Page 11 of 11

Posted: Wed Apr 14, 2010 6:07 pm
by frogbyte
Rucifer wrote:I don't completely agree, but see your point with this post. I just think this is meaning to say the bulk of your caloric content should come from more satisfying sources and fruits and other sugars should just complement them.
Sure - biologically it makes no sense to crave sugar 365 days a year, when the vast majority of the time fruit isn't around. I think that most people will stop craving sugar if they just stop eating sugar for a few weeks. That's certainly how it worked with me. I went from 7-10 soda cans a day to 0 - haven't had one in like 8 years or something and certainly don't spend all day craving sugar. I could go for some chicken right about now though. :)

Posted: Wed Apr 14, 2010 6:39 pm
by jml
frogbyte wrote: I think that most people will stop craving sugar if they just stop eating sugar for a few weeks.
I share your hypothesis. I have never missed soda or sugary cereals since I stopped consuming them.

Posted: Wed Apr 14, 2010 7:46 pm
by Peter Rouse
Again read "nutrition and physical degeneration" PM me if you don't have a copy available.

Posted: Thu Apr 15, 2010 5:48 am
by Ironman
Well, I am not surprised Tim locked this topic. This whole thing got WAY out of hand.

Frogbyte, You seem to be getting things mixed up. It looks like you are confusing people's modern sugar cravings and addiction (I use that word very loosely), with any desire to eat something with a sweet taste.

Sweet tasting things provide much quicker energy, that is the survival value in that. That is why it is favored by natural selection.

It also predate our species. Our last common ancestor with the Gorilla, for example was almost entirely herbivorous, possibly pure herbivore. It had quite a lot of fruit in it's diet.

Going back to our common ancestor with the fruit fly, that little critter lived on glucose. If you go back even further, you get to bacteria that metabolized glucose for energy. Anaerobes (microbes not needing oxygen) were the only life on earth before oxygen. They of course had to get their energy without oxygen. This is done through a process called fermentation. Fermentation involves the breakdown of glucose into alcohols or acids. You can find modern anaerobes doing exactly that in a cow's rumen

Ok that is enough with the biology lesson. The other problem is that you will continue to argue a point even when you know you are wrong. You will even contradict yourself in the process. Maybe you don't think other people notice. We notice. Don't do that.

Peter Rouse, Wow, where to even begin...... Well, there are plenty of times when you do give factual information. However it is always in support of things that have nothing to do with the facts you are listing. We call those "red herrings". They are things irrelevant to what is being discussed.

I had a good laugh at the biochemistry comments. I don't think you would know biochemistry if a biochem 101 test book bit you on the a.$s.

The main problem though is you will believe ANYTHING, provided it fits in with your paranoid delusions. You also seem to have a VERY loose grip on logic. You don't seem to be able to comprehend why certain things are illogical. You seem to be quite gullible to start with. Then once you decide something is right you become completely closed minded.

The main problem though is your becoming very hostile with people who do not believe you. I can only let so much of that slide. You are going to have to start having just a little respect for other people on here. I really can't tolerate any more of that hostility. I also get the impression Tim is even more fed up with it than I am.

I really try to let everyone say whatever they want. Some people seem to be abusing that though.