That is true, the sugar (and corn,) industry at a minimum has run influence operations demonizing fat for the harms of sugar.
The body actually does not feel full until it gets enough fat, the stomach tastes the contents, if you have no fat you take in way more calories. Also, sugar is half fructose and half glucose. Glucose is good, used as is, that is what they put in hospital IV drips. Fructose gets metabolized in your liver into fat, then used, but the body does not recognize it as a food. It does not contribute to a full feeling.
Every time these dumb motherfuckers get thirsty they swill down pop, with the equivalent of 16 teaspoons of sugar in a 16 ounce. It is a major, if not the largest, factor in obesity.
Fructose could not even be utilized in human ancestors in the monkey days, it was not until a cold wind blew over africa for centuries that our monkey ancestors got the ability to turn that fructose into fat, to use for the periods when we did not have fresh fruit on hand every day all day. According to a national geographic article titled Sugar, now not findable on enshitified search engines because fuck you, (and me, the consumer not a personal dig.)
Are you sure about that last bit with the monkeys? Most fruits contain fructose, it’d be weird if money body just discarded a perfectly good source of backup energy.
Also your liver can metabolise fructose straight into glucose too if needed. Obviously not as fast as eating glucose, but if you were a monke, it might be pretty useful. In today’s sedentary society it’s of course more harmful, but I don’t think fructose itself is inherently bad. We just live lifestyles and have diets where it has little to no place.
I am sure I read it in a national geographic article titled sugar over ten years ago. I have been made aware the liver processing into fat and body breaking it down is more complicated than that, that is interesting it can make it straight into glucose.
Before the cold snap, the monkeys were in tropics, fruit is constantly on the trees, tropical forests are completely different than temperate ones too, there is incredible diversity in trees down there, up here it’s the same few trees, they might not have 2 of the same trees on an acre. They flower differently, figs in the tropics for instance, they bear fruit year round, constant. So there was no need to use the fructose, I would be interested to learn more about it though, as other animals can use it and when and how they were able to as we know. There was no shortage of fruit in those tropical forests, limits on populations were likely more from disease and predation than food shortages.
But national geographic is a reliable source, or was, back then. Haven’t seen them in a while, not really since news corporation bought them, I know they sold them off later but that’s when I quit them.
That is true, the sugar (and corn,) industry at a minimum has run influence operations demonizing fat for the harms of sugar.
The body actually does not feel full until it gets enough fat, the stomach tastes the contents, if you have no fat you take in way more calories. Also, sugar is half fructose and half glucose. Glucose is good, used as is, that is what they put in hospital IV drips. Fructose gets metabolized in your liver into fat, then used, but the body does not recognize it as a food. It does not contribute to a full feeling.
Every time these dumb motherfuckers get thirsty they swill down pop, with the equivalent of 16 teaspoons of sugar in a 16 ounce. It is a major, if not the largest, factor in obesity.
Fructose could not even be utilized in human ancestors in the monkey days, it was not until a cold wind blew over africa for centuries that our monkey ancestors got the ability to turn that fructose into fat, to use for the periods when we did not have fresh fruit on hand every day all day. According to a national geographic article titled Sugar, now not findable on enshitified search engines because fuck you, (and me, the consumer not a personal dig.)
Are you sure about that last bit with the monkeys? Most fruits contain fructose, it’d be weird if money body just discarded a perfectly good source of backup energy.
Also your liver can metabolise fructose straight into glucose too if needed. Obviously not as fast as eating glucose, but if you were a monke, it might be pretty useful. In today’s sedentary society it’s of course more harmful, but I don’t think fructose itself is inherently bad. We just live lifestyles and have diets where it has little to no place.
I am sure I read it in a national geographic article titled sugar over ten years ago. I have been made aware the liver processing into fat and body breaking it down is more complicated than that, that is interesting it can make it straight into glucose.
Before the cold snap, the monkeys were in tropics, fruit is constantly on the trees, tropical forests are completely different than temperate ones too, there is incredible diversity in trees down there, up here it’s the same few trees, they might not have 2 of the same trees on an acre. They flower differently, figs in the tropics for instance, they bear fruit year round, constant. So there was no need to use the fructose, I would be interested to learn more about it though, as other animals can use it and when and how they were able to as we know. There was no shortage of fruit in those tropical forests, limits on populations were likely more from disease and predation than food shortages.
But national geographic is a reliable source, or was, back then. Haven’t seen them in a while, not really since news corporation bought them, I know they sold them off later but that’s when I quit them.