Jump to content
BANGKOK
Sign in to follow this  
webfact

Thais Growing Increasingly Fond Of Sugar

Recommended Posts

I bought some "lite mayonnaise" the other day, expecting it to be sugar free. It was disgustingly sweet and when the GF showed me the 30% sugar content in Thai I was astounded. How can they label something as "lite" with such a sugar content?

The mayo was given to the neighbours and replaced with Heinz.

Doesn't the 'lite' labeling mean less fat ? - if it means anything real at all.

Doesn't 'lite' mean that it doesn't weigh as much as other brandswhistling.gif

Edited by Keesters

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fat kids may seem cute ... and serve as a status symbol of prosperity ... but allowing kids to get fat and dooming them to a shortened, not-so-sweet life of cardiovascular disease and diabetes is child abuse.

hear hear.

Personally I see nothing 'cute' about fat kids. I see 'sad' leading to an early death or disease.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw a fat Thai boy sitting at "Cupcake Love" (highly recommended) screaming for his cupcakes. He ate the icing on the top in a matter of seconds and left half of the cake in a crumpled mess on the table and hoofed it outa there. I then I saw him and his family 30 mins later in Dunkin Donuts. Sugar rush!!

Spoilt brat. The parents are to blame. Being in both Cupcake Love and Dunkin Donuts within 30 minutes shows above average wealth but not a lot of sense.

Judging by his porcine appearance, he gets his way a lot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Be warned, those low and zero sugar alternatives contain stuff far worse for you than sugar. The zero sugar alternatives are very bad indeed.

please elaborate.

Aspertame!

Please read the excellent post and links provided by laisliaca above.

I guess you don't know what elaborate means.

I know full well what elaborate means, but have better things to do than sit and type reams for some lazy ar*e poster who only contributes one liners himself. I have given you the name of a chemical that is very problematic in terms of health and you were even given some excellent links, now why not move those sugar laden arms and fingers and type g o o g l e and see what you can come up with if you are remotely interested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know full well what elaborate means, but have better things to do than sit and type reams for some lazy ar*e poster who only contributes one liners himself. I have given you the name of a chemical that is very problematic in terms of health and you were even given some excellent links, now why not move those sugar laden arms and fingers and type g o o g l e and see what you can come up with if you are remotely interested.

that's quite an assumption about the appearance of my arms, and very kind of you to use personal insults.

do I type g o o g l e with or without the spaces?

should I google aspertame as you wrote it, or aspartame? or should I google aspartame conspiracy theories?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All these attack on sugar are unfounded and based on questionable research. It's a fact that threnody needs sugar and our brain is the largest consumer of glucose.

Try over eating and general consumption of processed foods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All these attack on sugar are unfounded and based on questionable research. It's a fact that threnody needs sugar and our brain is the largest consumer of glucose.

Try over eating and general consumption of processed foods.

So nice to have a great debate without it being pulled down to school child levels.

Sweet poison was mentioned in an earlier post, very informative indeed.

It is a refined product and, if uses sensibly, is not too bad for health.

I was raised in the 40's in the UK where we had sugar rationing. We were allowed very few sweets but even then, we did crave them, it is an addictive food.

Since those days, the consumption of sugars, and I include fructose in it's every form, has risen out of all proportion to other foods.

Using Google (No spaces LOL dapsolapsalai, and thanks for your humourous one liners, I learned very much from them, mostly about you rather than this topic)

I spotted a couple of interesting studies.

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2800%2904041-1/fulltext

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1600-0528.1997.tb01735.x/abstract

It is a high calorie, processed food, and one that should be taken in only very small quantities unless you are something like an athlete in training and can burn the energy off, otherwise the extra calories will make you fat.

However, I would be very interested to hear what you know that proves that sugar consumption should not be restricted.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bought some "lite mayonnaise" the other day, expecting it to be sugar free. It was disgustingly sweet and when the GF showed me the 30% sugar content in Thai I was astounded. How can they label something as "lite" with such a sugar content?

The mayo was given to the neighbours and replaced with Heinz.

Great story! I have one of my own. I was with my girlfriend in a mall food court, and had just piled up a great veggie salad. She then gently took it from my hands and killed it with a ladle full of sickening sweet mayonnaise from one of those troughs. I was fuming, but in love. Ha! What's a guy to do? I ended up marrying her a year later, and I now keep my hands on the salad at all times!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All these attack on sugar are unfounded and based on questionable research. It's a fact that threnody needs sugar and our brain is the largest consumer of glucose.

Try over eating and general consumption of processed foods.

Untrue. In the absence of glucose your body will produce its own. Look up gluconeogenisis. Your body makes it from protein. Your body does not need one gram of carbohydrate to run efficiently. Most people consume way too much ---cose than is good for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bought some "lite mayonnaise" the other day, expecting it to be sugar free. It was disgustingly sweet and when the GF showed me the 30% sugar content in Thai I was astounded. How can they label something as "lite" with such a sugar content?

The mayo was given to the neighbours and replaced with Heinz.

Great story! I have one of my own. I was with my girlfriend in a mall food court, and had just piled up a great veggie salad. She then gently took it from my hands and killed it with a ladle full of sickening sweet mayonnaise from one of those troughs. I was fuming, but in love. Ha! What's a guy to do? I ended up marrying her a year later, and I now keep my hands on the salad at all times!

You don't let her toss your salad?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All these attack on sugar are unfounded and based on questionable research. It's a fact that threnody needs sugar and our brain is the largest consumer of glucose.

Try over eating and general consumption of processed foods.

Untrue. In the absence of glucose your body will produce its own. Look up gluconeogenisis. Your body makes it from protein. Your body does not need one gram of carbohydrate to run efficiently. Most people consume way too much ---cose than is good for them.

Well I followed your advice and found this description - what do you think?

The consensus is that you can make sugar if you need it, where as you can't make protein or fat if you need it. So carbohydrates aren't essential to life. That doesn't mean zero/low carb is optimal to life.

Both gluconeogenesis and de novo lipogenesis are things you body does to manage your sugar levels. If you don't have enough, your body can make some and if you have too much your body can get rid of it. I'd argue that neither is really "good" for you. They both take energy and your body would rather probably do something more useful. But if your brain (or something else) needs sugar, your body will make some. Likewise, if you gorge on fructose your body has to get rid of it. It's a highly reactive oxidizing agent in your body, so you need to do something to make it more stable. Step 1 is to store it as glycogen, but there's only so much of that you can store in your muscles and liver. Step 2 is to convert it into fat. Fat (particularly saturated fat) is a very chemically stable molecule and as a result lots can be stored very safely (from a chemical standpoint). Your body doesn't really care about the long term effects of having too much fat in your system, all it cares about is getting the highly reactive toxic sugar (particularly fructose) out. So that's why we have the ability to turn sugar into fat.

I'd argue that if your body is relying on gluconeogenesis you're not eating enough carbs; however, if you're doing de novo lipogenesis you're eating too many. Sugar is safe in the body only in a very narrow range, think of all of the feedback loops we have in our body to manage sugar levels.

Personally, from a chemical standpoint, I'd rather be a little low on sugar than high. Sugar is highly reactive and I don't like the thought of having extra floating around my body waiting to be turned into fat. I'd rather just make it on demand for the systems that must have it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...