There is a rather sensible article available on the Los Angeles Times
web page:
http://www.latimes.com/health/booste...0,707203.story

or http://tinyurl.com/3tg5euh

The last sentence is rather good advice. "We all have sweet tooths. How
do we satisfy it? You can time with meals and be savvy about what you’re
picking."
--


James Silverton, Potomac

I'm "not"

On 2011-04-20, James Silverton > wrote:
> There is a rather sensible article available on the Los Angeles Times

The whole thing is pointless drivel unworthy of exploration beyond the
reference to like pap on that other useless rag on the Right Coast.
The whole planet is circling the drain and these oxygen wasters ponder
sugar. No wonder newspapers are dying ...and rightfully so.

nb

On Apr 20, 7:10*am, notbob > wrote:
> On 2011-04-20, James Silverton > wrote:
>
> > There is a rather sensible article available on the Los Angeles Times
>
> The whole thing is pointless drivel unworthy of exploration beyond the
> reference to like pap on that other useless rag on the Right Coast.
> The whole planet is circling the drain and these oxygen wasters ponder
> sugar. *No wonder newspapers are dying ...and rightfully so.
>

this is old news. Back in the 70s, I read "Sugar Blues" by William
Dufty, which cited a "Dr. William Coda Martin," who wrote in 1957.

WHY SUGAR IS TOXIC TO THE BODY

In 1957, Dr William Coda Martin tried to answer the question: When is
a food a food and when is it a poison? His working definition of
"poison" was: "Medically: Any substance applied to the body, ingested
or developed within the body, which causes or may cause disease.
Physically: Any substance which inhibits the activity of a catalyst
which is a minor substance, chemical or enzyme that activates a
reaction."1 The dictionary gives an even broader definition for
"poison": "to exert a harmful influence on, or to pervert".

Dr Martin classified refined sugar as a poison because it has been
depleted of its life forces, vitamins and minerals. "What is left
consists of pure, refined carbohydrates. The body cannot utilize this
refined starch and carbohydrate unless the depleted proteins, vitamins
and minerals are present. Nature supplies these elements in each plant
in quantities sufficient to metabolize the carbohydrate in that
particular plant. There is no excess for other added carbohydrates.
Incomplete carbohydrate metabolism results in the formation of 'toxic
metabolite' such as pyruvic acid and abnormal sugars containing five
carbon atoms. Pyruvic acid accumulates in the brain and nervous system
and the abnormal sugars in the red blood cells. These toxic
metabolites interfere with the respiration of the cells. They cannot
get sufficient oxygen to survive and function normally. In time, some
of the cells die. This interferes with the function of a part of the
body and is the beginning of degenerative disease."2

1,2. Martin, William Coda, "When is a Food a Food-and When a Poison?",
Michigan Organic News, March 1957, p. 3.

spamtrap1888 wrote:
>
> Dr Martin classified refined sugar as a poison because it has been
> depleted of its life forces, vitamins and minerals. "What is left

Sugar has been depleted of its "life forces"?
And you know this how? It doesn't have an aura?

James Silverton wrote:
>
> There is a rather sensible article available on the Los Angeles Times
> web page:

In recent decades Americans went from eating an average of a few pounds
of sugar per year to a few pounds of sugar per week. Some even eat
sugar on the level of a few pounds per day at the most extreme
consumption. Sugared sodas at larger than 8 ounces and drunk many times
per day not most weeks. Entire racks of candy and sugary baked goods in
stores. Low fat food that has sugar in the place of fat. The result
has been an epidemic of obesity and diabetes.

Our current level of intake is making us sick. That's what toxic means
- Makes us sick.

Should we cut our sugar consumption back to a tenth what it is now new
cases of diabetes would start dropping rapidly. It would stop being
toxic.

Translation - Sugar is toxic when consumed by the ton. Sugar is not
toxic when consumed at a tenth the current rate. This is not difficult
to figure out.

There's a further problem - Over use of sugar has already made plenty of
folks sick. To them it's more toxic than to others. Diabetics,
hypoglycemics, insulin resistants need to avoid sugar more than the
general population. To them it starts being toxic at much lower
exposure levels, often as a result of damage from prior over use.

How much down side is there to treating sugar with suspicion? Lower
variety in your foods. How much danger is there to eating sugar at a
tenth the rate currently used in the US? Very little to anyone without
existing problems. Should specific people avoid sugar much more
carefully than the general population? Definitely.

James Silverton wrote:
>
> There is a rather sensible article available on the Los Angeles Times
> web page:

Water is toxic starting at over 10 liters per day. Water is not toxic
below that level. Sugar works the same way. In the US the total
consumption of sugar has gotten high enough to make a lot of people sick.

On Apr 20, 11:35*am, Doug Freyburger > wrote:
> James Silverton wrote:
>
> > There is a rather sensible article available on the Los Angeles Times
> > web page:
>
> Water is toxic starting at over 10 liters per day. *Water is not toxic
> below that level. *Sugar works the same way. *In the US the total
> consumption of sugar has gotten high enough to make a lot of people sick.


Going crazy with sugar is no better for you than going crazy with
alcohol or nitrates.

On Apr 20, 9:16*am, Mark Thorson > wrote:
> spamtrap1888 wrote:
>
> > Dr Martin classified refined sugar as a poison because it has been
> > depleted of its life forces, vitamins and minerals. "What is left
>
> Sugar has been depleted of its "life forces"?
> And you know this how? *It doesn't have an aura?

Hey, if you can't trust the words of an obscure "Dr." writing in an
obscure periodical, what can you trust?

Now, I'm off to my Tai chi class.

On Apr 20, 10:35*am, Doug Freyburger > wrote:
> James Silverton wrote:
>
> > There is a rather sensible article available on the Los Angeles Times
> > web page:
>
> Water is toxic starting at over 10 liters per day. *Water is not toxic
> below that level. *Sugar works the same way. *In the US the total
> consumption of sugar has gotten high enough to make a lot of people sick.

==
Most people do not have a problem with sugar other than diabetics. The
human body uses sugar much like your car uses gasoline and can
manufacture its own from starches and does so quite efficiently and
automatically with no prompting from the user...you. People have been
railing against sugar consumption for decades for all the good that it
does.
==

In article
>,
Roy > wrote:

> On Apr 20, 10:35*am, Doug Freyburger > wrote:
> > James Silverton wrote:
> >
> > > There is a rather sensible article available on the Los Angeles Times
> > > web page:
> >
> > Water is toxic starting at over 10 liters per day. *Water is not toxic
> > below that level. *Sugar works the same way. *In the US the total
> > consumption of sugar has gotten high enough to make a lot of people sick.
>
> ==
> Most people do not have a problem with sugar other than diabetics. The
> human body uses sugar much like your car uses gasoline and can
> manufacture its own from starches and does so quite efficiently and
> automatically with no prompting from the user...you. People have been
> railing against sugar consumption for decades for all the good that it
> does.

The difference, is that some people are now warning about the dangers of
fructose, not just any sugar. It's true that the body uses "sugar" as a
basic source of energy for cells, but it uses glucose, not fructose.
Fructose is not digestible by the GI system, but only by the liver.

That's the claim.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On Apr 20, 11:01*am, Dan Abel > wrote:
> In article
> >,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Roy > wrote:
> > On Apr 20, 10:35*am, Doug Freyburger > wrote:
> > > James Silverton wrote:
>
> > > > There is a rather sensible article available on the Los Angeles Times
> > > > web page:
>
> > > Water is toxic starting at over 10 liters per day. *Water is not toxic
> > > below that level. *Sugar works the same way. *In the US the total
> > > consumption of sugar has gotten high enough to make a lot of people sick.
>
> > ==
> > Most people do not have a problem with sugar other than diabetics. The
> > human body uses sugar much like your car uses gasoline and can
> > manufacture its own from starches and does so quite efficiently and
> > automatically with no prompting from the user...you. People have been
> > railing against sugar consumption for decades for all the good that it
> > does.
>
> The difference, is that some people are now warning about the dangers of
> fructose, not just any sugar. *It's true that the body uses "sugar" as a
> basic source of energy for cells, but it uses glucose, not fructose. *
> Fructose is not digestible by the GI system, but only by the liver.
>
> That's the claim.
>
> --
> Dan Abel
> Petaluma, California USA
>

==
Alarmists beating their own drum mostly.
==

On 20/04/2011 12:45 PM, Roy wrote:

>> Water is toxic starting at over 10 liters per day. Water is not toxic
>> below that level. Sugar works the same way. In the US the total
>> consumption of sugar has gotten high enough to make a lot of people sick.
>
> ==
> Most people do not have a problem with sugar other than diabetics. The
> human body uses sugar much like your car uses gasoline and can
> manufacture its own from starches and does so quite efficiently and
> automatically with no prompting from the user...you. People have been
> railing against sugar consumption for decades for all the good that it
> does.
>

That may be a chicken and egg sort of question. Sugar is indeed an
issue for diabetics. From what I have gathered over the years, it is use
of overuse of sugar that often leads to diabetes.

On 4/20/2011 1:17 PM, Roy wrote:
> On Apr 20, 11:01 am, Dan > wrote:
>> In article
>> >,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > wrote:
>>> On Apr 20, 10:35 am, Doug > wrote:
>>>> James Silverton wrote:
>>
>>>>> There is a rather sensible article available on the Los Angeles Times
>>>>> web page:
>>
>>>> Water is toxic starting at over 10 liters per day. Water is not toxic
>>>> below that level. Sugar works the same way. In the US the total
>>>> consumption of sugar has gotten high enough to make a lot of people sick.
>>
>>> ==
>>> Most people do not have a problem with sugar other than diabetics. The
>>> human body uses sugar much like your car uses gasoline and can
>>> manufacture its own from starches and does so quite efficiently and
>>> automatically with no prompting from the user...you. People have been
>>> railing against sugar consumption for decades for all the good that it
>>> does.
>>
>> The difference, is that some people are now warning about the dangers of
>> fructose, not just any sugar. It's true that the body uses "sugar" as a
>> basic source of energy for cells, but it uses glucose, not fructose.
>> Fructose is not digestible by the GI system, but only by the liver.
>>
>> That's the claim.
>>
>> --
>> Dan Abel
>> Petaluma, California USA
>>
>
> ==
> Alarmists beating their own drum mostly.
> ==

I wish people would specify what they mean. I'm quite willing to accept
that too much "sugar" is a bad idea in general but table sugar is
*sucrose*, which is gluco-furanose. In other words, *equal* amounts of
glucose and fructose linked by an easily broken bond. What sort of
"sugar" does the body make from starches? Is it glucose or what? Does
eating excessive amounts of glucose cause problems?

--


James Silverton, Potomac

I'm "not"

On Apr 20, 11:33*am, James Silverton >
wrote:
> On 4/20/2011 1:17 PM, Roy wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 20, 11:01 am, Dan > *wrote:
> >> In article
> >> >,
>
> >> * > *wrote:
> >>> On Apr 20, 10:35 am, Doug > *wrote:
> >>>> James Silverton wrote:
>
> >>>>> There is a rather sensible article available on the Los Angeles Times
> >>>>> web page:
>
> >>>> Water is toxic starting at over 10 liters per day. *Water is not toxic
> >>>> below that level. *Sugar works the same way. *In the US the total
> >>>> consumption of sugar has gotten high enough to make a lot of people sick.
>
> >>> ==
> >>> Most people do not have a problem with sugar other than diabetics. The
> >>> human body uses sugar much like your car uses gasoline and can
> >>> manufacture its own from starches and does so quite efficiently and
> >>> automatically with no prompting from the user...you. People have been
> >>> railing against sugar consumption for decades for all the good that it
> >>> does.
>
> >> The difference, is that some people are now warning about the dangers of
> >> fructose, not just any sugar. *It's true that the body uses "sugar" as a
> >> basic source of energy for cells, but it uses glucose, not fructose.
> >> Fructose is not digestible by the GI system, but only by the liver.
>
> >> That's the claim.
>
> >> --
> >> Dan Abel
> >> Petaluma, California USA
> >>
>
> > ==
> > Alarmists beating their own drum mostly.
> > ==
>
> I wish people would specify what they mean. I'm quite willing to accept
> that too much "sugar" is a bad idea in general but table sugar is
> *sucrose*, which is gluco-furanose. In other words, *equal* amounts of
> glucose and fructose linked by an easily broken bond. What sort of
> "sugar" does the body make from starches? Is it glucose or what? Does
> eating excessive amounts of glucose cause problems?
>
> --
>
> James Silverton, Potomac
>
> I'm "not"
>

==
Google is your friend or enemy when it comes to research on this
subject of "sugar". There is so much CRAP out there. Perhaps your
friendly local library would be the best bet or your own physician.
Hard to separate the chaff from the wheat.
==

On Apr 20, 10:40*am, spamtrap1888 > wrote:
> On Apr 20, 7:10*am, notbob > wrote:
>
> > On 2011-04-20, James Silverton > wrote:
>
> > > There is a rather sensible article available on the Los Angeles Times
>
> > The whole thing is pointless drivel unworthy of exploration beyond the
> > reference to like pap on that other useless rag on the Right Coast.
> > The whole planet is circling the drain and these oxygen wasters ponder
> > sugar. *No wonder newspapers are dying ...and rightfully so.
>
> this is old news. Back in the 70s, I read "Sugar Blues" by William
> Dufty, which cited a "Dr. William Coda Martin," who wrote in 1957.
>
> WHY SUGAR IS TOXIC TO THE BODY
>
> In 1957, Dr William Coda Martin tried to answer the question: When is
> a food a food and when is it a poison? His working definition of
> "poison" was: "Medically: Any substance applied to the body, ingested
> or developed within the body, which causes or may cause disease.
> Physically: Any substance which inhibits the activity of a catalyst
> which is a minor substance, chemical or enzyme that activates a
> reaction."1 The dictionary gives an even broader definition for
> "poison": "to exert a harmful influence on, or to pervert".
>
> Dr Martin classified refined sugar as a poison because it has been
> depleted of its life forces, vitamins and minerals. "What is left
> consists of pure, refined carbohydrates. The body cannot utilize this
> refined starch and carbohydrate unless the depleted proteins, vitamins
> and minerals are present. Nature supplies these elements in each plant
> in quantities sufficient to metabolize the carbohydrate in that
> particular plant. There is no excess for other added carbohydrates.
> Incomplete carbohydrate metabolism results in the formation of 'toxic
> metabolite' such as pyruvic acid and abnormal sugars containing five
> carbon atoms. Pyruvic acid accumulates in the brain and nervous system
> and the abnormal sugars in the red blood cells. These toxic
> metabolites interfere with the respiration of the cells. They cannot
> get sufficient oxygen to survive and function normally. In time, some
> of the cells die. This interferes with the function of a part of the
> body and is the beginning of degenerative disease."2
>
> 1,2. Martin, William Coda, "When is a Food a Food-and When a Poison?",
> Michigan Organic News, March 1957, p. 3.

Those are clear statements. Is " Nature supplies these elements in
each plant in quantities sufficient to metabolize the carbohydrate in
that particular plant" supported by anything other than opinion? The
opinion by the person who opines that foods have a "life force"? "Elan
vital" dates from when "acute indigestion" was a common name for a
heart attack

Some "organic" foods (manure and kerosene are organic) are sweetened
not with sugar, but with "dehydrated cane juice." The sugar I get is
mostly in food other people cook. At home, I use less than a a pound a
year, much of it in other people's coffee.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.

On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 07:40:17 -0700 (PDT), spamtrap1888 wrote:

> On Apr 20, 7:10*am, notbob > wrote:
>> On 2011-04-20, James Silverton > wrote:
>>
>>> There is a rather sensible article available on the Los Angeles Times
>>
>> The whole thing is pointless drivel unworthy of exploration beyond the
>> reference to like pap on that other useless rag on the Right Coast.
>> The whole planet is circling the drain and these oxygen wasters ponder
>> sugar. *No wonder newspapers are dying ...and rightfully so.
>>
>
> this is old news. Back in the 70s, I read "Sugar Blues" by William
> Dufty, which cited a "Dr. William Coda Martin," who wrote in 1957.
>
> WHY SUGAR IS TOXIC TO THE BODY
>
> In 1957, Dr William Coda Martin tried to answer the question: When is
> a food a food and when is it a poison? His working definition of
> "poison" was: "Medically: Any substance applied to the body, ingested
> or developed within the body, which causes or may cause disease.
> Physically: Any substance which inhibits the activity of a catalyst
> which is a minor substance, chemical or enzyme that activates a
> reaction."1 The dictionary gives an even broader definition for
> "poison": "to exert a harmful influence on, or to pervert".
>
> Dr Martin classified refined sugar as a poison because it has been
> depleted of its life forces, vitamins and minerals. "What is left
> consists of pure, refined carbohydrates. The body cannot utilize this
> refined starch and carbohydrate unless the depleted proteins, vitamins
> and minerals are present. Nature supplies these elements in each plant
> in quantities sufficient to metabolize the carbohydrate in that
> particular plant. There is no excess for other added carbohydrates.
> Incomplete carbohydrate metabolism results in the formation of 'toxic
> metabolite' such as pyruvic acid and abnormal sugars containing five
> carbon atoms. Pyruvic acid accumulates in the brain and nervous system
> and the abnormal sugars in the red blood cells. These toxic
> metabolites interfere with the respiration of the cells. They cannot
> get sufficient oxygen to survive and function normally. In time, some
> of the cells die. This interferes with the function of a part of the
> body and is the beginning of degenerative disease."2

Mandrake, do you realize that in addition to fluoridating water, why, there
are studies underway to fluoridate salt, flour, fruit juices, soup, sugar,
milk... ice cream. Ice cream, Mandrake, children's ice cream.

your pal,
blake

James Silverton wrote:
>
> I wish people would specify what they mean. I'm quite willing to accept
> that too much "sugar" is a bad idea in general ...

Americans now eat many times as much sugar as in decades past. The rate
of diabetes is much higher. Too much sugar in general is bad. Worse
for people who already have problems.

> but table sugar is
> *sucrose*, which is gluco-furanose. In other words, *equal* amounts of
> glucose and fructose linked by an easily broken bond.

There are studies done with rats fed too much of various sorts of sugar.
They get fat. Calorie for calorie the ones fed HFCS get fatter so HFCS
is worse than other types of sugar. Realistically the difference among
types of sugar is small compared to the over use of sugar in general.

> What sort of
> "sugar" does the body make from starches? Is it glucose or what?

Starches are digested into glucose. It's a lot of glucose all bonded
together.

Fructose is an alternate type of sugar that is converted to glucose in
the liver. Whatever type of sugar that's eaten it gets converted to
glucose first if it didn't start out as glucose and then it's used for
fuel. I don't know how the ribose in DNA/RNA is made, probably from
glucose.

The difference is digested into glucose versus digested into simple
sugars and then converted from another type of sugar into glucose.

> Does eating excessive amounts of glucose cause problems?

Yes. Generally too much sugar causes problems. How much is too much
depends on the type of sugar. Glucose is the probably the least harmful
calorie for calorie but Americans eat sugar by the pound. The
differences among types matters less than the total amount.

On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 10:50:36 -0700 (PDT), Roy >
wrote:

>==
>Google is your friend or enemy when it comes to research on this
>subject of "sugar". There is so much CRAP out there. Perhaps your
>friendly local library would be the best bet or your own physician.
>Hard to separate the chaff from the wheat.
>==

I've read that sugar does nothing positive for the human body other
than giving it exaggerated energy temporarily.

I've also read that it causes every organ in the human body to
function in ways other then its optimum performance. Either faster,
slower or not at all, and that over long periods, chronic use of sugar
will cause negative effects on the body with every person.

It seems that a lot of Doctors agree with this. It would be
interesting if each of you asked your personal Physician if the above
statement is true and relayed the answer here.

My Doctor is an internal medicine specialist and he says that the
statement is true.

The information on this page is pretty informative:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sucrose

On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 13:23:07 -0800, Mark Thorson >
wrote:

>Landon wrote:
>>
>> I've also read that it causes every organ in the human body to
>> function in ways other then its optimum performance. Either faster,
>> slower or not at all, and that over long periods, chronic use of sugar
>> will cause negative effects on the body with every person.
>
>Worse than that. It misaligns your DNA.
>Fortunately, there is a cure.
>
>http://www.dna-activation-power.com/index

Now THAT'S funny! I like the way that "Lack of Money" is one of the
symptoms.

I guess I must have it, because I'm always lacking Mo Money!

"blake murphy" > wrote in message

>
> Mandrake, do you realize that in addition to fluoridating water, why,
> there are studies underway to fluoridate salt, flour, fruit juices,
> soup, sugar, milk... ice cream. Ice cream, Mandrake, children's ice
> cream.
>
> your pal,
> blake

I see we're back in rare form, Gen. Ripper.

Felice

Landon wrote:
>
> I've also read that it causes every organ in the human body to
> function in ways other then its optimum performance. Either faster,
> slower or not at all, and that over long periods, chronic use of sugar
> will cause negative effects on the body with every person.

Worse than that. It misaligns your DNA.
Fortunately, there is a cure.

http://www.dna-activation-power.com/index

On Apr 20, 2:13*pm, Landon > wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 10:50:36 -0700 (PDT), Roy >
> wrote:
>
> >==
> >Google is your friend or enemy when it comes to research on this
> >subject of "sugar". There is so much CRAP out there. Perhaps your
> >friendly local library would be the best bet or your own physician.
> >Hard to separate the chaff from the wheat.
> >==
>
> I've read that sugar does nothing positive for the human body other
> than giving it exaggerated energy temporarily.
>
> I've also read that it causes every organ in the human body to
> function in ways other then its optimum performance. Either faster,
> slower or not at all, and that over long periods, chronic use of sugar
> will cause negative effects on the body with every person.
>
> It seems that a lot of Doctors agree with this. It would be
> interesting if each of you asked your personal Physician if the above
> statement is true and relayed the answer here.
>
> My Doctor is an internal medicine specialist and he says that the
> statement is true.
>
> The information on this page is pretty informative:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sucrose

==
Pretty good info for sure.
==

"James Silverton" > wrote in message
...
> There is a rather sensible article available on the Los Angeles Times web
> page:
> http://www.latimes.com/health/booste...0,707203.story
>
> or http://tinyurl.com/3tg5euh
>
> The last sentence is rather good advice. "We all have sweet tooths. How do
> we satisfy it? You can time with meals and be savvy about what you’re
> picking."

This was brought up on another newsgroup and it was said that the sugar
under attack was fructose.

I doubt anyone would say that all sugar is toxic. If it were, we could only
eat meat and possibly some dairy. There is natural sugar (in varying
amounts) in all other foods.

On Apr 20, 7:35*pm, Omelet > wrote:
> In article >,
> *Mark Thorson > wrote:
>
> > Landon wrote:
>
> > > I've also read that it causes every organ in the human body to
> > > function in ways other then its optimum performance. Either faster,
> > > slower or not at all, and that over long periods, chronic use of sugar
> > > will cause negative effects on the body with every person.
>
> > Worse than that. *It misaligns your DNA.
> > Fortunately, there is a cure.
>
> >http://www.dna-activation-power.com/index
>
> Chakra Meditation???
>
> Ok, I know that that is good for peace of mind (which can in turn reduce
> stress) but how can it counter the affects of ingested toxins?


It's obviously been a long time since Om has had her chakras realigned
-- you sweat the toxins right out if you're doing it right

Omelet wrote:
>
> In article >,
> Mark Thorson > wrote:
>
> > Landon wrote:
> > >
> > > I've also read that it causes every organ in the human body to
> > > function in ways other then its optimum performance. Either faster,
> > > slower or not at all, and that over long periods, chronic use of sugar
> > > will cause negative effects on the body with every person.
> >
> > Worse than that. It misaligns your DNA.
> > Fortunately, there is a cure.
> >
> > http://www.dna-activation-power.com/index
>
> Chakra Meditation???
>
> Ok, I know that that is good for peace of mind (which can in turn reduce
> stress) but how can it counter the affects of ingested toxins?

By enabling expression of silent DNA sequences,
allowing you to reach your full human potential
and giving you god-like abilities. Duh.

"Mark Thorson" > wrote in message
...
> Julie Bove wrote:
>>
>> I doubt anyone would say that all sugar is toxic. If it were, we could
>> only
>> eat meat and possibly some dairy. There is natural sugar (in varying
>> amounts) in all other foods.
>
> There's natural sugar in meat and dairy too.
> Not much in meat, but if you were to split
> the lactose into simple sugars, milk would
> taste sweet.

I know it's in milk and eggs. Didn't know it was in meat, but it stands to
reason.

On 21/04/2011 1:00 AM, Omelet wrote:
> In >, >
> wrote:
>
>>> I was surprised that, when discussing addictive and harmful drugs in one
>>> of his books, Terrence Mckenna named sugar (and caffeine) two of the
>>> most abused ones in history. ;-)
>>
>> have a read of isbn 0-9757436-7-8
>
> Sorry, no hits on Amazon.com for a book of that "title".
> An actual title would be helpful...
>
> I've no idea how to search for a book by isbn number! I need a title
> and/or author.



It's not rocket science. I googled " book 0-9757436-7-8" and came up
with hits for a book about Type 2 diabetes with the ISBN 0-9757436-7-8

In article >, says...
>
> "Mark Thorson" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Julie Bove wrote:
> >>
> >> I doubt anyone would say that all sugar is toxic. If it were, we could
> >> only
> >> eat meat and possibly some dairy. There is natural sugar (in varying
> >> amounts) in all other foods.
> >
> > There's natural sugar in meat and dairy too.
> > Not much in meat, but if you were to split
> > the lactose into simple sugars, milk would
> > taste sweet.
>
> I know it's in milk and eggs. Didn't know it was in meat, but it stands to
> reason.

In any case your body digests starches into sugars, so if sugar is toxic
your body poisons itself.

An experiment you might find interesting is to put a little bit of bread
in your mouth, wet it with saliva, and swish it around for a while. You
should notice it getting sweet. That's an enzyme in saliva starting the
process of breaking the starch down into sugars.

"James Silverton" > ha scritto nel messaggio
>
> By the way, I like honey, especially when the plant sources are named, >
> like "orange blossom honey".

A lot of recipes here will say acacia honey, or chestnut honey or orange
honey. I can't keep that many around, but I did at least learn some of the
differences so I could substitute when necessary.

Every year I plant plants that my neighbor's bees will like. I reckon they
have a hard life and if I can make it easier, why not?

James Silverton wrote:
>
> By the way, I like honey, especially when the plant sources are named,
> like "orange blossom honey". I still remember my first visit to France
> where I saw a store in Paris that sold nothing but dozens of different
> types of honey. They like honey made from pine tree flowers in Germany
> but that you can keep!

I don't think any pine trees produce nectar.
They are wind pollinated.

Omelet wrote:
>
> Chakra Meditation???
>
> Ok, I know that that is good for peace of mind (which can in turn reduce
> stress) but how can it counter the affects of ingested toxins?

Meditation is generally beneficial. When you don't have a specific cure
may as well go with an assortment of stuff that's generally beneficial.
It won't hurt.

Though in this case I bet switching to lower sugar use will help the
specific issue a lot more.

On 4/21/2011 2:29 PM, Mark Thorson wrote:
> James Silverton wrote:
>>
>> By the way, I like honey, especially when the plant sources are named,
>> like "orange blossom honey". I still remember my first visit to France
>> where I saw a store in Paris that sold nothing but dozens of different
>> types of honey. They like honey made from pine tree flowers in Germany
>> but that you can keep!
>
> I don't think any pine trees produce nectar.
> They are wind pollinated.
Well, that's what the jar said! :-)

--


James Silverton, Potomac

I'm "not"

On 4/21/2011 3:53 PM, James Silverton wrote:
> On 4/21/2011 2:29 PM, Mark Thorson wrote:
>> James Silverton wrote:
>>>
>>> By the way, I like honey, especially when the plant sources are named,
>>> like "orange blossom honey". I still remember my first visit to France
>>> where I saw a store in Paris that sold nothing but dozens of different
>>> types of honey. They like honey made from pine tree flowers in Germany
>>> but that you can keep!
>>
>> I don't think any pine trees produce nectar.
>> They are wind pollinated.
> Well, that's what the jar said! :-)
>
Let me add another use of honey or English Golden Syrup). According to
John Emsley in "The Consumer's good Chemical Guide", they can be
hangover cures! "The feeling of nausea and headache that accompany a
night of drinking are the result of the body turning alcohol into toxic
acetaldehyde. The body breaks down acetaldehyde into less toxic
substances but this process leaves it malnourished. A breakfast of honey
or syrup glazed toast can supply the body with essential *fructose*,
potassium and sodium", according to the Royal Society of Chemistry.

--


James Silverton, Potomac

I'm "not"

On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 15:53:45 -0400, James Silverton
> wrote:

>On 4/21/2011 2:29 PM, Mark Thorson wrote:
>> James Silverton wrote:
>>>
>>> By the way, I like honey, especially when the plant sources are named,
>>> like "orange blossom honey". I still remember my first visit to France
>>> where I saw a store in Paris that sold nothing but dozens of different
>>> types of honey. They like honey made from pine tree flowers in Germany
>>> but that you can keep!
>>
>> I don't think any pine trees produce nectar.
>> They are wind pollinated.
>Well, that's what the jar said! :-)

Perhaps: (copied verbatim)

---
PINE TREE

Pine Tree honey (sometimes also known as forest honey, fir honey,
honeydew or tea tree honey) consists of the majority of the total
honey production in Greece. It is not particularly sweet, tastes a
little bitter, has a strong aroma, and is relatively rich in minerals
and proteins. It is rather resistant to crystallization.

From: http://www.benefits-of-honey.com/honey-varieties.html

---

On 4/21/2011 5:34 PM, Landon wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 15:53:45 -0400, James Silverton
> > wrote:
>
>> On 4/21/2011 2:29 PM, Mark Thorson wrote:
>>> James Silverton wrote:
>>>>
>>>> By the way, I like honey, especially when the plant sources are named,
>>>> like "orange blossom honey". I still remember my first visit to France
>>>> where I saw a store in Paris that sold nothing but dozens of different
>>>> types of honey. They like honey made from pine tree flowers in Germany
>>>> but that you can keep!
>>>
>>> I don't think any pine trees produce nectar.
>>> They are wind pollinated.
>> Well, that's what the jar said! :-)
>
> Perhaps: (copied verbatim)
>
> ---
> PINE TREE
>
> Pine Tree honey (sometimes also known as forest honey, fir honey,
> honeydew or tea tree honey) consists of the majority of the total
> honey production in Greece. It is not particularly sweet, tastes a
> little bitter, has a strong aroma, and is relatively rich in minerals
> and proteins. It is rather resistant to crystallization.
>
> From: http://www.benefits-of-honey.com/honey-varieties.html
>
> ---
>
>
Could be, could be!

--


James Silverton, Potomac

I'm "not"

On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 16:45:22 -0400, Felice wrote:

> "blake murphy" > wrote in message
>
>>
>> Mandrake, do you realize that in addition to fluoridating water, why,
>> there are studies underway to fluoridate salt, flour, fruit juices,
>> soup, sugar, milk... ice cream. Ice cream, Mandrake, children's ice
>> cream.
>>
>> your pal,
>> blake
>
> I see we're back in rare form, Gen. Ripper.
>
> Felice

just trying to keep peple on the alert.

your pal,
blake

On Apr 21, 3:10*pm, blake murphy > wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 16:45:22 -0400, Felice wrote:
> > "blake murphy" > wrote in message
>
>
> >> Mandrake, do you realize that in addition to fluoridating water, why,
> >> there are studies underway to fluoridate salt, flour, fruit juices,
> >> soup, sugar, milk... ice cream. Ice cream, Mandrake, children's ice
> >> cream.
>
> >> your pal,
> >> blake
>
> > I see we're back in rare form, Gen. Ripper.
>
> > Felice
>
> just trying to keep peple on the alert.
>
> your pal,
> blake

and you're doing a fine outstanding job!

Chemo the Clown wrote:

>On Apr 21, 3:10*pm, blake murphy > wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 16:45:22 -0400, Felice wrote:
>> > "blake murphy" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>> >> Mandrake, do you realize that in addition to fluoridating water, why,
>> >> there are studies underway to fluoridate salt, flour, fruit juices,
>> >> soup, sugar, milk... ice cream. Ice cream, Mandrake, children's ice
>> >> cream.
>>
>> >> your pal,
>> >> blake
>>
>> > I see we're back in rare form, Gen. Ripper.
>>
>> > Felice
>>
>> just trying to keep peple on the alert.
>>
>> your pal,
>> blake
>
>and you're doing a fine outstanding job!

How gracious of you not to say "a fine upstanding job"! <G>

In article >,
says...
>
> On 4/21/2011 5:34 PM, Landon wrote:
> > On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 15:53:45 -0400, James Silverton
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> On 4/21/2011 2:29 PM, Mark Thorson wrote:
> >>> James Silverton wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> By the way, I like honey, especially when the plant sources are named,
> >>>> like "orange blossom honey". I still remember my first visit to France
> >>>> where I saw a store in Paris that sold nothing but dozens of different
> >>>> types of honey. They like honey made from pine tree flowers in Germany
> >>>> but that you can keep!
> >>>
> >>> I don't think any pine trees produce nectar.
> >>> They are wind pollinated.
> >> Well, that's what the jar said! :-)
> >
> > Perhaps: (copied verbatim)
> >
> > ---
> > PINE TREE
> >
> > Pine Tree honey (sometimes also known as forest honey, fir honey,
> > honeydew or tea tree honey) consists of the majority of the total
> > honey production in Greece. It is not particularly sweet, tastes a
> > little bitter, has a strong aroma, and is relatively rich in minerals
> > and proteins. It is rather resistant to crystallization.
> >
> > From: http://www.benefits-of-honey.com/honey-varieties.html
> >
> > ---
> >
> >
> Could be, could be!

Googling for a while revealed that "pine honey" is produced from
honeydew--it's a two-bug process--aphids on pine trees eat pine sap,
crap honeydew, the bees ingest the honeydew, and turn it into honey.

Ants also use honeydew but the are more sophisticated--they actually
herd the aphids.

On 4/21/2011 9:48 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> In >,
> says...
>>
>> On 4/21/2011 5:34 PM, Landon wrote:
>>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 15:53:45 -0400, James Silverton
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/21/2011 2:29 PM, Mark Thorson wrote:
>>>>> James Silverton wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By the way, I like honey, especially when the plant sources are named,
>>>>>> like "orange blossom honey". I still remember my first visit to France
>>>>>> where I saw a store in Paris that sold nothing but dozens of different
>>>>>> types of honey. They like honey made from pine tree flowers in Germany
>>>>>> but that you can keep!
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think any pine trees produce nectar.
>>>>> They are wind pollinated.
>>>> Well, that's what the jar said! :-)
>>>
>>> Perhaps: (copied verbatim)
>>>
>>> ---
>>> PINE TREE
>>>
>>> Pine Tree honey (sometimes also known as forest honey, fir honey,
>>> honeydew or tea tree honey) consists of the majority of the total
>>> honey production in Greece. It is not particularly sweet, tastes a
>>> little bitter, has a strong aroma, and is relatively rich in minerals
>>> and proteins. It is rather resistant to crystallization.
>>>
>>> From: http://www.benefits-of-honey.com/honey-varieties.html
>>>
>>> ---
>>>
>>>
>> Could be, could be!
>
> Googling for a while revealed that "pine honey" is produced from
> honeydew--it's a two-bug process--aphids on pine trees eat pine sap,
> crap honeydew, the bees ingest the honeydew, and turn it into honey.
>
> Ants also use honeydew but the are more sophisticated--they actually
> herd the aphids.
>
>
Thanks for the research! It is indeed interesting but my dislike is
reinforced :-)

--


James Silverton, Potomac

I'm "not"