Which is Worse? How bad is sugar?

[LeSellers]

12 hours ago, Eowyn said:

I'm sure you're aware that Dr. Mercola is kind of controversial, and not a reliable source as far as traditional Western medicine is concerned

Yes, I know.

This "argument" is the quintessential ad hominem attack, a logical fallacy, as I'm sure you know.

But he always has sources and I check them out.

His being controversial does not make him wrong. In fact, it gives him more credibility in my eyes: I haven't had much trust in orthodox western medicine since about 1980. Too much money involved in keeping people on drugs, rather than curing  them.

Lehi

Edited March 15, 2016 by LeSellers

[Vort]

8 hours ago, Traveler said:

For the record - it is my understanding that in our society there is a greater health risk and problem (including direct results in death) from sugar consumption than from alcohol. 

I do not believe this for even the smallest fraction of a second. I heartily disbelieve it. Comparing the unspeakable savaging of our society by the drug addiction of alcoholism, the lives wasted (those of the alcoholics and those of the innocents they have killed), the children beaten and/or orphaned, the neglect, the rapes, the lost years, the hopes dashed, the talents utterly wasted, the lives devastated -- comparing these to obesity is so absurd it is almost obscene.

I don't deny the evils and health perils of obesity, nor do I deny its pervasiveness in our society. But when comparing societal ills, let's strive to keep things in the general realm of reality.

[askandanswer]

On 11/03/2016 at 2:49 AM, Traveler said:

 

 

Also when (at what point) does indulging in sugar become excessive and habitual?

The Traveler

I'm trying hard, through personal experimentation, and self sacrifice in the cause of health and science, to find the answer to this question. I'll let you know when I find out.

 

Sugar is not worth dying in pain, not worth missing my granddaughters' weddings, not worth spending months or years attached to a room full of machines, taking pain killers, and not worth spending my money on doctors and nursing homes.

Lehi

 

Lehi, I think you grossly underestimate the delights and importance of sugar.  

 

[Guest]

14 hours ago, zil said:

Yeah, chocolate-covered ants. Mmmmm.

(Yes, I'm joking, no, I've never eaten chocolate-covered ants, though I watched a friend do it...)

They don't taste any better without the chocolate.

[Blackmarch]

On 3/10/2016 at 8:49 AM, Traveler said:

From the thread “Is being overweight a sin?”, there is discussion around the notion of benefits or lack of benefits in the partaking of alcohol.   Thought I would introduce perhaps another controversial topic for discussion.  Concerning the possible benefits or lack of benefits of sugar.  So the question is – which drug (sugar or alcohol) is more addictive and harmful – both in regards to an individual’s health or as a direct cause of death?  Note that falling off a cliff because someone was drunk is an indirect cause of death.

 

Also when (at what point) does indulging in sugar become excessive and habitual?

 

 

The Traveler

Well by the time you lose control you've gone too far. I would argue alcohol is more addictive; people are more extreme/energetic against restrictions placed on it than on sugar.

[Blackmarch]

On 3/10/2016 at 8:49 AM, Traveler said:

From the thread “Is being overweight a sin?”, there is discussion around the notion of benefits or lack of benefits in the partaking of alcohol.   Thought I would introduce perhaps another controversial topic for discussion.  Concerning the possible benefits or lack of benefits of sugar.  So the question is – which drug (sugar or alcohol) is more addictive and harmful – both in regards to an individual’s health or as a direct cause of death?  Note that falling off a cliff because someone was drunk is an indirect cause of death.

 

Also when (at what point) does indulging in sugar become excessive and habitual?

 

 

The Traveler

Well by the time you lose control you've gone too far. I would argue alcohol is more addictive; people are more extreme/energetic against restrictions placed on it than on sugar.

[NightSG]

2 hours ago, Blackmarch said:

Well by the time you lose control you've gone too far. I would argue alcohol is more addictive; people are more extreme/energetic against restrictions placed on it than on sugar.

I don't recall ever seeing any restrictions on sugar to the extent that there have been on alcohol.  Certainly never any across-the-board ones that would also prohibit substitutes like HFCS as well.

[NightSG]

2 hours ago, Blackmarch said:

Well by the time you lose control you've gone too far. I would argue alcohol is more addictive; people are more extreme/energetic against restrictions placed on it than on sugar.

I don't recall ever seeing any restrictions on sugar to the extent that there have been on alcohol.  Certainly never any across-the-board ones that would also prohibit substitutes like HFCS as well.

[Guest]

This thread is a perfect example of why I can't put too much stock into people who say I should do/not do XYZ about any health habits.  If you listen to every so-called expert on health, we'd end up having nothing we can eat.  There is something wrong with almost everything.

Here's what I pay attention to:  Insurance companies look at three things when issuing life insurance -- tobacco, alcohol, and cholesterol (particularly LDLs and the ratio of LDLs to HDLs).  They also do BMI.  But most agents/inspectors (whatever you call 'em) will give allowances for BMI if a person is obviously large boned or muscular.  If you can focus on those things, you've got the major things out of the way.  While we try to be moderate in all other things, we need to keep our eye on the ball.

[Guest MormonGator]

11 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

This thread is a perfect example of why I can't put too much stock into people who say I should do/not do XYZ about any health habits.  If you listen to every so-called expert on health, we'd end up having nothing we can eat.  There is something wrong with almost everything.

 

So true Carb. 

If I spoke to enough people who dislike you (not you meaning Carb), I could make anyone sound like a horrible person. It's all in perspective. 

Edited March 15, 2016 by MormonGator

[The Folk Prophet]

57 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

If I spoke to enough people who dislike you (not you meaning Carb), I could make anyone sound like a horrible person. 

This is how I often feel after spending time on this forum. I go away singing, "Nobody likes me. Everybody hates me. Think I'll go eat worms...." 

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

This is how I often feel after spending time on this forum. I go away singing, "Nobody likes me. Everybody hates me. Think I'll go eat worms...." 

chocolate covered worms aren't so bad.

[Guest MormonGator]

45 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

chocolate covered worms aren't so bad.

You've seriously eaten those before? 

[Guest]

gummi worms. yes.

[Guest MormonGator]

11 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

gummi worms. yes.

  Okay. You are back on my dinner invite list. 

[Guest]

Seriously,  I've eaten grasshoppers, crickets, earthworms, and meal worms.  Some were oven fried, others pan fried.  But they had to be cooked.

[Guest]

21 hours ago, LeSellers said:

This "argument" is the quintessential ad hominem attack, a logical fallacy, as I'm sure you know.

No, I wouldn't say so. I'm pointing out that the source is legitimately questionable, not attacking you as a person. There are plenty of people who think Dr. Mercola is a quack, so as a source, he's not the most vetted you could have chosen. 

[Guest]

21 hours ago, LeSellers said:

This "argument" is the quintessential ad hominem attack, a logical fallacy, as I'm sure you know.

No, I wouldn't say so. I'm pointing out that the source is legitimately questionable, not attacking you as a person. There are plenty of people who think Dr. Mercola is a quack, so as a source, he's not the most vetted you could have chosen. 

[LeSellers]

7 minutes ago, Eowyn said:

No, I wouldn't say so. I'm pointing out that the source is legitimately questionable, not attacking you as a person. There are plenty of people who think Dr. Mercola is a quack, so as a source, he's not the most vetted you could have chosen. 

I was not speaking of myself, but of Dr. Mercola.

The fact that some people call him a quack does not make him a quack. Ad Hominem is an argument against the man, rather than his assertions and evidence. By telling us that he doesn't tow the party line (of mainstream medicine) and ignoring his points altogether is the epitome of ad hominem.

Lehi

[Guest]

Okay, his assertions and evidence are frequently under question, then. Did you miss where I said I don't believe Western medicine has all the answers? I was just pointing out, that as a source for evidence, he might not be your best ally. But I'm not trying to argue with you.

[LeSellers]

49 minutes ago, Eowyn said:

Okay, his assertions and evidence are frequently under question, then.

By whom?

Virtually all those who disagree with him have a financial vested interest in keeping the status quo. He rarely publishes anything without reams of medical research to back it up.

49 minutes ago, Eowyn said:

I was just pointing out, that as a source for evidence, he might not be your best ally. But I'm not trying to argue with you.

As you said, western medicine is, itself questionable. Ever since the AMA got political backing (via huge contributions) and major pharmaceutical companies have bought off the FDA, the blind faith people have in the medical profession is misplaced.

Lehi

[Guest MormonGator]

37 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

 

As you said, western medicine is, itself questionable. Ever since the AMA got political backing (via huge contributions) and major pharmaceutical companies have bought off the FDA, the blind faith people have in the medical profession is misplaced.

The "blind faith" is based in science. Those nasty pharmaceutical companies make medicine that keep many us healthy. Curse them. 

[Guest MormonGator]

37 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

 

As you said, western medicine is, itself questionable. Ever since the AMA got political backing (via huge contributions) and major pharmaceutical companies have bought off the FDA, the blind faith people have in the medical profession is misplaced.

The "blind faith" is based in science. Those nasty pharmaceutical companies make medicine that keep many us healthy. Curse them. 

[LeSellers]

17 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

The "blind faith" is based in science. Those nasty pharmaceutical companies make medicine that keep many us healthy. Curse them. 

"Based on science" is not the same as "truth".

Science is up for auction when the dollars are high enough. And research goes where the money is.

Lehi

[Guest MormonGator]

15 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

"Based on science" is not the same as "truth".

Science is up for auction when the dollars are high enough. And research goes where the money is.

Lehi

No, it actually isn't. When a group of scientists and medical doctors agree on something, it's usually "true" 

My mother was a cancer nurse for over 30 years. I'm hardly an expert. But she did lecture me quite often in pseudo-science. Given the amount of doctors I have as friends, I do feel a need to defend the overall medical community.  

Edited March 16, 2016 by MormonGator