Raw sugar question

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>Wrong, raw sugar has minimal chemical processing as opposed to the heavy
>use of chemicals to process white refined sugar. Some of us prefer to
>avoid unnecessary chemicals.

I'm curious about this statement. AFAIK, refined sugar is just raw
sugar that has been "washed" (c.f. a similar process to make mill
white, which is a nearly white raw sugar) and recrystallised after
filtering through charcoal.

So, basically those "unnecessary chemicals" are water and carbon.

Humans are essentially made of the same three chemicals (CHO)
"contaminated" with small quantities of things like N, P, S, plus
Ca and some metals (especially Fe).

So how can it be claimed that C, H, and O, are "unnecessary"?

( I get like this after Friday night at the pub. ;-)

Cheers, Phred.

--
[email hidden]

smithfarms pure kona said:

Cindy Hamilton said:

Jude said:

I know there are a few people on here who try to avoid refined

sugar.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Obvoiusly that's a good idea, and I know we go through a lot of

sugar

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

around here, esp in baked goods.

My brother-in-law works in the sugar industry. His employer
manufactures
sugarcane harvesting equipment, so I consider him to be far enough
upstream
of the refining operation as to have no financial stake in whether
sugar is raw
or white.

He won't eat raw sugar because he's seen the piles of raw sugar
awaiting
refining, and the rats that infest them. He'd rather have his sugar
without
rat turds.

Cindy Hamilton

I have enjoyed this thread too. I am a 3rd generation sugar cane
plantation person. When we were small, we were able to get that warm
yummy really raw sugar right off the little conveyor belt, at the
mill.That really raw stuff was going into the bags or containers to
go to California from Hawaii. I agree with your brother in law.
Although the sugar was really yummy because it still had some molasses
in it, it did have odd things in it🙂. So I giggle whenever I hear
people say raw sugar is best because the refined sugar was probably
healthier.

BTW I think the Turbinado sugar is not just raw sugar, it is cleaned
up and some what more processed than real raw sugar, and probably less
processed than white sugar.

I suspect my brother-in-law says things like that just to get people
"going".

For years he worked in the field, assembling the equipment and training
the
local people in its use, in some typical third-world hellholes. If he
were really
squeamish, he couldn't have done that. (Of course, he's got malaria and
it flares
up every so often...)

Cindy Hamilton

Jude said:

Perhaps its an incorrect assumption, but I'm hoping that raw
suage, being less processed, uses less energy and produces less
pollution/by-products that are bad for the environment.

Congratulations. You came up with the only reason in this whole thread
with any measure of merrit for eating raw sugar over white sugar.
Though it has been established that no toxic chemicals are used to
produce white sugar (other than hydrogen hydroxide - which is
responsible for countless thousands of deaths every year) it certainly
takes more energy. I'm no greenie, but even I can agree that using less
energy is a good thing.

b.

"Phred" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>Wrong, raw sugar has minimal chemical processing as opposed to the
>>heavy
>>use of chemicals to process white refined sugar. Some of us prefer to
>>avoid unnecessary chemicals.

I'm curious about this statement. AFAIK, refined sugar is just raw
sugar that has been "washed" (c.f. a similar process to make mill
white, which is a nearly white raw sugar) and recrystallised after
filtering through charcoal.

So, basically those "unnecessary chemicals" are water and carbon.

Humans are essentially made of the same three chemicals (CHO)
"contaminated" with small quantities of things like N, P, S, plus
Ca and some metals (especially Fe).

So how can it be claimed that C, H, and O, are "unnecessary"?

( I get like this after Friday night at the pub. ;-)

Cheers, Phred.

The fact that you KNOW you get like this means you're a pub professional.
Not only that, but you're making more sense than many other people who have
NOT been to the pub.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Doug Kanter said:

"Dee Randall" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Bob Myers" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"OmManiPadmeOmelet" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> A small amount of bug parts are allowed by the USDA in our food.

Sure, Om, but those, too, are all "natural" and therefore
perfectly OK.

Come to think of it, the Ebola virus is also 100% natural....

Bob M.

Maybe a list of "thangs" that aren't natural would be simpler.
Dee Dee

Here's a better thought: If there *IS* any nutritional difference between
sugar in different stages of processing, and you eat enough of any version
that it affects you, you're gonna have problems so big that the differences
between those version won't matter at all. In other words, you're gonna have
a big fat ass, go broke continually buying pants, and end up homeless.

I see you feel the same about sugar in general as I do. ;-)

Whether raw or processed, sugar is relegated to "treat" status and is
not a regular part of my diet. Fortunately, years of attempts at low
carb living have "pulled" my sweet tooth.

People at work are always leaving cookies, cakes, donuts and pies in the
break room. I can walk by them and ignore their exsistance with nary a
twitch.

My downfall is bread! <sigh> The savory starchy things.
Pasta can be included in that, as well as rice and the very occasional
potatoe.
--
Peace, Om.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-[censored]." -Jack Nicholson

In article <[email hidden]>,

(Phred) said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>Wrong, raw sugar has minimal chemical processing as opposed to the heavy
>>use of chemicals to process white refined sugar. Some of us prefer to
>>avoid unnecessary chemicals.

I'm curious about this statement. AFAIK, refined sugar is just raw
sugar that has been "washed" (c.f. a similar process to make mill
white, which is a nearly white raw sugar) and recrystallised after
filtering through charcoal.

So, basically those "unnecessary chemicals" are water and carbon.

Humans are essentially made of the same three chemicals (CHO)
"contaminated" with small quantities of things like N, P, S, plus
Ca and some metals (especially Fe).

So how can it be claimed that C, H, and O, are "unnecessary"?

( I get like this after Friday night at the pub. ;-)

Cheers, Phred.

There is no such thing as an "essential carbohydrate".

Try living without essential amino acids or essential fatty acids, and
you will eventually die.

Your body can make CHO (glucose) out of protein in the liver by means of
a process called gluconeogenesis. You can also produce glucose by
burning fat.

The body has to work harder to create it's main fuel (glucose) using
fats or proteins which is what makes low carb diets work so well.

I have, however, learned from personal experience that I can achieve
better sustained weight loss by not totally eliminating carbs from my
diet. <sigh> It messes things up for some reason and you will eventually
stall out if you restrict them too tightly for too long.

You need to find your own optimal level as it varies from person to
person, but most do best by keeping them under 50 grams per day, while
some people can go as high as 100 grams per day.

But you do not need them to live. ;-)

Humans are ominivoures by evolution. Strike a happy medium/balance.

But sugar in excess amounts can cause a host of problems! Google for
"insulin resistance and type II diabetes".
--
Peace, Om.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-[censored]." -Jack Nicholson

"Dee Randall" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

First, to answer your question:
You can use it in baking and cooking as you would white sugar, but I recommend
processing it a bit because the size of the crystals inhibits melting and blending
into doughs and batters, which then can have an effect on the finished product.
Not, a little information for you:
Turbinado is not true raw sugar. Raw sugar is illegal in the US, because it can
contain impurities that could conceivably cause illness.

http://www.mauicoffeeco.com/maui_brand_raw_sugar__7_oz.html

Wondering?
Dee Dee

Dee,

It's not true raw sugar. It's "washed" sugar. It's minimally processed to ensure
there are no molds and bacteria that could possibly cause illness. It is good,
though, in coffee especially 🙂

kimberly

In article said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

(Phred) said:

Quoted message said:

> >>Wrong, raw sugar has minimal chemical processing as opposed to the heavy
> >>use of chemicals to process white refined sugar. Some of us prefer to
> >>avoid unnecessary chemicals.

I'm curious about this statement. AFAIK, refined sugar is just raw
sugar that has been "washed" (c.f. a similar process to make mill
white, which is a nearly white raw sugar) and recrystallised after
filtering through charcoal.

So, basically those "unnecessary chemicals" are water and carbon.

Humans are essentially made of the same three chemicals (CHO)
"contaminated" with small quantities of things like N, P, S, plus
Ca and some metals (especially Fe).

So how can it be claimed that C, H, and O, are "unnecessary"?

( I get like this after Friday night at the pub. ;-)

There is no such thing as an "essential carbohydrate".

No one here claimed there is.

Quoted message said:

Try living without essential amino acids or essential fatty acids, and
you will eventually die.

Your body can make CHO (glucose) out of protein in the liver by means of
a process called gluconeogenesis. You can also produce glucose by
burning fat.

True. But that's obviously only possible because amino acids and
fatty acids are mostly C, H, and O. (Nearly all just C and H in fatty
acids, hence the need to "burn" them to add O to make a carbohydrate.)

Quoted message said:

The body has to work harder to create it's main fuel (glucose) using
fats or proteins which is what makes low carb diets work so well.

I have, however, learned from personal experience that I can achieve
better sustained weight loss by not totally eliminating carbs from my
diet. <sigh> It messes things up for some reason and you will eventually
stall out if you restrict them too tightly for too long.

You need to find your own optimal level as it varies from person to
person, but most do best by keeping them under 50 grams per day, while
some people can go as high as 100 grams per day.

But you do not need them to live. ;-)

But you do to live "well". ;-)

Quoted message said:

Humans are ominivoures by evolution. Strike a happy medium/balance.

But sugar in excess amounts can cause a host of problems! Google for
"insulin resistance and type II diabetes".

Cheers, Phred.

--
[email hidden]

In article <[email hidden]>,

(Phred) said:

Quoted message said:

But you do not need them to live. ;-)

But you do to live "well". ;-)

Food for the soul eh? <lol>

Won't get any arguments from me on that one!

Carbs are indeed delicious, especially "Lindt's" truffles.....

And thin mint girl scout cookies.....

;-D
--
Peace, Om.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-[censored]." -Jack Nicholson

In article <[email hidden]>,

OmManiPadmeOmelet said:

There is no such thing as an "essential carbohydrate".

Speak for yourself! Sex, carbs, fresh air and sunshine. Those are
essential to my happiness, if not my health.

--
Dan Abel
[email hidden]
Petaluma, California, USA