Sugar: The Bitter Truth

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

Summary

I will summarize…

Summary plizz

But the brain consumes sugar. The brain only survives on sugar as it’s main fuel.

The guy who sells fish will tell you that red meat is bad.

The guy who sells bottled water will tell you that soda is bad

The guy who sells avocadoes and lettuce will tell you that meat and poultry are bad.

Today the guy selling bhangi will tell you that tobacco is bad. Switch to my product bhangi.

Are you implying that the scientific studies are inaccurate? And, yes, I know that the brain requires sugar to operate properly… But this sugar can be derived from carbs… I am not an expert but that is what I think… That there is no need to take processed glucose/ sugar in order for the brain to operate properly except in emergencies…

Of course yes. That is America. In the U.S you have one phD telling you that the vaccine is safe while the other tells you not to get the jab.

Every mbirrionea in the U.S owns several well funded think tanks and lobby groups to protect his or her products and to attack his enemies’ products.

Every single one of those PhDs is full of shait. The tobacco industry were the first to hire professors to shield big tobacco.

What alternative is he offering? That’s the person who is paying him.

You will notice that at the beginning he says that he can’t live without taking coffee after every 2 hours. Coffee has caffeine just like coca cola. So why is he attacking coke but not coffee?

( FYI Coca cola sells a lot of milk, tea, coffee and bottled water. Coca cola sells more tea and coffee that Kenya and Ethiopia combined. Coca cola also sells a lot of meat and skins from their dairy farms. So whichever way you turn Coca cola is waiting. Their cocaine plantations in South America provide Americans with the finest product.)

My friend, whereas I agree with you 50%, I disagree with you on Coke=Coffee… How now? Coke and Coffee are two completely different products… May be they only share the caffeine component and that’s all! And the content per gram differ significantly… a normal cup of coffee will certainly have more caffeine content… but that is where the similarities end! He is mainly focusing on refined sugar and it’s direct relationship with cancer, obesity, heart diseases, kidney failure and high blood pressure… isn’t this logical? He is focusing on the Coca Cola products with added sugar in them only…

Inaitwa Georgia Coffee a very popular brand in Asia especially in Japan and Singapore. In Japan this is the top selling coffee beverage and it was launched by Coca Cola in 1975. It is named named after the state of Georgia the home of Coca Cola :

[ATTACH=full]399916[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=full]399917[/ATTACH]

This is costa coffee one of the top coffee brands in the U.K and yes owned by Coca Cola :

[ATTACH=full]399919[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=full]399920[/ATTACH]

Have you seen this milk brand in Nairobi? This is Coca Cola milk :

[ATTACH=full]399918[/ATTACH]

If you go to countries like Turkey and Kazakhstan Coke owns the top tea brands in those countries. As well as numerous other brands.

[ATTACH=full]399922[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=full]399923[/ATTACH]

Let’s say that you sell coffee or tea and coca cola starts making in roads into your turf.

You attack their sodas mercilessly until they fuck off. You don’t attack their coffee because even you you will suffer, you attack their sodas. You hammer them non stop day and night.

For instance Coca cola can easily take over milk if they wanted. The other milk mbirrioneas have their professors on standby to attack coca cola soda. You get?

But those are completely different products… He is attacking sodas, juices, yogurt and other products with sugar added to them… It is still not clear to me how this research is biased…

Who is funding his research?

Who is it? And aren’t the findings factual?

In the US and much of the world ,you can fund research whose ‘findings’ will align with your interests .Hio ndio @patco buttcoh anasema and I agree with him

:smiley: Si you are the one who is supposed to tell us since you are the one who posted the video. You are the one who should know before hand about the person you are posting about.

(Another easy way of finding out which side this professor works for is by looking at the year the video was produced. Under which U.S president. This video was produced in 2009 under Obama. Is Obama anti-sugar or anti-fat? Is this scientist a dem or republican. In the 2008 election which side did Coca Cola support? All these factors matter. This scientist is based in a California campus which means he is left leaning and anti-Nixon as seen in that video. )

And yes his findings have been contested. For instance this article below questions his use of rats for research versus research conducted on humans :

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5174149/

[COLOR=rgb(184, 49, 47)]It is worth noting that the bulk of the biochemical and metabolic evidence presented against fructose is based on rodent models [4, 30, 34] and human mechanistic studies [4, 32, 35]. As reviewed recently by Van Buul et al. [36], these human mechanistic studies are insufficient to demonstrate a causal role of fructose in metabolic diseases as these often involve feeding large amounts of pure fructose without concomitant glucose intake…

[COLOR=rgb(184, 49, 47)]For example, there are differences between rodents and humans on how fructose is metabolically handled in the liver. Typically, in the human liver, 50% of a fructose load is converted into glucose, 25% into lactate and approximately 15% into glycogen [39]. Stable isotope tracer studies have found that de novo lipogenesis pathway for fructose in humans is very minor (<1%) at moderate intake and up to 5% in overfed state, but in mice livers de novo lipogenesis pathway converts typically ~30% of fructose to triglycerides and reaches beyond >50% in overfed states [36, 40].

I listened to the scientific evidence and not any side show… This cuts across many food/ drinks industries… If you have evidence that a sponsor tweaked the findings to favor their product, please table the evidence… I am not defending the Presenter so if you have an alternative thesis kindly table it…

But you don’t know who funds him.

He who pays the piper calls the tune.

Sorry to say but Dr. Lustig just called Trump a demagogue a few minutes ago and compared him to Hitler. He also added that conservative leaders have no pre-frontal cortex or brains :

https://justthenews.com/media/4420

So who funds his research? Especially this one since it is not explicitly defined.

You tell me. I posted for you an article that criticizes his methodology of using rats.