Numbers don't lie

To properly break down and digest milk, you need enzymes like rennin and lactase.
In most people, those levels drop off by the time they hit age three. Milk contains unknown—which, in cow's milk, is 300 times more concentrated than what humans actually need—to support bone development. But once it hits the stomach, it curdles into these massive, tough, nearly indigestible clumps. This unknown puts an immense strain on the human body—forcing it to burn way too much energy just to cope. To make matters worse, this coagulated mass sticks to the intestinal walls... which effectively blocks nutrient absorption. Plus, the metabolic byproducts from digesting milk leave behind a host of highly acidic toxins.
That unknown is actually the base for one of the strongest adhesives used in the American woodworking industry.

Casey Palmer5 said:What vitamins are we even talking about when it comes to processing sugar???

I mean, what kind of question is that? Every single digestive process requires a massive cocktail of vitamins and minerals—for enzymes, for digestion itself, for distribution, absorption... everything.

In that light, white sugar (or brown sugar), white flour, and stuff like white bread are basically labeled "empty calories" in medical circles. They provide nothing but fuel. To actually digest them, your body has to burn through its own stores of vitamins and minerals because there's zero nutritional value in the food itself. So, sugar essentially "consumes" your nutrients... leading to long-term deficiencies. We all know where that leads. You end up having to supplement just to get back to baseline, which shouldn't be necessary in the first place.
Hopefully that clears things up.

If you want carbs that won't wreck your system, stick to whole grain bread, fruit, veggies, brown rice, or those other grains I mentioned. Those give you the carbs you need, plus the vitamins, minerals, and fiber to go along with them.

shadowgardener12 said:What kind of question is that? Every single digestive process requires a massive amount of vitamins and minerals—not just for the enzymes to work, but for the actual digestion, distribution, and absorption stages too!

In that sense, doctors often refer to white sugar (or brown sugar) and white flour—along with things like white bread—as "empty calories." They don't offer anything besides energy, and actually, the body has to burn through its own supply of vitamins and minerals just to process them, even though those nutrients aren't present in the food itself. Essentially, sugar "uses up" your vitamins, which leads to long-term deficiencies... and we all know what happens when that occurs. You end up having to supplement those missing nutrients later, but ideally, you shouldn't have to deal with that in the first place.
I hope that clears things up for you.

If you want carbs that won't wreck your system, stick to whole grain breads, fruit, veggies, brown rice, and those other whole grains I mentioned. All of those provide carbohydrates along with essential vitamins, minerals, and fiber.

Actually, it's still not clicking for me. I think a more detailed biochemical breakdown of how sugar is broken down would help clarify things. If possible, could you send over some links to specific research abstracts that explain the vitamin depletion process and exactly which ones are consumed during glucose metabolism?

Wait, what part of this isn't clicking? White sugar and white flour don't come packed with vitamins and minerals. Then you've got foods that are heavy on carbs but still provide the other stuff the body actually needs to function—things that aren't just being stored as fat or burned straight for energy.

Honestly, I'm struggling to follow... 😁 😁

I feel like even a middle schooler gets this. Not sure where you're getting stuck.

shadowgardener12 said:Wait, what part isn't clicking for you? White sugar and white flour don't have vitamins or minerals, right? There's a huge difference between those and actual foods that are high in carbs but also pack all the other stuff our bodies need to actually function, rather than just turning everything straight into energy or storing it as fat (carbs)...

I honestly don't know how that's so hard to grasp! 😁 😁

I feel like this is basic stuff even a middle schooler would get. I'm really not sure where you're getting stuck here...

I feel like I was pretty clear about what I'm confused by, so I'm not sure why you aren't seeing my point.

What I don't get is which specific vitamins are being used up to break down sugar. You keep saying they are, but I want to know *which* ones and what kind of chemical reactions they're involved in.

Obviously, white sugar doesn't have vitamins—it's just sucrose, not a whole food. Flour might have a tiny bit of something, but very little at most.

Not sure which ones specifically, but you basically need almost every vitamin just to handle digestion and absorption properly.

And honestly, if we're talking about how sugar and white flour are just empty calories, it doesn't really matter which specific vitamins get used up breaking them down... probably the same ones needed for glucose, plus others. But unlike white sugar, things like honey or fruit aren't "empty." They actually have substance.
I doubt you'd even grasp the chemical reactions happening during digestion if you won't even abstract from the basics.

If you're going to look it up, look up sucrose instead of glucose. That's the sugar I'm talking about.

shadowgardener12 said:If you're gonna look for it, search for sucrose instead of glucose, because sucrose is the actual sugar I'm talking about.

Oh man, shadowgardener12... You really shouldn't have said that! Now Casey Palmer5 is gonna come after you!😁 Sucrose is just glucose plus fructose! Just a little more info on sugars...

shadowgardener12 said:.
I honestly doubt you'll even grasp the complex chemical reactions happening during digestion if you won't even attempt to abstract them from the process itself.

Look, don't worry about whether I'll "get" the chemistry or not... just please, just write it down.

Basically, I want to see the breakdown process for sucrose, or maybe even the more complex carbohydrates found in flour. And please—tell me which vitamins get depleted while all that is being broken down.

That’s really all I’m asking for. Come on, surely that isn't too much to ask, right?...

Why would I even bother writing that out!? I’ve got my sources in the medical community, and honestly, I don't need to break down the complex chemistry... it's pretty straightforward. Even a high schooler could grasp the basics of how and why this works.

If you’re still struggling to wrap your head around it, feel free to do your own research. If it's a bit too dense for you, maybe let someone else do the heavy lifting instead! 🙄

dustycanyon6 said:Oh man, shadowgardener12... you shouldn't have said that. Casey Palmer5 is gonna come for you now! 😁 Sucrose is just glucose plus fructose. A little more detail on the sugars...

Another smart guy showing up. Exactly—sucrose has to break down into glucose first. That's where the process actually starts, not at the glucose stage like Casey Palmer5 claimed. You clearly don't follow the science, yet here you are talking...

shadowgardener12 said:Just another "expert" weighing in! Exactly—sucrose has to break down into glucose first, so that’s where the breakdown actually starts, not at the glucose stage like Casey Palmer5 claimed. You clearly don't know what you're talking about, yet here you are lecturing everyone...

Honestly, you've gotten so tangled up in your own logic that you don't even know what you're talking about anymore. If you even knew in the first place. Every time I ask for actual data, you just start insulting me by implying I'm too clueless to understand. Look, if you're going to post things on a forum, you need to be ready to back them up with real facts.

You're basing your entire take on sugar on hearsay, and when I try to pin you down with something specific, you come up empty. I bet if I asked you which specific enzymes are involved in the sugar breakdown process, you wouldn't have a clue...

If you actually paid attention, I was the very first one to bring up sucrose in this thread.

I'm done wasting my breath on this; you've already dug yourself into a deep enough hole...

Look, you're on your own when it comes to the chemistry... I gave you verified info, not some random stuff scraped from a website, and I told you my source. If that's not enough for you, feel free to go find it yourself. I'm not going to spend my afternoon explaining chemical reactions four different times. You can always head over to a medical school if you really need an answer.

124 ways sugar might be wrecking your health (it’s all laid out super clearly, too... plus there's actual scientific research backing everything up).

Look, that’s the extent of what sugar can do. But we already agreed—let's not start a panic. Just offer some alternatives instead. Sugar, like anything else, becomes an issue if you overdo it... but if you stay within reason, keep active, and eat a balanced diet, it's really not a big deal.
The whole thing exists mainly because that guy wants to suggest something for his kid, but honestly, it's unnecessary if you just stick to a normal, healthy lifestyle.

dustycanyon6 said:124 ways sugar can wreck your health (nicely laid out—everything backed by actual scientific studies)...

Does that apply to refined sugar too, or just the other kind? And what's actually the best substitute to use...

shadowgardener12 said:Look, that's pretty much the limit on what sugar can do. But hey, we already agreed—no need to go running around causing a panic. We should just focus on offering some better alternatives instead... At the end of the day, sugar is just like anything else; if you overdo it, it’s going to mess with your system...

So... I'm just dropping a link here with the sole intention of keeping everyone in the loop about what sugar can actually do to you. And then—bam—instant panic. It’s like some people just reflexively freak out the second they see something that doesn't align with their own worldview. If someone flags something as potentially risky, and you don't personally view it that way, you immediately start sounding the alarm... it's wild... I've been wondering... out of everyone following this thread, how many of you actually knew even a fraction of what sugar can do to you? Like, maybe just one-fifth or even one-tenth of the damage... There’s this one great saying out there... Ignorance is bliss, right? Honestly... what you don't know probably won't kill you... So... if you aren't aware of all those hidden dangers lurking in sugar, then I guess sugar isn't dangerous. Simple logic, right? Or maybe just... not quite... Sometimes I think knowing too much just gets in the way... Honestly, there's a certain kind of peace in just not knowing everything. Ignorance really can be a blessing... Only if you’re looking to absolutely wreck your life and your health...

Let's just stick to what's normal here... sugar is obviously going to be part of life, but if you're staying active and actually eating a decent variety of foods, it’s really not that big of a deal...

It really makes you wonder... where did we lose the plot? I mean, look, eating sugar isn't going to kill you instantly if you’re active and actually eat decent meals most of the time. It just lowers the odds of all those nasty metabolic issues. It doesn't erase them... The thing is, sugar spikes your insulin. And let's be real, it's not even the only culprit there. Grains, potatoes, rice... they all bump those levels up too, just not quite as aggressively as the sweet stuff. But high insulin? That’s basically the engine behind almost every chronic illness we see in the developed world today. Think about it... you look at those remote tribes in Africa or anywhere else that hasn't been touched by processed sugar, and what do you see? You don't see heart attacks, diabetes, or skyrocketing blood pressure. You don't see massive tooth decay or widespread depression either. Even acne—which is linked to dairy consumption—just isn't an issue there. If you have a little sugar every once in a while, you'll probably be fine. But if you're eating it constantly, even if you think the amount is small... that's how you end up with those damn chronic problems. You never truly know if the habits you're building today are the ones that are going to wreck your health ten years down the road...

So, what’s the actual issue here? Is it really about whether we can cut out sugar? No way... that's not even the point. The real problem is just that most people... Not happening... Cut out the sugar. Honestly, why bother giving it up if you don't really have to? It’s addictive, plain and simple. Just like everything else we crave—booze, cigarettes, drugs, caffeine, even just mindless TV watching... We always find some way to justify our little vices. The first step is usually just lying to ourselves about the problem, which is exactly what shadowgardener12 is doing right now. There’s no other way to spin it, unless you just really love how sugar tastes... It offers zero nutritional value, too. I actually read somewhere that it's basically... So, I was reading about this whole "antinutrient" thing... you know, those substances people claim are lurking in our food just waiting to mess everything up. It’s kind of wild how much debate there is around it lately. Some folks swear by avoiding them like the plague, while others think it's all just overblown hype... I don't know. It makes you wonder if we're overthinking what's actually on our plates... maybe we should just enjoy the meal and stop worrying so much... That describes him perfectly...

There's this weird situation going on here in the States regarding water fluoridation. You see people fighting against it, which makes sense because most of Western Europe has actually banned the practice. The whole argument they use is basically, "We’re putting fluoride in the water so you don't end up with cavities from all that sugar you eat." But if you look closer... there are massive corporations behind the push for fluoridation—companies that make a killing off sugar consumption, like Coca-Cola. It really makes you stop and think... who actually benefits from everyone consuming more sugar? It certainly isn't you. Because sugar... It’s just not happening... It doesn't really bring anything good to the table... except maybe a little bit of short-lived euphoria... 😉)!

I’ve always been the type of person with an incredibly strong will... turns out that can be both a blessing and a curse depending on the day...😁So, after looking into all this sugar stuff, I figured I’d give it a shot—just to see what happens. I haven't really touched sugar for about two months now. Well, maybe a little ice cream here or there, fewer cookies, some in my Gatorade... I guess that's pretty much it. Maybe a few tiny things here and there. Over those two months—maybe even a bit less—I dropped about 10 or 12 pounds. I wasn't overweight to begin with, but now I'm at a really solid weight for my height. My energy levels are up, I don't feel nearly as wiped out, and there are probably other small perks too... I'll admit, I cut back on grains and bread as well. Do I miss the sugar? Honestly... not really. And once you go that long without it, your taste buds reset. Everything tastes sweeter. It feels like drinking a Coca-Cola is two or three times sweeter than it was before I quit...

Some of these points are mostly because that guy wants to recommend them to his kid, but honestly, none of that matters if you're just living a normal, healthy life.

That guy over there is basically "treating" people with chronic illnesses by prescribing his specific diet—but that's not actually a weight-loss diet, it's just eating right. His whole philosophy is simple: just give a person exactly what they need to survive (what we need was decided by evolution hundreds of thousands of years ago) and in the specific amount that works for them, since everyone is different. Sugar doesn't have a place in a human diet, period. All his claims are backed by scientific research and he keeps everything updated. For instance, I read a lot on his site about Omega-3 fatty acids. About two weeks ago, an alert popped up—almost like a warning—for anyone using them, saying you should also consume certain antioxidants found in specific vegetables to get the full benefit. And I was just reading something about fluoride on his page recently... it didn't cover everything I wanted to know, so I followed some links and stumbled upon a real surprise. Next to one link, there was a comment pointing out that the company behind the link sells water filters designed to remove fluoride, so take their info with a grain of salt. If a guy like that doesn't inspire trust, who can you actually believe? Just look at the Coca-Cola websites and read the nonsense they put out about sugar—they try to frame it like alcohol, implying that life is no fun without it! The only study they ever mention regarding sugar is from 1994, and it's strictly about how people behave differently depending on whether they eat sugar or not. You'd have to be incredibly gullible—or maybe just totally naive—to believe everything you find on Coca-Cola's pages (or any other site promoting sugar as part of a healthy lifestyle). Sure, someone who eats sugar can be healthy, but sugar plays zero positive role in that health...

Even though I'm not a big drinker, I think having a drink in moderation is better than consuming sugar in moderation. In some cases—well, probably many cases, as long as you aren't abusing it—alcohol can actually have positive qualities. We all know the deal with a glass of red wine being good for your heart and other health aspects...

Lisa Ortiz17 said:Does that apply to refined sugar too, or just the other kind? What's actually the best thing to use instead?

It applies to all sugars, really. Mostly white sugar, raw sugar, honey... even fructose if you're using it as an additive. If you're just eating fruit in moderation, you aren't really getting massive amounts of fructose from that...

Honestly, the best move is to skip the sugar entirely. Just try going without it for two or three months... you’ve got nothing to lose (except maybe some weight 😉), but there’s plenty to gain. I mean, having a little bit once in a while isn't going to kill anyone. It seems like stevia might be one of those rare, relatively safe substitutes. It probably still bumps up your insulin, though maybe not nearly as much as actual sugar—I can't be totally sure about that part... plus, like any sweetener, it can be addictive. Since stevia has zero calories, it could work as a daily swap, like putting it in your coffee. It feels like it’s a bit hard to track down here in the States, and honestly, globally too (well, except in Japan). It seems like companies just cook up all these silly excuses to avoid approving it as a sweetener... they probably don't want to approve it because they'd rather stick with things like aspartame, which brings in way more money for the big manufacturers...

If sugar is such a massive anti-nutrient, then why on earth do doctors keep people on glucose drips in hospitals after surgery or when they're unconscious?

Casey Palmer5 said:If sugar is an anti-nutrient, why do hospitals keep people on glucose drips after surgery or when they're unconscious?

Glucose is essentially the primary form of sugar circulating in our system. Other types of
sugar found in food are simply digested and converted into glucose.
The body uses glucose to provide us with immediate energy.

Glycogen is the carbohydrate stored in the liver; it's built from glucose to act as a backup energy supply, which then converts back into glucose whenever we need it.

🙂 😉 😎

Sugar—glucose, or fructose being better because you’re getting it through honey (which has actual medicinal value), fruit, or veggies, or just absorbing it straight into the bloodstream.

It would be totally irrational to cut out honey just because it contains sugar. Everything has its place in what the body needs... it's really just a matter of the right form and the right amount.