How do you explain to normies that sugar is good for you?
-
it doesnt need to be explained
i found the ONLY thing that works is getting in a high enough energy state to where people respect me and that is all i can do
from my experience convincing people is about hormones and energy
-
@Ray-Peat-Fanboy yeah, you really can’t, the socialization is too strong. Simply work on you and be the best you that you can be. Some will ask how you do it or what you do, and you can engage with them. Even then, some of those same curious people won’t believe you when you tell them that they’ll need more carbs, or more sugar to efficiently produce maximum energy.
So think of it like a filter, if 20 people notice you have more energy than them, 5 might actually ask you about it, 3 might actually think about it/synthesize it, and one may be open to trying/looking into it.
-
U can have them explain why they think it’s bad and try to discuss the points they bring up. People believe it’s inflammatory but can’t explain how. In many ways it can help reduce inflammation
Sugar could be bad if it’s feeding bad bacteria but at the same time it’s usually quickly digested. It’s devoid of nutrients. If someone is in a bad state maybe a ton of sugar wasted through glycolysis might make them feel more inflamed from the lactic acid, but it’s probably what the sugar came with like refined grain fibers feeding bad bacteria
-
Don’t try convince anyone of anything it’s a waste of time. Just give them the opportunity to learn and it will come naturally. Your least receptive to knowledge forced upon you
-
A key strategy for sharing fringe beliefs is speaking of them nonchalantly as if they’re not fringe at all. I’ve had normie coworkers that are very prone to attacking “conspiracy theories” parrot my claims that keto causes diabetes simple because I discussed it casually like it was common knowledge
-
This post is deleted! -
you sip coke and laugh at them with a clearly better metabolism while they eat seeds
-
You can't please normies. No point.
You can argue with smart people just fine. Just not with dumb people. -
@Ray-Peat-Fanboy if you are in a situation where you’re pressed to give a good defense of it, you could talk about how mitochondrial glucose oxidation generates much more CO2 than fat oxidation, and how CO2 is a Lewis acid fortifying the acidity of the amino acids which constitute the proteins which make up the tissues and organs of the body. (Generative Energy #35)
Defending sugar against starch you could bring up endotoxin and big insulin swings which cause hypoglycemic stress and aromatase activation, for example. But then that leads to the “estrogen is bad” conversation which is another uphill battle
-
I remember once telling a man something similiar actually. I told him "oxidizing glucose generates 50 % more carbon dioxide compared to oxidizing fats"
His responds was "uh...ok..so what? that just means it will be even worse for our climate and animals"
He is a believer of the "climate change" and "co2 is just a waste gas" dogma. He is not aware of carbon dioxide important role in human health physiologically.
What you said about Lewis acid is a good explanation though and I should have told him about that.
-
@Ray-Peat-Fanboy this is a clear case-in-point of the CO2-climate change hypothesis as a depopulation psyop
On the other hand there is the question of which type of human contributes more CO2 to the ecosystem — the healthy person who also retains CO2 well, or the stressed person who blows too much of it out all the time?
Regarding the notion of CO2 as a Lewis acid, GE podcast episode 35 is one of my top candidates for best episode of all time
-
I agree , the "climate change" hypothesis is definitely a part of a depopulation agenda.
GE podcast episode 35, I see. I will look into that episode.
