安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文（繁体中文）
日本語（日语）
한국어（韩语）
ไทย（泰语）
български（保加利亚语）
Čeština（捷克语）
Dansk（丹麦语）
Deutsch（德语）
English（英语）
Español-España（西班牙语 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希腊语）
Français（法语）
Italiano（意大利语）
Bahasa Indonesia（印度尼西亚语）
Magyar（匈牙利语）
Nederlands（荷兰语）
Norsk（挪威语）
Polski（波兰语）
Português（葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙）
Português-Brasil（葡萄牙语 - 巴西）
Română（罗马尼亚语）
Русский（俄语）
Suomi（芬兰语）
Svenska（瑞典语）
Türkçe（土耳其语）
Tiếng Việt（越南语）
Українська（乌克兰语）
报告翻译问题
讨论规则及指引
举报此帖
I think our daily recommended intake is about 25 grams, no? There are drinks you could buy that have a sugar content of 77g, this is particularly bad.
The sugar itself isn't unhealthy, it's the amount you're taking in. You could say any nutrient is unhealthy in high enough quantities.
http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/features/effects-of-taking-too-many-vitamins
If we are talking calories, then if both have the same amount, then both are equal. If we are talking about the form and how easy/hard it is to process etc, then, maybe.
Energy is the same no matter the source. Also, simply saying that diabetes is the only reason to shun sugar.
I don't see how that makes sugar worse than salt. Moderation is the important part. That falls onto us.
And spicy food can cause gastrointestinal problems for some.
Oh no, never doubted we needed sugar, but we already have way too much of it in nearly everything: cereal, ketchup, crisps, sweets, desserts, teas, coffees and so on. The effects of too much sugar is distinctively bad. Yes, other things like trans-fats and salt are bad, but you won't find them in soda, which this thread is about.
Fair enough. Although technically this thread has spirally way off-topic from it's original dichotomy lol. Coke 4 lyfe!
It's more than just calories.
http://archive.samj.org.za/1971%20VOL%20XLV%20Jan-Jun/Articles/03%20March/1.3%20SOME%20BIOCHEMICAL%20EFFECTS%20OF%20A%20MAINLY%20FRUIT%20DIET%20IN%20MAN,%20B.J.Meyer,%20.E.J.F.%20de%20Bruin,%20D.G.%20du%20.pdf
No, but it is a big factor of it, and no energy isn't the same as mentioned before.
https://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1693739
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15639678?dopt=AbstractPlus
Yes, but saying one thing isn't that bad because of another thing, isn't an argument. Both are bad, but salt isn't an issue in context of soda.
Well, not me then.
Not sure what I am supposed to be looking for in there.
That just differentiates between glucose and fructose. Nothing to do with energy. If you are trying to say that there exists a difference between using glucose to provide the same amount of energy compared to fructose, then I never argued that.
The point is that they are not bad. Just that over consumption is bad which is the same for everything. So your argument that sugar in and of itself is bad is invalid. (If that was your argument)
It's in the summary, volunteers given high-sugar diet of fruit and vegetables. No ill-effects observed, no weight gain or nothing. It's pretty well-established that sugar in a drink is worse than sugar in fruit, even at the same amount.
Who said this had only anything to do with just energy content?
No one said sugar itself is bad, but too much of it IS bad, and we badly underestimate it.
Was the sugar content in both the same in terms of form & quantity ? If so, then it has to do with the rest of the contents in the food consumed.
A quick read through seems to point that to be the case.
Well, like I said, I acknowledge the differences between fructose and glucose. I was under the impression that the link was provided as proof for the claim "energy isn't the same as mentioned before."
Too much of anything is bad though.
Thank you, thank you. Even though I can't take the credit since it was an unintended side effect.
I don't know what that even means. Same as what?
If we measure sugar by calorie, a calorie of sugar from a drink isn't the same as from fruit. You only have to google "blended sugar" and find plenty of decent articles on the subject.