Monday, November 9, 2026

If Sugar Is So Bad For Us, Why Is The Sugar In Fruit OK?

Shutterstock/Dulin

We hear regularly from health organisations and experts that we should eat less sugar. But we’re also told we should eat more fruit. All types of sugar will give us the same amount of calories, whether they are from fruit or soft drink. But the health risks of eating sugar are related to consuming too many “free sugars” in the diet, not from eating sugars that are naturally present in fruits or milk. Sugar in food and drinks comes in various forms. Sugar molecules are classified as monosaccharides (single sugar molecules such as glucose and fructose) and disaccharides (more complex structures such as sucrose and lactose).….Story continues….

By: &

Source: The Conversation

.

Critics:

Sugar refiners and manufacturers of sugary foods and drinks have sought to influence medical research and public health recommendations, with substantial and largely clandestine spending documented from the 1960s to 2016. The results of research on the health effects of sugary food and drink differ significantly, depending on whether the researcher has financial ties to the food and drink industry.

A 2013 medical review concluded that “unhealthy commodity industries should have no role in the formation of national or international NCD [non-communicable disease] policy”. Similar efforts to steer coverage of sugar-related health information have been made in popular media, including news media and social media. A 2003 technical report by the World Health Organization (WHO) provides evidence that high intake of sugary drinks (including fruit juice) increases the risk of obesity by adding to overall energy intake.

By itself, sugar is doubtfully a factor causing obesity and metabolic syndrome. Meta-analysis showed that excessive consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages increased the risk of developing type 2 diabetes and metabolic syndrome – including weight gain and obesity – in adults and children. Sugar consumption does not directly cause cancer. Cancer Council Australia have stated that “there is no evidence that consuming sugar makes cancer cells grow faster or cause cancer”.

There is an indirect relationship between sugar consumption and obesity-related cancers through increased risk of excess body weight. The American Institute for Cancer Research and World Cancer Research Fund recommend that people limit sugar consumption. There is a popular misconception that cancer can be treated by reducing sugar and carbohydrate intake to supposedly “starve” tumours. In reality, the health of people with cancer is best served by maintaining a healthy diet.

Despite some studies suggesting that sugar consumption causes hyperactivity, the quality of evidence is low and it is generally accepted within the scientific community that the notion of children’s ‘sugar rush’ is a myth. A 2019 meta-analysis found that sugar consumption does not improve mood, but can lower alertness and increase fatigue within an hour of consumption.

One review of low-quality studies of children consuming high amounts of energy drinks showed association with higher rates of unhealthy behaviors, including smoking and excessive alcohol use, and with hyperactivity and insomnia, although such effects could not be specifically attributed to sugar over other components of those drinks such as caffeine.

The WHO, Action on Sugar and the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) consider free sugars an essential dietary factor in the development of dental caries. WHO have stated that “dental caries can be prevented by avoiding dietary free sugars”. A review of human studies showed that the incidence of caries is lower when sugar intake is less than 10% of total energy consumed. Sugar-sweetened beverage consumption is associated with an increased risk of tooth decay.

The “empty calories” argument states that a diet high in added (or ‘free’) sugars will reduce consumption of foods that contain essential nutrients. This nutrient displacement occurs if sugar makes up more than 25% of daily energy intake, a proportion associated with poor diet quality and risk of obesity. Displacement may occur at lower levels of consumption. The WHO recommends that both adults and children reduce the intake of free sugars to less than 10% of total energy intake, and suggests a reduction to below 5%.

“Free sugars” include monosaccharides and disaccharides added to foods, and sugars found in fruit juice and concentrates, as well as in honey and syrups. According to the WHO, “[t]hese recommendations were based on the totality of available evidence reviewed regarding the relationship between free sugars intake and body weight (low and moderate quality evidence) and dental caries (very low and moderate quality evidence).”

On 20 May 2016, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced changes to the Nutrition Facts panel displayed on all foods, to be effective by July 2018. New to the panel is a requirement to list “added sugars” by weight and as a percent of Daily Value (DV). For vitamins and minerals, the intent of DVs is to indicate how much should be consumed. For added sugars, the guidance is that 100% DV should not be exceeded. 100% DV is defined as 50 grams.

For a person consuming 2000 calories a day, 50 grams is equal to 200 calories and thus 10% of total calories—the same guidance as the WHO.[151] To put this in context, most 12-US-fluid-ounce (355 ml) cans of soda contain 39 grams of sugar. In the United States, a government survey on food consumption in 2013–2014 reported that, for men and women aged 20 and older, the average total sugar intakes—naturally occurring in foods and added—were, respectively, 125 and 99 g/day.

Manufacturers of sugary products, such as soft drinks and candy, and the Sugar Research Foundation have been accused of trying to influence consumers and medical associations in the 1960s and 1970s by creating doubt about the potential health hazards of sucrose overconsumption, while promoting saturated fat as the main dietary risk factor in cardiovascular diseases.

In 2016, the criticism led to recommendations that diet policymakers emphasize the need for high-quality research that accounts for multiple biomarkers on development of cardiovascular diseases.

Low-histamine diet: Is this the new food trend to watch? FoodNavigator.com 12:07 

In the last 8 hours
Yesterday

Experts find cavemen ate mostly vegan, debunking paleo diet The Independent 23:35 Wed, 01 May 

.

SugarInFruits ,HealthyEating ,FruitFacts ,NaturalSugar ,NutritionTips ,HealthyLifestyle ,FruitLover ,WholeFoods ,FreshFruits ,SugarContent ,FruitNutrition ,HealthyChoices ,DietaryGuidelines ,FoodScience ,WellnessJourney,EatYourFruits ,BalancedDiet ,NaturalSweetness ,FruitBenefits

Google Escalates Nvidia Rivalry With New Versions of Its TPU Systems

Alphabet Inc.’s Google is rolling out a broader array of artificial intelligence chips, aiming to capitalize on its rapid ascent as a challenger to Nvidia Corp. in a market worth hundreds of billions of dollars. The company is introducing two new variations of its tensor processing units, or TPUs, custom-made semiconductors that help develop and run AI software. The latest chips will address the need for confidential computing and help models access a wider range of information when handling queries. More broadly, they’re meant to serve an industry that’s shifting toward the use of AI agents and confronting security challenges……..Continue reading….

Source: Bloomberg.

.

Critics:

Nvidia is a software and fabless company which designs and supplies graphics processing units (GPUs), application programming interfaces (APIs) for data science and high-performance computing, as well as system on a chip units (SoCs) for the mobile computing and automotive market. Nvidia’s specialization means it is able to charge a premium for its products.

In fact, its chips, which are manufactured in Taiwan, are so unique that companies looking to build AI capabilities are complaining that there is a shortage of them. The ownership structure of Nvidia (NVDA) stock is a mix of institutional, retail and individual investors. Approximately 35.48% of the company’s stock is owned by Institutional Investors, 3.93% is owned by Insiders and 60.59% is owned by Public Companies and Individual Investors.

According to supply chain data estimates from Bloomberg, Arcuri is spot on with Microsoft being Nvidia’s largest customer. Nvidia stock fell sharply Tuesday, trading at its lowest level since late May as the market awaits Big Tech earnings and looks at potential competition in AI hardware. Nvidia shares closed down 7% at $103.73. The tech-heavy Nasdaq Composite Index dropped 1.3%.

The top individual shareholders of Nvidia are Jen-Hsun (“Jensen”) Huang, Mark A. Stevens, and Tench Coxe. The top institutional shareholders are Vanguard Group Inc., BlackRock Inc. (BLK), and FMR LLC. Nvidia stock has gained 3,776% since the start of 2019 as the company benefits from selling the main chip necessary for artificial intelligence work, minting many new multimillionaires in the process.

The main issue is that Nvidia’s graphics processing units, even its popular H100s, don’t have enough memory to handle the immense amount of video data needed to train these models, founders of AI video startups tell me. Nvidia designs and manufactures GPUs for gaming, cryptocurrency mining, and professional applications, as well as chip systems for use in vehicles, robotics, and other tools.

Today, data center processors for analytics and AI have quickly become Nvidia’s largest source of revenue, surpassing the company’s historical main business line of GPUs (graphic processing units). Nvidia Overtakes Microsoft as World’s Most Valuable Company Nvidia Overtakes Microsoft as World’s Most Valuable Company. Nvidia has become the most valuable company in the world after its market capitalization grew to $3.34 trillion, overtaking Microsoft at $3.32.

 In 2023, companies like Meta, Oracle, and Microsoft signaled their interest in AMD GPUs as a more cost-effective solution and a way to avoid a potential vendor lock-in with dominant Nvidia. AMD’s Instinct MI300 series, for example, is considered a viable alternative for scientific computing and AI uses. Concerns over Nvidia’s valuation seems to be the chief reason behind recent heavy selling. Even now, Nvidia shares on an elevated forward price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio of 43.6 times.

This remains far ahead of an average of 25.5 times for S&P 500 shares. Bank of America analyst Vivek Arya noted Nvidia is one of the firm’s top “rebound” picks amid what he expects to be a comeback for semiconductors to end 2024. “Our base case remains for a [semiconductor] rebound likely in Q4 as seasonal headwinds dissipate,” Arya wrote in a note to clients.

World’s most important fuel of the AI frenzy, NVIDIA, is facing accusations of acting as a “GPU cartel” and controlling supply in the data center market, according to statements made by executives at rival chipmaker Groq and former AMD executive Scott Herkelman. Reports claiming that Nvidia (NASDAQ:NVDA) is buying Xbox from Microsoft (NASDAQ:MSFT) have been debunked as an April Fool’s Day prank from TweakTown.

The “Nvidia buys Xbox” post spread online and started trending on some social media websites. A $20,000 investment made in the semiconductor giant 10 years ago would be worth more than $3.4 million today — up by around 170 times in value. It is also worth noting that the company has taken less than a decade to turn a $20,000 investment into precisely a $1 million.

The ownership structure of Nvidia (NVDA) stock is a mix of institutional, retail and individual investors. Approximately 35.48% of the company’s stock is owned by Institutional Investors, 3.93% is owned by Insiders and 60.59% is owned by Public Companies and Individual Investors.

The AI Chip Behind Nvidia’s Supersonic Stock RallyBNN Bloomberg 22:14 
.
TensorProcessingUnits ,TPUs ,Nvidia, GoogleTech,ArtificialIntelligence, ,MachineLearning ,DeepLearning ,DataScience ,AIProcessing ,NeuralNetworks ,ThinkDeep ,ComputePower ,TechInnovation ,FutureOfTech ,AIHardware ,BigData ,ArtificialNeuralNetworks ,TechTrends ,ProcessedWithTPUs ,AcceleratedComputing ,SmartTech ,CloudComputing

How To Plan Charitable Giving In 2025 For Maximum Tax Benefits

Antoni Shkraba Studio; Pexels

Donating to charity isn’t just an act of kindness  it’s one of the few ways to control how much you, actively,  send to the IRS. If you make the right donation at the right time, you can reduce your taxable income, support a cause you believe in, and create a sense of purpose that is hard to quantify. Timing matters, though. Due to major tax law changes taking effect in 2026, 2025 may be your last chance to take advantage of the older, more generous deduction rules……..Continue reading….

By:

Source:  Due

.

Critics:

Charitable giving is the act of donating money, goods, or time to the less fortunate, either directly or through a charitable trust or another worthy cause. Charitable giving as a religious act or duty is referred to as almsgiving or alms. The name stems from the most obvious expression of the virtue of charity: providing recipients with the means they need to survive. The impoverished, particularly widows, orphans, the ailing, and the injured, are generally considered appropriate recipients of charity.

People who cannot support themselves and lack external means of support sometimes become “beggars,” directly seeking help from strangers in public. Some groups believe that charity is best directed towards other members of their specific group. Although giving to those closely connected to oneself is sometimes considered charity, as in the saying “Charity begins at home”, charity usually involves giving to those who are not related. Terms like filial piety describe supporting one’s family and friends.

Treating relatives as strangers in need of charity has led to the phrase “as cold as charity”: providing for one’s relatives as if they were strangers, without affection. Behavioural psychology describes the feeling derived from the practice of charitable giving as having an impact on how much and how often people give. The “warm glow” of giving has been described as an intrinsic benefit received from charitable giving as first described by James Andreoni. Feelings derived from giving can be positive or negative for individuals.

Most forms of charity focus on providing basic necessities such as food, water, clothing, healthcare, and shelter. However, other actions can also be considered charitable: visiting the imprisoned or homebound, ransoming captives, educating orphans, and supporting social movements. Donations to causes that indirectly benefit the less fortunate, like funding cancer research, also fall under the category of charity.

Regarding religious aspects, recipients of charity may offer prayers for the benefactor. In medieval Europe, it was customary to provide meals to the poor at funerals in exchange for their prayers for the deceased. Institutions may honor benefactors by displaying their names or even naming buildings or the institution itself after them. When the recipient provides something of substantial value in return, the transaction is usually not labeled as charity.

In the past, many charitable organizations followed a “charitable model” in which donors gave to conglomerates which then distributed to recipients. Examples include the Make a Wish Foundation and the World Wildlife Fund. Nowadays, some charities allow online donations through websites like JustGiving. Originally, charity involved the benefactor directly giving goods to the receiver.

This practice continues with some individuals, such as “CNN Hero” Sal Dimiceli, and service organizations like the Jaycees. With the rise of more social peer-to-peer processes, many charities are moving away from the charitable model, adopting a more direct donor-to-recipient approach. Examples include Global Giving (direct funding of community development projects in developing countries), DonorsChoose (for U.S.-based projects), Kiva (funding loans administered by microfinance organizations in developing countries), and Zidisha (funding individual microfinance borrowers directly).

Institutions developed to assist the poor, and these charities now constitute the majority of charitable giving in terms of monetary value. These institutions include orphanages, food banks, religious institutes dedicated to helping the poor, hospitals, organizations that visit the homebound and imprisoned, and many others. These institutions allow individuals who may not have the time or inclination to care for the poor directly to enable others to do so.

They provide funding for the work and support those who do it. Institutions can also work to distinguish genuine need from fraudulent claims of charity. Early Christians particularly emphasized the care of the less fortunate as the responsibility of the local bishop. Various studies have examined who gives more to charity. A study in the United States found that as income decreases, charitable giving increases as a percentage of income.

For instance, the poorest fifth of Americans donated 4.3% of their income, while the wealthiest fifth donated 2.1%. In absolute terms, this translated to an average donation of $453 from an average income of $10,531, compared to $3,326 from an income of $158,388. Research also indicates that “individuals who are religious are more likely to give money to charitable organizations” and tend to give more than those who are not religious.

A study by the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding examined philanthropic and charitable giving among members of American religious communities. The study found that American Muslim donation patterns align mostly with other American faith groups, like Christian (Protestant and Catholic), but American Muslims are more likely to donate due to a sense of religious obligation and a belief in helping those in need.

The study also revealed that most American faith groups prioritize charity for their own places of worship in monetary donations, and then for other causes. Muslims and Jews contributed more to civil rights protection organizations than other religious groups, while Christians were more likely to make charitable contributions to youth and family services. A 2021 study discovered that when potential donors had to choose between two similar donation targets, they were more likely to choose not to donate at all.

Dog trainer’s success expands disability charity  11:24 

.

Donation ,TaxBenefits ,GiveBack ,Charity ,Philanthropy ,NonProfit ,TaxDeductions,SupportCauses ,MakeADifference ,CommunitySupport ,TaxSavings ,CreateChange ,GivingTuesday ,DonorAppreciation ,GoodCause ,HelpOthers ,SocialImpact ,GiveHope ,TaxSeason ,ImpactfulGiving

If Sugar Is So Bad For Us, Why Is The Sugar In Fruit OK?

Shutterstock/Dulin We hear regularly from health organisations and experts that we should eat less sugar. But we’re also told we should eat...