much better to eat fruit though.

The same can be said of pufas. If you eat the natural food, like walnuts, avocados, fish, pastured egg yolks (higher in o3 than industrial ones)... with thiamine, magnesium and other elements naturally present in them, when unoxidized/unheated, there's no study showing the pufas being bad for health , of course when balanced with the other FAs. I mean, if you eat aprox. 10% pufas of total fatty acids in your diet from whole foods, theres no proof that being 5% will result in a better health outcome.

The main problem is the industrial food, the refined vegetable oils. For me is the same analogy as the white sugar and fruit.

 

[LeeLemonoil]

Thanks guys for taking the time to factually defute yet another poor thread.

Is it trolling? Is it the health establishment now baiting this forum? Some ideologues/fanatics trying to bait this forum ?

Or just some dude who has health problems, seeks a quick fix on the Internet, sees one protocol or way of thinking that he without and evidence opposes from the get go and then vents his frustration at it?

 

[LeeLemonoil]

Then why almost every anecdote of people that experiment with quitting sugar sees them having massive benefits, including and not just weight loss?

Opposed to the legions of people that have good health while consuming refined sugar and not making stories about it?

 

[joaquin]

Doesn't Ray Peat put a lot of emphasis on "context"? For someone who can turn all the sugar into ATP, sugar can be health promoting. For someone who can't, sugar can be health destroying.

Like OP, sugar makes everything worse for me.

Is there more than just a handful of people taking table sugar straight in copious amounts and not having huge health issues??

I'm certain there are a few, however, read my words carefully!

I'm asking, are there more than just a small handful of folks that benefit in profound ways from eating refined table sugar and do not eventually wind up with overgrowth of candida and divers diseases?

 

[Perry Staltic]

Are there any other refined foods besides sugar that peaters think are super healthy?

 

[Thalgo]

Hi guys, thanks for all your replies. No. I’m not trolling.

I dont think that a good argument can be made in favor of sugar if, in order to make use of sugar, you need to be super healthy and not deficient in key nutrients.

However, I’ll read the 3 links provided to the articles written by Ray Peat before answering back to the many points raised.

Please understand that I go where logic leads me, so help me my brain fog. I have no ulterior motive except helping my wife through her health issues that have made her bedridden and in constant pain.

I’ve spent years researching her issues and since the results have been meager i’m willing to consider other ideas that may produce a different result. But i just cant wrap my head around sugar. I cant currently see how it would fit within everything else I’ve experienced and researched.

As anyone gotten over serious health issues by following Peat teachings? Or are they just a way to enhance performance when you are already mostly healthy?

 

[xanderf094]

Is it the health establishment now baiting this forum?

C'mon, they're just trying to find out what works best for them. So much misinformation out there, and even now if you google sugar there's so much out there that demonizes it. This is one of the only communities that helps people and it is easy to get doubt when there's so much convincing information out there that paints all that we now know as bad as a hero superfood.

Remember a time when you first found Peat's work and how confused you were. Maybe instead of jumping to a conspiracy it's really just a guy trying his best.