The 7 Deadly Sugars

Excellent description, I could not have done better. You left out one nasty generality. The AGE (advanced glicosylation endproducts), where sugars attach themselves anywhere at all. A 3 month running average of your red blood cells can be measured simply. It will tell you the average of your sugar sinning against your health. It is a useful guide.

Why is it that all sugar related comments and studies tend to ignore the number of people who are Hypoglycemic- I find that without sugar intake I tend to lose energy and am more tired- the world has more than one type of person in many diciplines and I think it is poor medical science to concentrate on one and ignore the others- lets show both sides of any coin- and also the intensity of the condition varies in different people- quit using scare tactics and present an even picture- people as really very good at reasoning information

"quit using scare tactics and present an even picture- people as really very good at reasoning"
Did you mean people are really very good at reasoning? Maybe the sugar has got to you. I don't think he used scare tactics, it was very good information. I dare you to post a single reference to an article that says sugar is good for you (excluding glucose).

Sorry about that- I did mean are- and with all due respect I have got to a decent old age by being respectful of my body and with the occasional mind fart in spelling seem to have some ability left- I do not in any way try to suggest what was put forward was not well researched nor reasonable, but to bring forward the fact there are always those that do not fit the single pattern and this should be recognized - sadly there are many people in this world that believe only what is written before them and could possible find this dangerous if they fall into the minority that do not fit the study's parameters. And as an Engineer see this far too often- look first -then read and apply knowledge to the study results

Just a few thoughts that I have not posted, specifically, that I remember.

Lab results are averaged over a range of subjects that encompass varying lifestyles, such that 95% of the population is considered to fall within the ranges specified. Another analysis of how they are arrived at is here. There is widespread agreement that diet influences these markers. Most doctors include alterations to diet when markers, related to heart disease, for instance, are out of range.

Biochemical individuality was pioneered by Dr. Roger Williams and shouldn't be overlooked in health assessment.

My recent posts about ascorbic acid, in other threads, and it's involvement in many bodily processes prompts me to wonder how these reference ranges might be altered by the intake of several grams daily of ascorbic acid. Or at least whether or not it would narrow the range any. Your mention of hypoglycemia is is an example. In the book by Irwin Stone, about ascorbic acid, there is a short section on diabetes and hypoglycemia. The effects cited in that section deal mainly with diabetes, but many believe that hypoglycemia can be a precursor to diabetes; especially if due to Hyperinsulinism. The effects cited are pronounced enough that I would find it interesting to do the experiment of only changing participants level of ascorbic acid intake to check for alterations. I see that as no less practical than putting patients with heart disease on a regimen of low-dose aspirin. Personally, I prefer magnesium.

I am on the other end of the spectrum, being Type II diabetic. Blood sugar regulation abnormalities affect one's life in a non-trivial manner. So I am naturally interested in aberrations of the mechanism and anything that might improve it, once disrupted.

Vitamin C and glucose compete in a way. This may be a basic reason for diabetics lowered immunity -- elevated glucose level=less ascorbic acid entrance into a cell, etc. -- explained at the link.

I have met you on other threads, not on this. Interesting. Please do not mind, if and when I disagree with you. I promise not to do that without profound reasons.

The note you wrote triggered my synapses to think about, what is considered "Normal". Well, to my considerable chagrin, many years ago I found it out. Well, there is an established procedure for it. When a new lab test is developed, the need arises to know, what is "normal" for a population. The lab goes out, and tests 500 or so normal people off the street, and their average is then the new normal. Called normal, but is it now?

Let's take vitamin C, as it is applicable to humans. The so-called Recommended Daily Allowance is 60 or 200mg/day, I forget which. I take 1000 to 2000 per day plus what is in the food. Some experts recommend 10000mg or more for certain people and under certain conditions. So, now, Which is it?.

You see, there is a huge fly in this ointment. No selfrespecting person should establish a standard any such way. You see, humans, higher apes, and hamsters - due a fluke in biochemistry, do not produce vitamin C on their own. In plain english: we are freaks, we are exceptions in the mammalian world. While I am confident, these thoughts are not unique to me, I have not run accross a study showing the necessary C content in an average mammal in health and in sickness. THAT I could consider the "Normal" for health in a mammalian world, that is.

While other "Normal"s do not have the same aberration, they have the same question. Since when is an "Average" a healthy "Normal" ???

Precisely. That was my intended point.

Regarding vitamin C and the RDA AND larger doses, I had been reading "Ascorbate: The Science of Vitamin C," and find the science presented very interesting and very convincing. It is costly for a paperback book, but I intend to purchase it (I had it through inter-library loan and had to return it before finishing it).

I don't know if there is one book I've read on ascorbic acid that I would say, If you can only afford one book," get this one. I had posted in another thread that I do consider the book by Irwin Stone as a good foundation for understanding why Pauling and others became convinced that gram doses (and definitely tempered by biochemical individuality) have been wrongly interpreted as "mega." That is only if one accepts the 60mg RDA as sufficient for optimum health.

A short mention of Hickey's rebuttal of detractors of doses larger than 200mg (which is discussed in detail in the Asorbate book) is on Pubmed here. The following letter echoes a similar conclusion. That they (Hickey and Sardi) are associates at some level is obvious in an interview by the latter of the former published here. Despite the somewhat commercial nature of the vitamincfoundation web site, it is a gold mine of research possibilities. The link to Mr. Fonorow's page about The Vitamin C Experts, provides further links to, what I would call the "pioneers" of ascorbic acid knowledge and practice. He also runs the PaulingTherapy web site. The therapy is simple and fully explained such that one doesn't need to buy products promoted and sold there to utilize it. He is providing a valuable service to the public.

Norms are both meaningful and meaningless as contradictory as it sounds. Ballpark/meaningful and yet, individually/possibly meaningless. As Dr. Stone points out, there was little (and maybe continues to this day) data of mammalian levels of synthesized ascorbic acid to go by for any extrapolation to humans. I think he mentions rats were about it. Of course, there is also the observation/estimation by Geoffrey Bourne (and it was probably an Identity, rather than a Supremacy or Ultimatum) about gorillas as a clue. From Ch. 10 of Stone's book:

The author has not been alone in the belief that the present recommended levels of ascorbic acid may not be the optimal levels to fulfill all our requirements. In 1949, Geoffrey H. Bourne, now head of the Yerkes Regional Primate Research Center in Atlanta, Georgia, pointed out that an adult gorilla in the wild state consumes about 4.5 grams of ascorbic acid a day in his food. He also speculated that the recommended milligrams a day for humans might be wide of the mark and 1 or 2 grams a day might be the correct amount. (Underlining mine.)

Dr. Albert Szent-Gyorgyi, who received the Nobel Prize in Medicine for his research on ascorbic acid, in a private communication to the author in 1965, stated that what he liked about the author's genetic concept is that it suggested " that the daily dosage of ascorbic acid in man should be much higher. I have always pleaded for such a higher dosage."

Stone was the door to Pauling's interest in ascorbic acid.

(We have crossed paths in threads -- most recently where I have taken liberties to post about health topics -- specifically, ascorbic acid, and also epigenetics. So far, I would say, we agree more than disagree. You certainly don't need profound reasons to disagree. Simple (and good) facts easily convince me of the error of my ways. And sometimes issues aren't resolved enough for a clear cut answer.)

Erratum:

One point I was lame/incorrect on is:

As anyone who looked at the links realizes, the link I called an interview was not. Sometimes I rush a bit to get the post done and submitted and I obviously made an error on that one. Something I had seen in the links I was looking, at cross-translated in my, sometimes, foggy brain, and, in that space it became an interview. Good info., just not an interview. I apologize to all for the mistake.

Er, #2 and #3, aside of crankiness.

Sorry to say, that suboptimal sugar regulation is generally accepted as a "condition" only. The hell it is. I lived with it, learned to compensate. You may be a minority, good for you as far as sugar overload problems concerns. Live with it, learn it. It is only suboptimal regulation you can correct fine, with some work.

On the other hand, the other side has hormonal foundations, and pretty nasty consequences for health. I did not exclude personal responsibility, especially the wrist problem leading to the mouth. Nonetheless, mankind, traditionally did not eat plenty of sugar and starches readily converted to such. Duh!

Sorry to be harsh, as I found nothing better. If you as in yourself do not curb sugar

and high carbs for yourself and for yours, neither I nor anybody else can help you.

And there I prefer not to include later age "management" of the consequences.

While contemplate, have a good life.

Fair enough and you are right in many respects- however you judge me far too harshly- I do not sugar load but only take enough to feel healthy, and although it is outside this study- I will not eat prepared or packaged foods because the other stuff in there is just as harmful-if not more- fresh veggies and fish (not from China) and in moderation-I just want people to look beyond a single position (and also find out who sponsored the study?!!!)

I do not iudge people, especially on conditions they got. At the same time, I consider Internet a modern blessing, where with a bit (make that a large dose) discernment, a lot of useful information can be gleaned.

A statistical fact is, that the western world, and increasingly the rest of the world takes in more calories, than it is good for them. And lacking in others.

The basic facts of the displayed sugar biochemistry was laid down some generations ago. This modern one I knew my whole adult life.

Go out, and learn. It is a healthy occupation anyhow. And do not take the word of so called authorities for a gospel. In the meantime, have a very good life.

Excellent- I could not have said it better myself- - and probably nowhere near as well- all I am trying to do is open the doors so people will think- Thank God all of us are different- otherwise it would be a dull place- and I agree- use your mind on its own before you believe everything they tell us- I think from reading the blogs on this site most of the participant are truly rebels in their own world and have much of value to say- perhaps not always in a pleasing manner.

Chimo

Bless You, my brother, and keep up the good work. And let us hear from you in the future too.

And those aren't the only problems from fructose overload.

http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/70/15/6368.abstract

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1892841,00.html