The question how problematic carbs (or anything else, really) are is most significantly defined by the glycemic index. The damaging factoe is how quickly the sugar can be processed, and how high the first peak is.
If you eat common full-grain rye bread then you'll have entirely different results than eating pure sugar.
Sort of tangential fun fact: two of the favorite varieties of rice in Thailand where I live, fragrant Jasmine rice and sticky rice, have a higher glycemic index than pure glucose. I was a bit shocked to learn that and made some dietary changes to help drop my blood sugar which had been creeping up to near prediabetic level.
I would argue that refined white sugar doesn't affect you the same way as organic unprocessed sugar. (from experience) I don't think it even takes going to the extreme of comparing refined sugar to whole grains, I think white sugar is toxic on a level we as a society are just starting to recognize.
It reminds me of the early days when everyone started saying that cigarettes caused cancer, but the scientists were conflicted... Us common sense folks new better.
No need to doubt science — science has always been clear on the fact that depending on glycemic index, it takes different times for the sugar to be metabolized and end up in your blood stream. As result, your blood sugar will either stay consistent for hours, as with longer, slower metabolized starches in full grain, compared to refined, shorter sugars in white sugar, which immediately peaks your blood sugar.
This has direct effects on saturation and insulin production, which obviously effects the way your brain reacts to this kick.
I am not doubting science. I am doubting popularly reported science. Go look up the ads where doctors recommended certain brands of cigarettes. I saw an ad from the 50s showing a spoon full of lead additive and claiming it was safe enough to eat. The list goes on...
It's not the facts presented, it the ignored facts, or the twisted presentation that I object to.
My brother worked for Red Bull, where he knew in detail which ingredients affected the body in which way. And it was pretty much all bad, unless you just didn't think so, or you believed your boss.
Also, I am not disagreeing with you. I am pointing out that the bar for your argument is much lower than you think.
You should check the literature to see if your experience is anything other than a psychological one. I can find no indication that a few percent minerals will offset the 97% sucrose in brown sugar. I agree the brown tastes better but a bit of color doesn't mean that there isn't something pure white and deadly (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yudkin) underneath.
No, that's not right at all. Regular brown sugar is produced as a by-product during sugar refining. What you're describing is a commercial, made to look like brown sugar, by adding molasses and caramel coloring to refined sugar. It's an abomination.
True brown sugar is derived from the sugar mother liquor, which is a far more interesting substance than most people can appreciate.
As far as science goes, a certain amount are arsenic doesn't have any negative health consequences either.
But the next time you are at the grocery store look for sugar in every thing you buy. You will be surprised. When I stopped eating refined sugars, my shopping list was cut by about 90%. I don't feel that's an exaggeration either.
Keep in mind there are a dozen or so different names for the various types of refined sugars. They have been trying to hide it for years now.
The question how problematic carbs (or anything else, really) are is most significantly defined by the glycemic index. The damaging factoe is how quickly the sugar can be processed, and how high the first peak is.
If you eat common full-grain rye bread then you'll have entirely different results than eating pure sugar.