 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Nutrition / December 2006how bad is sugar?
http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/sugarblues.html TC Depends upon what you mean by "sugar," but let's take most fruit. Calling sugar from these sources "bad" is like calling air "bad." If you breath in too much, you hyperventilatte. Nobody, however, is forcing you to eat huge amounts of sugar or breath in huge amounts of air in a short period of time. Avoid the highly unsaturated fat sources and oxidized cholesterol - these are truly dangerous "foods." > Depends upon what you mean by "sugar," but let's take most fruit. > Calling sugar from these sources "bad" is like calling air "bad." If > you breath in too much, you hyperventilatte. Nobody, however, is > forcing you to eat huge amounts of sugar or breath in huge amounts of > air in a short period of time. Avoid the highly unsaturated fat > sources and oxidized cholesterol - these are truly dangerous "foods." How about you read what I linked to? TC >> Depends upon what you mean by "sugar," but let's take most fruit. >> Calling sugar from these sources "bad" is like calling air "bad." If [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >TC This is a science ng. > >> Depends upon what you mean by "sugar," but let's take most fruit. > >> Calling sugar from these sources "bad" is like calling air "bad." If [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > This is a science ng. "While preparing his epochal volume, A History of Nutrition, published in 1957, Professor E. V. McCollum (Johns Hopkins University), sometimes called America's foremost nutritionist and certainly a pioneer in the field, reviewed approximately 200,000 published scientific papers, recording experiments with food, their properties, their utilisation and their effects on animals and men. The material covered the period from the mid-18th century to 1940. From this great repository of scientific inquiry, McCollum selected those experiments which he regarded as significant "to relate the story of progress in discovering human error in this segment of science [of nutrition]". Professor McCollum failed to record a single controlled scientific experiment with sugar between 1816 and 1940. " Next time read it. TC > > Depends upon what you mean by "sugar," but let's take most fruit. > > Calling sugar from these sources "bad" is like calling air "bad." If [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > TC We know already that TC is a six-pack short of a Fruit Loop! > > Depends upon what you mean by "sugar," but let's take most fruit. > > Calling sugar from these sources "bad" is like calling air "bad." If [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > TC We know already that TC is a six-pack short of a Fruit Loop! Yes! The only thing the article proves is you can not live on sugar alone. I am sure similar data is vailable for salt. Many of us here have chosen to ignore John due to his comments in this and other ng's. If you wish to learn more about why we have taken this extreme decision visit www.naturalhealthperspective.net While I congraulate the person who set this site up, it is in no way connected to me. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.