> Excellent.  Thanks, Tom.  So basically, eating dates is just as bad as
eating sugar?

Errr.  Sort of.  Check out the glycemic index
www.mendosa.com/gilistsunzipped.htm and the insulin index
http://venus.nildram.co.uk/veganmc/insulin.htm

> What about fruit?  Does the sugar in it have the same affect as dates,
maple, honey, cane??  If not, how is it different?

The fruit sugar is mainly fructose, with fiber and nutrients.  Fructose, as
Andrew points out, takes time to be metabolized in the liver, this limiting
blood sugar and insulin spikes.  And the fiber helps too.  The Insulin Index
(above) has an interesting comparison between fruit and traditional protein
sources (they forget to mention, however, the protein causes glucagon to be
released from the pancreas, countering excess insulin)

> and just what is it that sugar does that's so bad OTHER than spike your
insulin?

Many starches, such as potatoes and bread, actually cause a sharper blood
sugar and insulin spike than table sugar (glucose paired with fructose).
Table sugar represents empty calories, but modest consumption has been
unjustifiably demonized.

Accordingly to Des Maison (Potatoes Not Prozac), people who crave sugar,
sweets, booze, or other quick "pick me ups", may have low levels of
serotonin in the brain.  Serotonin gives one good impulse control and makes
one feel "at peace with the world".  Low levels of serotonin are implicated
in depression and,
according to DesMaisons, "sugar sensitivity", which is also characterized by
"volatile blood sugar responses, a low level of beta-endorphin, and a
heightened response to the pain-numbing effects of sugars."


From the  NUTRITION NEWS FOCUS

"Sugar Shock

Recent publicity about whether sugar does or does not contribute to all
sorts of conditions, such as heart disease, hyperactivity, diabetes,
overweight, and immoral behavior, is really nothing new. The Journal of the
American Medical Association publishes excerpts of articles from 100 years
ago, and the July 18.01 issue reprinted "The Use of Sugar." One expert in
1901 wanted an increased tax on sugar to discourage its use because it
caused anemia and bad teeth, not by itself but by displacing food containing
iron or lime. A French expert wanted to see the consumption of sugar tripled
or quadrupled in his country because the English and Americans ate much
larger quantities than the French and did not suffer from excessive use.

HERE'S WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW: Although we use more sophisticated methods to
investigate similar problems today, we don't know much more definitive
information about sugar than we did 100 years ago. While many people eat too
much sugar and too many calories, sugar by itself is not a metabolic poison
(which has been repeated by people who should know better)."
09.10.01

Rob