> You don't think the scientific literature has anything to say about sugar surplus or junk food surplus?
No, I know it does, but it doesn't properly communicate the relationship with correct words, where other related subjects do. Instead it dances about with a disconnection, I would guess because of the sugar and health industry lobby.
The medical definition of poisoning is generally defined as injury or death due to swallowing, inhaling, touching or injecting of various substances.
Disease can be considered as an injury when it refers to a condition that develops gradually over time due to repeated exposure or stressors.
> Carbohydrate poisoning sounds nonsensical though
Carbohydrates are in the potatoes, but are not the potatoes.
There are contextual limits when you associate specific things into a unique word definition, potatoes (unless green, or unsafely handled), would not be poisonous because they have a finite amount of components that our bodies can handle, and it would be quite hard if not impossible to eat sufficient amounts given biological limits and rates inherent in structure.
A concentrated chemical solution of simple carbohydrates in reduced liquid form that absorbs more quickly than your pancreas can handle on the other hand would be different.
When you exceed safe operating limits, this can cause injury, and that may show up, or present as symptoms of disease.
I would have responded sooner but apparently when posts get downvoted, it automatically applies a strict QoS filter that won't let the poster respond at all.
Not a very reasonable thing to do for a rational-minded community, for something as tame as what I said.
That system structure almost always trends eventually towards collectivist sock-puppetry opinion with the mob silencing others based solely on individual mass hallucination. Not very scientific, and at the same time eliminates requirements needed for intelligent thoughts.
In order to learn you must be able to risk being offended.
In order to think, you must be able to risk being offensive.
In order to share the benefits of either broadly, you must be able to communicate.
Without these inherent strengths skewing towards survival, its just a matter of time and circumstance before losing the fight against extinction.
I'm very much in the "reduce carbs" camp. Long-term high carb intake leads to many health issues, and reductions lead to improvements. I'm not sure that science is behind on this (there's plenty of literature on the topic) but man-in-the-street understanding seems to be behind.
The concept that sugar leads to diabetes is not exactly news at 11. But articles like this are helpful in moving the popular mindset.
Personally though I'd avoid the term "poison". Mostly because it's a very long-term effect, whereas people use "poison" in general usage more as a short term thing (rat poison versus feeding rats carbs till they get diabetes).
Secondly calling it "poison" is far outside normal understanding and so you become the "nutter" in the conversation. Which then devalues the valid points you have to make.
I say this as someone in your camp. While your body certainly needs some carbohydrates its safe to assume everyone is getting enough. Nobody needs sugar though, and removing as much of that as possible from daily diet will have big impacts in the long term.
For me that doesn't mean 'never sugar'. It means cake at celebrations, ice-cream once a month, eating "normally" when at restaurants (which is probably less than once a month) and so on.
The goal is not to be "perfect" the goal is to improve one step at a time. Coffee without sugar? Check. No daily, or weekly, sugar sodas or fruit juice? Check. And so on.
Small changes introduced slowly over time become the new normal, and that leads to sustained improvements.
No, I know it does, but it doesn't properly communicate the relationship with correct words, where other related subjects do. Instead it dances about with a disconnection, I would guess because of the sugar and health industry lobby.
The medical definition of poisoning is generally defined as injury or death due to swallowing, inhaling, touching or injecting of various substances.
Disease can be considered as an injury when it refers to a condition that develops gradually over time due to repeated exposure or stressors.
> Carbohydrate poisoning sounds nonsensical though
Carbohydrates are in the potatoes, but are not the potatoes.
There are contextual limits when you associate specific things into a unique word definition, potatoes (unless green, or unsafely handled), would not be poisonous because they have a finite amount of components that our bodies can handle, and it would be quite hard if not impossible to eat sufficient amounts given biological limits and rates inherent in structure.
A concentrated chemical solution of simple carbohydrates in reduced liquid form that absorbs more quickly than your pancreas can handle on the other hand would be different.
When you exceed safe operating limits, this can cause injury, and that may show up, or present as symptoms of disease.
I would have responded sooner but apparently when posts get downvoted, it automatically applies a strict QoS filter that won't let the poster respond at all.
Not a very reasonable thing to do for a rational-minded community, for something as tame as what I said.
That system structure almost always trends eventually towards collectivist sock-puppetry opinion with the mob silencing others based solely on individual mass hallucination. Not very scientific, and at the same time eliminates requirements needed for intelligent thoughts.
In order to learn you must be able to risk being offended. In order to think, you must be able to risk being offensive. In order to share the benefits of either broadly, you must be able to communicate.
Without these inherent strengths skewing towards survival, its just a matter of time and circumstance before losing the fight against extinction.