Can someone explain exactly HOW sugar is bad for you? As long as you don't eat over your daily calorie req...

Because they are pathetic meme heralds.

These are the same people that probably have poor self control. If it's not sugar, they'd blame fat, GMOs, or gluten.

As a child of the 70-80's, I blame it on the food pyramid they gave us to use. And I don't blame my parents, they were lied to as well.
It's just idea that we are going to have to grow out of. Time.

Your brain requires it, and fat.

You are an idiot.

Enjoy your diabetes.

No shit. My point still stands.

>calories won't make you fat unless they're from hot pockets or mcdonalds

this is literally the stupidest fucking post on the whole goddamned internet right now, congrats you buttfucker

It depends on the type and form of the sugar. If it's naturally-occurring simple carbohydrates, there isn't much concern if any about intake. The problem is basically exclusively with added sugars, especially those with high concentrations of fructose such as high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) and agave nectar. High fructose intake appears to have a causal relationship with insulin resistance, which is a factor in the development of diabetes mellitus. Moreover, excessive sugar intake produces free radicals and contributes to oxidative stress, which depletes antioxidant levels. Carbohydrates in general, but particularly added sugars, can also contribute to the development of enamel erosion and dental caries because oral bacteria feed on simple carbohydrates and produce acids which weaken enamel.

The reason why naturally-occurring sugar is not usually much of an issue is because fructose levels are generally low in comparison and multiple studies have shown that even extremely high fructose (upwards of 200 grams per day) intakes from fruit have no effect to beneficial effect on insulin resistance and other health metrics. Whole food sources of sugars, such as fruits, moreover contain varyingly high antioxidant levels which more than counteract any free radicals or oxidative stress which may be produced by the sugars while also increasing antioxidant levels. The sugars found in whole food sources, such as fruit, are also typically bound to other molecules in the food and, when consumed, usually do not deposit significant amounts of sugars in the mouth. Thus, when one eats a strawberry (for example), the majority of the sugars are easily washed down the esophagus via one's saliva. In contrast, when one eats a sugar cookie (for example), significant amounts of the refined sugars and starches deposit on and in between the teeth. Unless quickly removed, those deposits provide ample food for oral bacteria, whose acidic waste will begin the process of enamel erosion.

Sugar typically contributes to lipogenesis only when one consumes more energy in the form of sugars than is metabolically demanded at that time. This is true for any carbohydrate or macronutrient: if you exceed your energy demands, the excess energy will be converted to, and stored as, fat. Contrary to what the "low-carb" literal retards who demonize carbohydrates in general and sugars in particular say, the consumption of simple carbohydrates alone is not sufficient to cause increased fat stores. That depends on energy consumption (kilocalories) and expenditure (exercise).

eating simple sugar spikes your blood sugar levels, meaning if you aren't being overly active and using it all for energy, your body begins storing it into fat reserves aggressively, and your body will always rather use available food before going into it's own fat reserves.

Yeah you should be fine if you're counting calories, you'll just probably feel the ghrelin more than if you were eating longer chains of saccharides.

this guy has the right idea.

also weight is not the only indicator of health. op is either a moron or a troll, but here's a reply because i think there's a legit chance you're that fucking stupid.

Yes but consuming your sugar as monomers or dimers means your body receives all of it in a relative lump sum, as opposed to a long polymer that your body digests over time and releases steady amounts of the monomers for long periods of time.

A possible comparison is an explosion vs a candle, they both can release the same amount of energy, but one takes much much much much longer.

I completely advocate for the consumption of starches over sugars, so I don't disagree. I'm just pointing out that sugar consumption should not be a weight gain concern for those whose sugar intake comes from whole foods. Although I personally don't adhere to a fruititarian or "30 bananas a day" type of diet (and I am actually critical of them), such diets are nevertheless healthful and unlikely to cause fatty tissue buildup so long as one balances their energy consumption and expenditure.

But yes, I would usually always recommend a starchy food over a sugary food for a number of reasons, including the metabolism speed you mentioned.

I love it when people actually try on this site. Thanks for the edumacation, user.

some people are smart
some people are not

Did I say you should never eat sugar? No. Does your body need refined sugar? Absolutely not. There is enough sugar naturally occurring in food to supply your body with the small amount it needs. Quit trying to justify your fat existence and kill yourself.

It's not that sugar is bad for you.

Eating a lot of it is bad for you, and that's exactly what you're being sold on the shelves.