Are you a salt man or a sugar boi?

>sugar is terrible for you
100% false, this is nonsense

>salt is essential
100% true

it is an essential nutrient

lettuce is gross, i eat baby spinach

>not being a Capsaicin Chad

Attached: scoville scale.jpg (497x700, 47K)

Variety is for ur health user, also spinach is a veggie and included in my salads

>huge insulin spikes
>causes inflammation
>makes you hungry again sooner
>doesn't make you feel satisfied for the amount of calories it contains
>addictive

sugar is the worst

This. What a lovely way to burn.

>eating salad
Eat meat like a man, girlyboi

Maybe don't drink 6 large sodas at once, then? Sugar is basically essential since glucose is the only fuel your brain cells will accept.

What does a man eat kiddo?

Attached: 1531362499658.jpg (1113x787, 75K)

yeah its better to be a chips and burgers kind of guy than a candy and soda guy

>>huge insulin spikes
wrong, sir -- you have it reversed

sucrose has a LOWER glycemic index than starch... fructose has a very low glycemic load!
in fact sugar [fructose+glucose] reduces the glycemic load of starch [glucose]

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11134101
> Acute fructose administration decreases the glycemic response to an oral glucose tolerance test in normal adults.
> In conclusion, low dose fructose improves the glycemic response to an oral glucose load in normal adults without significantly enhancing the insulin or triglyceride response. Fructose appears most effective in those normal individuals who have the poorest glucose tolerance.

>causes inflammation
opposite is true: functionalps.com/blog/2011/02/04/sugar-sucrose-restrains-the-stress-hormone-system/

>makes you hungry again sooner
not really

>doesn't make you feel satisfied for the amount of calories it contains
that's not true at all. "hunger" is very much misinterpreted. if you're "hungry" but craving protein, consuming sugar WILL NOT FILL YOU UP. of course, stress is often perceived as a craving for sugar.

the truth is that me, personally, when i crave sugar, i consume it and the craving subsides

basically, all you're saying is "sucrose doesn't satisfy protein cravings" -- so what?

>addictive
it's a macronutrient, it provides calories, energy. "addiction" to life giving substances is not bad at all. you're addicted to water and oxygen and sleep PLEASE STOP DOING THOSE THINGS!!! fucking addict

Your brain uses ketones more effectively than glucose actually, and your body can make it's own glucose through gluconeogenesis

>>huge insulin spikes
another refutation of this common misconception (absolute hoax, lie, fabrication)

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11679451
> Acute fructose administration improves oral glucose tolerance in adults with type 2 diabetes.
>Low-dose fructose improves the glycemic response to an oral glucose load in adults with type 2 diabetes, and this effect is not a result of stimulation of insulin secretion.

you know NOTHING of fructose (sucrose, table sugar, is glucose+fructose)

it has a ridiculously low glycemic index

>GLYCEMIC LIST - White Bread - Glucose Based
>Fructose - 32 - 22
>Lactose - 65 - 46
>Honey - 83 - 58
>High fructose corn syrup - 89 - 62
>Sucrose - 92 - 64
>Glucose - 137 - 96
>Glucose tablets - 146 - 102
>Maltodextrin - 150 - 105
>Maltose - 150 - 105
>Pineapple juice - 66 - 46
>Peach, canned - 67 - 47
>Grapefruit juice - 69 - 48
>Orange juice - 74 - 52

>your body can make it's own glucose through gluconeogenesis
indeed, it can. this actually is proof against ketosis.

How many times have you heard the following statement:
>"Science has proven that we don't need carbohydrates at all."

This is always stated as if it was some kind of revelation and of course justification for a very low carb diet. If you don't need to eat carbs, that must prove that they are useless, and therefore we shouldn't eat them, right?

Of course the statement is nothing more than a shortsighted misrepresentation of physiology. The statement that you don't need to eat carbohydrates is based on the well-known principle of gluconeogenesis, the method by which your body can make glucose from non-carbohydrate sources, primarily amino acids. There's a reason for this. Glucose is so critical to your health that the body has a simple mechanism for ensuring its concentration in blood for the times when you unfortunately can?t get carbohydrates into your diet. It?s a safeguard against a natural or self-imposed tragedy. It prevents you from slipping into a coma and dying due to lack of sufficient blood sugar. This is not an argument for a low-carb diet or for the uselessness of carbohydrates. It is in fact proof positive of how critical carbohydrates are to your life and health.

If carbohydrates were useless as some low-carb enthusiasts want to believe, we would be able to convert fatty acids into glucose instead of using precious amino acids. It's time to put away this childish argument.

>"addiction" to life giving substances is not bad at all

Attached: hqdefault.jpg (480x360, 23K)

>has no argument
>refuses to quit his water, oxygen, and sleep addictions
>continues to imply that sugar is fattening, when the totality of evidence proves it is not, and fat people consume more sugar, on average, because it reduces stress

pathetic brainlet

"Addiction" carries too much of pejorative connotation to be a useful qualifier (it is a scientifically sounding swear word, a damnation shriek let out by neo-puritians who modernized the Bible thumping into DSM-IV thumping).

Otherwise you would have to label other dopamine boosters, such as falling in love, having a newborn baby, making scientific discoveries, creating or enjoying beautiful visual art, writing or listening beatiful music, reading great poetry, taking walks to watch sunsets on a sea shore or a lake, writing elegant, clever computer programs... or just having sex, as being "addictive" hence "bad for you." In fact these dependencies on joys of life in all of their varieties are all good for you.

The useful judgment about substances or actions is by the fruits they bring forth not via simple minded neo-puritan slogans "if it feels good, it is bad" or some such.