Is There Such a Thing As Good Sugar?

April 21 2013 by in Sugar/fructose

Is there such a thing as good sugar? Agave nectar (syrup) is called “Good Sugar”.

What is agave nectar? It is sugar from the Mexican agave plant. It is particularly rich in fructose, the very sweet substance that separates sugar from starch. The very substance that in larger amounts taxes the liver and gives sugar it’s special ability to cause adverse health effects.

If anything, agave nectar is extra dangerous sugar.

Various Types of Sugar

Starch (from, for example bread, pasta, rice) consists of long chains of 100% glucose.
Plain sugar contains exactly 50% fructose and 50% glucose, purified from sugar beets or sugarcanes.
Honey has roughly the same sugar distribution as plain sugar
High Fructose Corn Syrup, the cheap sugar from corn that is used in, for example, American sodas and candy, is around 55% fructose and 45% glucose.
Agave nectar contains up to 90% fructose and the rest is glucose.

The higher the proportion of fructose is, the less sugar you have to eat before you get fat and diabetic.

94 Comments

Top Comments

Sophie
April 21 2013 7
The people who believe that "natural" sugars are good/better for you are the same people who tell me that despite losing 10kg, my body needs carbs and that fat is bad for me.

Read more →
Sophie
April 24 2013 6
Ondrej:

In the name of all the LCHFers here, I would like to

a) apologize for everyone forcing you to eat low carb. It must be very hard for you and I am very sorry you have to eat low carb despite not believing in it.

b) thank you, again, for all the useful information and the precious contribution to the discussion. You are trying to save us from the evils of low carb and it is too bad everyone is not listening to you. That must be hard going on low carb web sites when you don't like to eat low carb!

c) wish you the best success in whatever diet and exercise regimen you have chosen.

Read more →

1 2

All Comments

51
Olivia Ethan
April 25 2013
Good sugar or bad sugar? As for me, I think Agave sugar is only good for those who are keeping track of their weight, but as you mentioned, it has an extra level of danger to know about. Thanks for letting us know of this.
52
Edgar Hoover
April 25 2013
Isn't agave the sole constituent of Tequila?Does this mean that tequila too is 'good sugar'?
53
Katya
April 25 2013 2
Many thanks Christoph. Lots to think about and follow up on. And a great reminder to all that mind and body are indeed intimately related.
54
Christoph Dollis
April 26 2013 1

Good sugar or bad sugar? As for me, I think Agave sugar is only good for those who are keeping track of their weight, but as you mentioned, it has an extra level of danger to know about. Thanks for letting us know of this.

How do you figure a sugar that has more fructose than HFCS is good for those who are keeping track of their weight?

Isn't that like saying Pepsi is no good, unless you're on a weight loss program?
55
Valerie
April 26 2013
Wow...and I had bought into the hype that Agave nectar was a "good" sugar and should be used instead of raw sugar or sugar substitutes. I had no idea about it's impact and being fructose.
56
Ondrej
April 26 2013
Politely presented, well-intended fad diet is still a fad diet. All I did is I trashed lot of it's premises through a presentation of someone who educates MD about nutrition. Doc would ned a lesson or two. Take it or leave it.
57
Ondrej
April 26 2013
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wgkOEplMHM

How does this Atkins advertisement NOT make anyone laugh hard?:-) This must be the real deal, surely scientific, non-commercial.
58
Richard David Feinman
April 26 2013 1
"The higher the proportion of fructose is, the less sugar you have to eat before you get fat and diabetic."

This statement is pure opinion and false. The idea that fructose is more important in diabetes than glucose is totally absurd. Check out my comments on PlosOne Basu paper and the figure at https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/37202414/Fructose_Basu_RG_plot-2.png. This is all based on the current fructose hysteria which is another version of blaming the patient except it moves the locus from the higher center of the brain to the hypothalamus. "My patient was overtaken by sugar addiction. It is no wonder I can't help him. Only the government can help. Regulate. Tax. I am not at fault. I told him not to eat sugar and instead to have all those healthy high grain carbs. It is not my fault."

Dietdoctor actually has success and doesn't need this. With every "scholarly" paper slamming fructose, it is not surprising that he would jump to conclusions. My fructose paper is being reviewed at the journal but the bottom line is that fructose is a carbohydrate and is metabolized like glucose. There are differences and sometimes fructose is worse and sometimes glucose is worse.
59
shoeface
April 27 2013
I think that you have a secret yearning for attention Ondrej. You make fun of the doctor yet the 'evidence' you present as an alternative is neither based on scientific research or the experiences of credible people. No one is making you read this blog and no one is forcing you to eat a LCHF diet.

I think the doc is proud to have an insane stalker, it's a shame you do not offer evidence based arguments that we can debate as true scientists would.

I suspect you already are incorporating this way of eating into your life, why else would you come back to read what the doc says all the time?
60
Ondrej
April 28 2013
Well, if Alan Aragon's presentation is not scientific, nothing is...he is considered the world's leading nutrition expert by many, including the world's leading hypertrophy expert Brad Schoenfeld, or Layne Norton, to name a few. Those guys are scientists who publish valuable research, not guys from different areas of expertise whose hobby is nutrition and they decided to save the world by through next fad.

http://www.nsca.com/uploadedFiles/NSCA/Inactive_Content/Program_Books...

Again, re-read, re-evaluate. Maybe you could also read Aragon's monthly research review if you crave science so much.

Reply: #64
61
Ondrej
April 28 2013
Journalist Taubes can be misinformed. Triathlete Sisson can be misinformed. Even trainer Hahn can be misinformed. But someone with MD title should be able to evaluate information properly, even though he is far from being nutrition expert.

Replies: #65, #67
62
Jan C
April 28 2013 2
Dear Ondrej, ‘I drink aloe vera very often. I am 80kg/179 cm, weight training as well. Low carbers are just people who don't like exercise and try to find out ways to be less.’

The people following this blog have all kinds of different ways of interpreting low carb. Personally, I have been low/moderate carb since 2008 and it suits me fine. It’s easy to maintain and I do have extra carbs (of the right sort - tubers) to keep me going through exercise. Yes, at 61 I am a steady weight and I am slim. I take regular exercise (walking, strength training, yoga) and I go to Zumba every week. At Zumba I can keep up with women who are 40 years younger than me. I am slimmer and fitter than many people more than half my age.

(Regarding aloe vera, I’m not sure that it’s very healthy to drink that very often, but I may be wrong there.)

When you try to trash other people’s views, remember that the views that we have been told are correct for healthy eating are based on eating highly processed foods (seed oils and low-fat foods) and overloading on carbohydrates, including sugars, that humans had not eaten in such quantity before. Yes, I know that they are always talking about healthy whole grains, but even when you eat those (as I did for many years) it doesn't guarantee you will stay slim as time passes. Something’s basically wrong with the advice that we were given. You don't need to be a scientist to recognise that, but it helps when scientists do rethink their own position regarding diet, as I think many are doing.
63
Richard David Feinman
April 28 2013 3
"someone with MD title should be able to evaluate information properly, even though he is far from being nutrition expert."

People with MD title should be expert in their medical specialty. The whole nutrition mess, the whole low fat-cholesterol fiasco, the whole low carb will kill you stuff is due to MDs who think that they are scientists, that you plug numbers into a statistics program and if it says statistically significant you publish it.

The real problem is that MDs are not trained to say "I don't know" or especially "I was wrong." My father was a physician and he always said that if a lawyer takes a book of the shelf, his fee goes up. If a doctor takes a book off the shelf, his fee goes down.

We expect doctors to know everything and, given the power of modern medicine -- not just technology but medical training -- it is not surprising that they expect it themselves. If I had just done a multiple by-pass operation, I would be completely insufferable.

Jeez, Ondrej...
Reply to comment #60 by Ondrej
64
FrankG
April 28 2013 3
From his own website... "Alan Aragon has over 20 years of success in the fitness field. He earned his Bachelor and Master of Science in Nutrition with top honors. He is a continuing education provider for the Commission on Dietetic Registration, National Academy of Sports Medicine, and National Strength & Conditioning Association. Alan has lectured to clinicians at the FDA and the annual conference of the Los Angeles Dietetic Association. He maintains a private practice designing programs for recreational, Olympic, and professional athletes, including the Los Angeles Lakers, Los Angeles Kings, and Anaheim Mighty Ducks. Alan is the nutrition advisor of Men's Health magazine."

If you really think that he has any advice which is relevant to a middle-aged man with decades of excess fast mass (literally) under my belt, metabolic syndrome, Type 2 Diabetes etc... then you are sadly mistaken.

I am glad you are young, slim and fit. I sincerely hope you stay that way forever :-)

Meantime I am healthier than I have been in decades and it is in very large part to folks like Gary Taubes and Dr Eenfeldt who are willing to go against the mainstream advice -- advice which is basically a recently concocted fad diet.

If you really are a medical student (as you claim) then you still have a great deal to learn... I suggest you start with some humility; because in this day and age with the internet I doubt that you would last five minutes in general practice before you run into a patient like me who will NOT act as if you are some kind of all-knowing demi-god. Perhaps (if you pass medical school) you had best go into some kind of research or surgical specialty where your time with real patients in minimal :-)

Reply: #66
Reply to comment #61 by Ondrej
65
Christoph Dollis
April 28 2013 1
I notice, Ondrej, you don't tie your full name and scientific reputation to your arrogantly-certain pronouncements.

This debate will be decided definitively within our lifetimes. Why not just say who you are?

Strongly picking a side without saying who you are doesn't mean a lot. You claim to be a medical student. You're not a patient who would have a greater right and custom of maintaining anonymity.

If you're certain about this, just say, "Hey, I'm so and so, and I'm certain about it."

Then in future years as your career develops, people can see if your early judgement was correct or not. If you have the courage for that, that is.
Reply to comment #64 by FrankG
66
Christoph Dollis
April 28 2013 2
Hear hear, on all your points, Frank, including about Ondrej's personality—he certainly does seem like the caricature of the of the overly certain doctor, doesn't he? Ironically one who is so confident about his claims that he posts under his first name like a customer service rep from Verizon.

And well done on your personal health improvements.
Reply to comment #61 by Ondrej
67
Sunny
April 30 2013 1
Seriously Ondrej?
You consiustently come to this blog with unconvincing info that and link up to unconvincing studies the get shot down and you just keep coming back for more? What is the point of all this? It's not even like you actually care because you just try to insult everybody and anyone with 1/2 a brain knows your not going to convince another by starting out with something like "Low carb eating is for people that are lazy and don't want to exercise"
So you come here and insult us... for what? Is it because you had a bad experience? I will admit that LCers in the past didn't always have it right but swapping out processed grains for nutrient dense veggies and limiting sugar doesn't sound like a fad diet to me. Its sounds pretty damn right on. As for exercise, nobody should be spending 2 hours a day exercising. Overworking your body causes wear and tear.
Reply to comment #43 by Ondrej
68
Sunny
April 30 2013
I would also like to point out that if less food, less joy, less toliet visits and more guilt were your experience on Low Carb then you OBVIOUSLY were doing something wrong and you really shouldn't use your personal experience as the base of your reasoning. I eat more than I did on SAD, I visit the bathroom regularly now, not only am I happier now but my moods have stabilized and I have no reason to feel guilt because I am healthy. I no longer have the aches and pains that was most likely caused by inflammation from grain. As for exercise.. I go surfing every other day and weight train on days I am not surfing. So as you can see... we are all different. All you have to do is hop over to Marks Daily Apple and read success stories to see this is obviously working for people and not just for weightloss but overall health. There are testimonies upon testimonies about people that suffered from some unidentifiable ailment just to go paleo and realize that they were not eating right the whole time.

Reply: #69
Reply to comment #68 by Sunny
69
Christoph Dollis
April 30 2013

I would also like to point out that if less food, less joy, less toliet visits and more guilt were your experience on Low Carb then you OBVIOUSLY were doing something wrong and you really shouldn't use your personal experience as the base of your reasoning.

Not necessarily, Sunny. It isn't axiomatic that low carb is best for everyone. It might be, but you can't just ignore inconvenient data points.

You're starting with the assumption that the hypothesis is true (ironically based in part on your experience) and discarding data based on your assumption. This is a very unscientific way to look at ... anything.

Reply: #70
Reply to comment #69 by Christoph Dollis
70
Sunny
April 30 2013

You're starting with the assumption that the hypothesis is true (ironically based in part on your experience) and discarding data based on your assumption.

Not ironically... purposely. That was my point is that you can't say someone is wrong or lazy or doesn't like to exercise because you said so. I was pointing out that we both went LC and he had a bad experience and I am having a great experience.
Although I do think that my less food and bathroom statement is fairly true. On LC there is no point where you reach a limit and have to stop eating so you are allowed more food and providing you eat your veggies as you're supposed too then I don't see any reason that bathroom visits should slow down. Less joy and more guilt is really subjective to personal experiences and personality.

Reply: #71
Reply to comment #70 by Sunny
71
Christoph Dollis
May 1 2013
Where do you get the "supposed to" from? Some people's opinions are you should; others are you shouldn't. And for that matter, which vegetables?

Also, low carb can be higher or lower protein, and this makes a big difference. (So does type of fats.)

And "low carb" means what exactly for each of you?

So aside from genetic variability, you could each have been eating substantially different diets.

I realise you each know this, but it bears pointing out.

Reply: #72
Reply to comment #71 by Christoph Dollis
72
Sunny
May 1 2013 1
So besides the vegetable statement you're just reiterating what I said.

To your first statement about vegetables..... I follow Dr. Eenfeldt's guidelines to eat vegetables that grow above ground so one can assume that if we are discussing LCHF (which we are) then there is an assumption that vegetables should be consumed.

As to the next few statements about variabilities.. I will say it again.... THAT'S MY MOTHA EFFIN POINT!

And for the 1st part of your last statement "I realise you each know this"
Well obviously Ondrej is not aware of this because this is not the 1st time he tried to make assumptions based on his own experience. Which is the reason I said anything in the 1st place.

And for the 2nd part of your last sentence "but it bears pointing out"
If nitpicking me and putting words in my mouth helped you in some way then fabulous.

Reply: #73
Reply to comment #72 by Sunny
73
Christoph Dollis
May 1 2013
Chill, Sunny. You just said, "Well obviously Ondrej is not aware of this ...." and then criticised for me pointing it out.

Reply: #74
Reply to comment #73 by Christoph Dollis
74
Sunny
May 1 2013
I criticised you for nitpicking me and making it out like I was saying something that I was NOT.

Furthermore you did not point out that "Ondrej was not aware of this" in fact your exact statement which I was disputing by making that very comment was, and I quote "I realise you each know this, but it bears pointing out."

So you're telling me to chill when you were the one that misunderstood my comment and jumped all over my case about it? Cool.
75
Christoph Dollis
May 1 2013
Sunny, "each" includes Ondrej. Even your reply included that the vegetable point was something new I was bringing up to you.

Further, you say, "THAT'S MY MOTHA EFFIN POINT!" to the part where I said:

Where do you get the "supposed to" from? Some people's opinions are you should; others are you shouldn't. And for that matter, which vegetables?

Also, low carb can be higher or lower protein, and this makes a big difference. (So does type of fats.)

And "low carb" means what exactly for each of you?

The comments are numbered: where on this thread did you make these points?

You did say this:

swapping out processed grains for nutrient dense veggies and limiting sugar doesn't sound like a fad diet to me.

... but you have not, as far as I've seen, taken steps to ensure that you and Ondrej were talking about the same type of low-carb diet, even in terms of quantity of carbohydrate and protein, much less the other variables. You both even used the term "low carb", which includes a broader array of diets than just Eenfeldt's LCHF interpretation ... itself subject to innumerable permutations.

The purpose of my comment was to ensure you and Ondrej were on the same page.

Now if you do have a key, critical point that's so important to you you're going to start swearing in all caps with an exclamation mark about it, perhaps you should — instead of leaving much of it within your mind unsaid hoping it will be generally assumed — lay it out for others to get it.

I await your vitriolic reply.

Reply: #77
76
FrankG
May 1 2013 2
Christoph with respect: this is NOT your blog although you really seem to have taken over and are dominating it recently. Maybe you need to start your OWN blog so folks can decide whether they want to read it. Personally I come here to read what Dr Eenfeldt has to say. In my view ON TOPIC comments are welcome but when you use this as a platform to continually expound your own theories then I think you have crossed the line.

In regards your responses to Sunny I agree that you ARE nit-picking (in an irritating and obnoxious way) and to all intents and purposes are offering support to Ondrej; a well known troll of this site.

Reply: #87
Reply to comment #75 by Christoph Dollis
77
Sunny
May 1 2013
This will be my last response to your nonsense.

I really am not understanding why you are having such trouble reading my comments. I don't know if there is some kind of language barrier going on here or if in the excitement of debate you are just not reading them clearly but either way I will not justify your antics any longer.
The "motha effin point" comment wasn't even made about the vegetable comment so it is apparent to me that you are having trouble understanding. This was not the only one you got wrong but since I'm NOT a nitpicker... I'm not going to go back and list all of them.

I was never saying that Ondrej and I were on the same diet... THAT was my point! I will repeat it.... THAT was my point. That he cannot judge us because his diet may not be the same way we eat. Plain and Simple.

Reply: #78
Reply to comment #77 by Sunny
78
Christoph Dollis
May 1 2013
Shorter Sunny: "Oh right; I didn't make that point clearly. That's why I can't point to the comment where I did."

Reply: #79
Reply to comment #78 by Christoph Dollis
79
Jenessa
May 1 2013
Her exact quote was;

"and you really shouldn't use your personal experience as the base of your reasoning"

After reading your little back and forth with her I have to agree with her. I think maybe english might not be your first language? If it is I apologize and I am not trying to be offensive but if that is not the case I am left to assume you are just being a bully. Too bad since this is supposed to be a blog centered around improving oneself and you are apparently here to tear down and provoke.
80
Christoph Dollis
May 1 2013

"and you really shouldn't use your personal experience as the base of your reasoning"

Sunny did not refer to diet there: she expressly referred to Ondrej's experience — i.e., the results of following whatever diet he followed. I was pointing out that the diets may not have been very similar, something which Sunny supports (and claims was Sunny's point: it may have been, expressed unclearly). Sunny ought to have supported me in the clarification, rather than gone on hissy-fit tears, but each to their own.

Further, there's a broader issue: an individual's experience is important data. A person should use their own experience in support of their reasoning. It isn't the end all, but it's a part. From there, a person should also look at the broader research, the history of a topic, and reason.

I've lived off the land. I know humans sought out, for example, starchy vegetables and wild fruits (which are every bit as sweet as most of the modern cultivated varieties, dogma to the contrary notwithstanding).

I do care about helping people and while I don't think Ondrej made his point especially convincingly, there are a whole lot of healthy people in the world who do not follow a low carb diet, including whole pre-modernisation cultures. Stan the Heretic hypothesises that there may be two macronutrient-ratio optima, not one:

On that thread, I had an interesting back-and-forth with Stan and Paul Jaminet. While I don't seem to do well on lots of carbs, others do. Jaminet feels persisting with a high-quality higher-carb (than LCHF) diet would result in the metabilism being healed, and prolonged VLC being damaging overall. He's not alone in his view, nor is Ondrej alone in his experience being on LC --- of whatever stripe. In fact, some VLC proponents believe that is mainly due to too much protein or the wrong types of fats, which is what I was driving at as a possibility for exploration and discussion.

Sunny can no more use his or her own beneficial experience with low carb as definitive proof than Ondrej: it's an open debate, and I suspect a lot of the reason for the debate is because Stan's right, there probably are two optima. Also, humans vary genetically, with our ancestors having eaten differently (which is yet another reason Ondrej and others are right to consider their experiences).

But the idea all humans in Paleolithic times ate low carb diets as it is commonly understood here is madness. It could be, per Ron Rosedale, MD; Peter Dobromylskyj, PhD, biochemically ideal, but that's another debate.

As for your point:

"you are apparently here to tear down and provoke"

No, you're wrong. But I don't value Ondrej any less as a human being (nor automatically discount his experience and links to research) than I do you or Sunny.

And when I say you're wrong, you're really wrong.

Replies: #81, #82
Reply to comment #80 by Christoph Dollis
81
FrankG
May 1 2013 1
"...the idea all humans in Paleolithic times ate low carb diets as it is commonly understood here is madness"

A reasonable way to view "low carb" is as short hand for "minimise sugars and avoid refined starches" -- in which case I defy you to find any proof of paleolithic ancestors or any extant traditional communities which ate/eat a diet HIGH in sugars and refined starches.

You are becoming very tiresome with your concrete application of terms and pedantic assertion of the "facts" -- as YOU see them. You are also insulting folks here with your patronising attitude.

I gave Ondrej the same benefit of the doubt that I extended to you when you first arrived here. I tried to engage him in reasonable discussion in earlier posts -- did you see those before you highhandedly pass judgement on how others might perceive him here? He has quickly shown himself to be a troll who has nothing to offer me but snide negative remarks. I see no need to waste my time in reading every link that he (or you) posts. I do not view that as being narrow minded as this is the internet and filtering is required... otherwise I could spend all day reading garbage!

If you really don't seek to tear this down then I suggest you back off and learn some politeness. As above you clearly feel you have great deal to say (and some folks -- not me -- seem interested) so maybe you need your own blog so people can decide for themselves whether to visit and read. I find it exceedingly rude to piggy-back your verbose therorising on the comments of another popular blogger.
Reply to comment #80 by Christoph Dollis
82
Jenessa
May 1 2013
So sunny said what she said which I think you should go back and read because it appears fairly obvious to me that the whole point of her post was
A) To inquire as to why Ondrej felt the need to come here consistently
and
B) To say that she has been on LC and had a different experience from him which is why he shouldn't judge based on his experience.

The you said;
Not necessarily, Sunny. It isn't axiomatic that low carb is best for everyone. It might be, but you can't just ignore inconvenient data points.

LC is best for everyone was not her point. Which you will notice if you clearly read her comments. She states her point as "point B" that I listed. So you originally started this argument over a point that she was not making and instead of accepting it when she said explained that was not her point you jumped all over her side note about vegetables. Which she wasn't making a strong claim on. She was just saying that in her opinion it is likely that on LC you will probably not be eating less and going to the bathroom less.

I don't see anywhere she was actually trying to debate that she was aware of the best diet or saying that LC is the most ideal for everybody so I have to agree with her that you are putting words in her mouth.

"Sunny ought to have supported me in the clarification, rather than gone on hissy-fit tears, but each to their own"

Alas, the reason I am so passionate about this whole ordeal and proabably something you should reflect on before attacking people about something they didn't even say is that bullying is not right. Which I feel you are doing. Even Frank G agreed that you were obnoxiously nitpicking so now 3 people have confirmed you are going over the top.
83
Christoph Dollis
May 4 2013
It seems to me, Jenessa, FrankG, and Sunny; you're passionate about something pretty minor, at most a miscommunication on either the sending or receiving end, while not looking seriously at the enormous positive benefits an appreciation of the connection between emotional trauma and physical health, including obesity and health-behaviours, could bring to the world and to diet therapy — including the mission of this blog. This is doubly ironic because the revolution in Sweden in nutrition that Dr. Andreas Eenfeldt refers to frequently may be in significant part because of the revolution in being the first country to ban corporal punishment ... and all of the cascading changes in parenting attitudes that caused within his homeland, leading to greater reasoning among the new generation.

Reply: #84
Reply to comment #83 by Christoph Dollis
84
FrankG
May 4 2013
Once again Christoph you seem to miss the point while simultaneously being patronizing and (once again) promoting your own agenda.

The replies directed to you above were not to do with the content of your comments (although as stated I come here for discussion of LCHF not corporal punishment), instead the replies were to do with the way you are trying to bully and harangue others to your way of thinking. If someone says they find you to be a bully, the way to persuade them otherwise is not with yet more of the same. Don't you get that?

I may be passionate about a no-bullying policy, I may be interested in discussing LCHF -- the reason I visit Dr Eenfeldt's (not your) blog. I am NOT passionate about not discussing the merits or otherwise of corporal punishment NOR am I particularly interested in the topic -- I prefer to choose my battles and (in my view) for my health and the health of my family, the current dietary environment is a far more pressing issue.

Like I suggested, start your own blog and let folks decide for themselves what they get to read or not.
85
Kashi
May 5 2013
Guys:
I think it's safe to assume that no amount of rational discussion will be heard in the way you intend by Christoph.
I don't believe his intentions were- at least initially- bad. Based on his extreme pedantry (for those with whom Enhlish is not a first language: 1. ostentatious in one's learning.
2. overly concerned with minute details or formalisms, especially in teaching.) and over-blown hairsplitting of minutiae, it reads to me like a case of OCD or possibly even Asperger's Symdrom.
Do not engage.

Ps, I apologize to any Aspies reading this who would not behave in this way, it is a common but not universal symptom.

Reply: #86
Reply to comment #85 by Kashi
86
FrankG
May 5 2013 1
Arthur: [grabs Dennis] Shut up! Will you shut up?!
Dennis: Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system!
Arthur: [shakes Dennis] Shut up!
Dennis: Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help, help, I'm being repressed!
Arthur: Bloody Pedant!
Dennis: Ooh, what a giveaway!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAaWvVFERVA
Reply to comment #76 by FrankG
87
Sophie
May 5 2013 1
Frank:

Christoph has his own blog already. I was also being irritated by his perturbing the natural dynamics of the comments here, which I quite enjoy for how everyone stays polite and civil even in disagreement and enjoys the comments of actual scientists. But you can't really control others, and forums are just open spaces where irritants can sometimes make their way.

Do not engage. Let's continue on in the nice manner we had started and hope for the best.

Reply: #88
Reply to comment #87 by Sophie
88
Christoph Dollis
May 5 2013
Alright, fine. You people are stupid.

I get it.
89
Alvin@how to lose weight without gym
May 7 2013
Most people don't put in the effort to look at the ingredient labels in such great depth. Therefore I think the best solution will be for people to not consume sugars at all if possible!
90
Rene
May 18 2013
Of course, there is lactose, a sugar. Would you condemn a mother’s milk as well? Sugar is not inherently bad, it is only the amount consumed that is questionable. Unfortunately, today the automatic answer for the food processing industry is to add more sugar and salt to a product when sales begin to lag. From a consumer point-of-view, better food choices and moderate consumption of all processed foods would be far healthier.
91
il
June 14 2013
Quick question - what do you think about chicory root sugar? I can't seem to find anything negative side effects, either medically or nutritionally.

Reply: #92
Reply to comment #91 by il
92
Zepp
June 15 2013
If you want it naturaly eat the roots!

There are more or less god or bad sweeteners, in sweden its Erithryiol thats moste popular among low carbers or in a blend with Stevia!

http://www.mariannslchf.com/

And if this Chicory sugar is very expensive its the natural thing.. otherwise its moste probably fermented Oligofructose.. made in a chemical process?

http://mariahealth.blogspot.se/2011/04/chicory-root-sweetener.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fructooligosaccharide
93
Sofie
October 31 2013
What about stevia? is that dangerous too or ok to consume? I'm asking about the actual leaves and the white powdered versions.
94
Zepp
October 31 2013
Stevia is not sugar.. its stevia glycoside!

The leaves are total natural.. the powder is processed leaves!

In Sweden a mix betwen Stevia and Eritryhol is favorite among low carbers!

Like this one;

http://www.steviavital.se/shop/index.php?route=product/product&p...

1 2

Is There Such a Thing As Good Sugar?

Various Types of Sugar

More

94 Comments

Top Comments

All Comments

Leave a Reply Cancel reply