Sugar is Toxic?

[aggle-rithm]

"Toxins" are the new "Humors" I think.

I love the commercials that advertise some "cleansing" product by warning viewers that they are carrying around toxic feces in their colons!!!

Actually, our colons are a good place to keep feces; it doesn't become toxic until we dump it into the environment.

OK, let's get back to our sugar discussion...

 

[Nursedan]

Of course I'm not tesscaline, so my mileage may vary.

The first thing is, Dan is just wrong on several points on this topic, so I see no reason why correcting him on the topic would be wrong.

Secondly, he was basically asked to support his assertions, which he did by repeating most of them, and adding a few more falsehoods and worse: none of it supports his earlier contention that sugar is "for all intents and purposes toxic" (under 30g/kg, orally), which is, after all, the

And finally, I don't think this was made personal. The ridicule was only about Dan's arguments. No one has said anything about Dan's person.

(had to snip part of this quote to fit my iPod.)

First, I don't personalize criticism from people I never have met nor ever will, so I'm fine on that.

Second, I've had this discussion before, and it has usually resulted in the same outcome. It was wrong for me to get into this without explicitly defining my terms- toxic, toxin, even sugar is an ambiguous term. I have science to back me up, I have research. But within the confines of an internet post things do get lost. This debate requires so many qualifying statements that my fingers get tired of typing. I get involved with debates like this because the topic interests me, and sharing knowledge is valuable to me.

I didn't understand some of the responses to my post, but to ask people to clarify just gets bothersome, for them and me.

 

[John Albert]

...John Albert has thrown his/her hat into the ring.

I have?

What do we do about that? The naive inclination is to merely correct any false information

What is naive about that? I certainly welcome any corrections. I'm not a biochemist, just a curious person always interested in learning.

"there are not enzymes in the saliva which convert disaccharides to monosaccharides"

I did not say that disaccharides are generally broken down into monosaccharides in saliva; I specifically said that sucrose is broken down by a salivary enzyme (called salivary sucrase) into its component monosaccharides glucose and fructose. I thought I put in my post that sucrase activity occurs primarily in the duodenum, but I guess I must've forgotten.

"fructose is phosphorylated in the liver while ethanol undergoes oxidation and dehydrogenation - all dissimilar processes"

Here:

"First, hepatic fructose metabolism is similar to ethanol, as they both serve as substrates for de novo lipogenesis, and in the process both promote hepatic insulin resistance, dyslipidemia, and hepatic steatosis. Second, fructosylation of proteins with resultant superoxide formation can result in hepatic inflammation similar to acetaldehyde, an intermediary metabolite of ethanol."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20800122

Robert H. Lustig is a respected endocrinologist, Professor of Clinical Pediatrics at UCSF, and the director of a children's obesity program at that university. I know that lately he's become something of an outspoken critic of HFCS in the media, but that arguably anti-corporate stance regarding the food industry doesn't necessarily invalidate the science of his studies.

Please tell me if you think this guy's a quack.

 

[fls]

I have?

What is naive about that? I certainly welcome any corrections. I'm not a biochemist, just a curious person always interested in learning.

It reflects my own observations. When I first began to encounter misinformation, I thought (naively, as it turns out) that merely explaining why the information was wrong and providing correct information would be sufficient to stop whatever false belief was being offered.

I did not say that disaccharides are generally broken down into monosaccharides in saliva; I specifically said that sucrose is broken down by a salivary enzyme (called salivary sucrase) into its component monosaccharides glucose and fructose. I thought I put in my post that sucrase activity occurs primarily in the duodenum, but I guess I must've forgotten.

Yeah, except that the sucrase is in the duodenum, which makes it difficult for it to work in the mouth. I'm guessing that you are referring to enzymes produced by bacteria.

Here:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20800122

As a respected endocrinologist, Professor of Clinical Pediatrics at UCSF, and the director of a children's obesity program at that university. I know he's an outspoken critic of HFCS in the media, but that anti-corporate stance regarding the food industry doesn't necessarily invalidate the science of his studies.

Please tell me if you think this guy's a quack.

I don't think you read that correctly. He is attempting to propose that the problem of fructose ingestion be treated like the problem of alcohol abuse. The parallels he is drawing between ethanol and fructose are very broad and non-specific.

I was referring to the action of salivary sucrase. Are you denying that enzyme exists in human saliva?

Well, most people have bacteria in their mouth. But their action serves to feed the bacteria, not contribute to human digestion.

Linda

 

[John Albert]

Yeah, except that the sucrase is in the duodenum, which makes it difficult for it to work in the mouth. I'm guessing that you are referring to enzymes produced by bacteria.

Could be. Regardless of where it originates, saliva contains sucrase that breaks down some of the sucrose into its component fructose and glucose.

Well, most people have bacteria in their mouth. But their action serves to feed the bacteria, not contribute to human digestion.

Most people? Everybody has bacteria in their mouth. But OK, point taken.

I don't think you read that correctly. He is attempting to propose that the problem of fructose ingestion be treated like the problem of alcohol abuse. The parallels he is drawing between ethanol and fructose are very broad and non-specific.

Yes, he certainly makes that general comparison, but he flatly states that part of the pathway of fructose metabolism in the liver produces some of the same effects of alcohol metabolism, and can contribute to fatty liver disease. Let me see if I can find a specific explanation of the biochemistry for you.

 

[fls]

Yes, he certainly makes that general comparison, but he flatly states that part of the pathway of fructose metabolism in the liver produces some of the same effects of alcohol metabolism, and can contribute to fatty liver disease.

He is referring to gluconeogenesis. This is the final common pathway for any substances which can be converted to glucose. It's meaningless to draw any parallels on that basis.

Linda

 

[caniswalensis]

Hey FLS,

You make some good, valid points. I understand what you are saying about the exponential growth of bad info in threads sometines. It can quickly become overwealming.

Honestly I do not have a good response for that. Sometimes you just have to accept that there are wrong people in the world and their always will be and you can't stop them from saying their wrong information.

I do not disagree that some people do not react well or alter their course after polite refutation of their arguments. You are right about that and it is a fact of life. That is not to say that all people are that way, though. I have also seen it work the other way, where an abrasive, dismissive approach causes the people to dig in their heels and fight tooth and nail against the truth, just to make the person who is being unpleasant not be right. My own experience is that even subtlely provacative language can cause this to happen.

In the end, I just decided that the best thing for me was to be true to myself. I do not consider myself naive, but I understand why you might think so. I have been on internet forums for several years now and have argued hard & mean, discussed nice & polite and everything in between. I personally always felt worse after a bitter, hateful exchange. Not only that, I never noticed a lot of success when I did so. At best, I felt like it was simply shouting someone down. I see no value in that.

Maybe I just answered my own question here.

Maybe some people just truly enjoy the chance to belittle others and insult them. Maybe the reasons for that are no more tangible than my own for not enjoying it.

Maybe it is just human nature. Even knowing that I do not enjoy that sort of exchange, I find that I have to constantly fight a low level impulse to unload on people with insult. It is temptingly easy.

Maybe I did not just answer my own question.

Ok, this is too "stream of conciousness" for me now.

Kind regards, Canis

 

[Dr. Keith]

Canis: I was also a bit taken that the first response was ridicule.

For those of us who are not well versed in biology or medicine this cite can be a great resource for teasing out the truth of various claims we come across on a daily basis, whether they are based on non-doctor advice or mis-repeating of valid doctor advice.

But, that requires a patient informative response. I've seen others pull it off with or without humor, but here it just didn't play out that way.


Fls: I know well the frustration of trying to refute every thing that is wrong with a post that starts off not even in the wheelhouse of right. And from poking around here I see that you've been at it far longer than I would care to emulate.

I tend not to worry much about the person who is spewing something I have the expertise to refute, I tend to worry about the influence that misinformation will have on others. If I can succinctly point out the major flaws, easy peasy. If I can't, well then I have to decide whether a response is even warranted.

 

[fls]

Hey FLS,

You make some good, valid points. I understand what you are saying about the exponential growth of bad info in threads sometines. It can quickly become overwealming.

Honestly I do not have a good response for that. Sometimes you just have to accept that there are wrong people in the world and their always will be and you can't stop them from saying their wrong information.

I do not disagree that some people do not react well or alter their course after polite refutation of their arguments. You are right about that and it is a fact of life. That is not to say that all people are that way, though. I have also seen it work the other way, where an abrasive, dismissive approach causes the people to dig in their heels and fight tooth and nail against the truth, just to make the person who is being unpleasant not be right. My own experience is that even subtlely provacative language can cause this to happen.

I agree that there may not be any help for this, but rather than accept it, I am exploring the possibility that different approaches may be effective. Even though ridicule may not be comfortable, some people claim that it has been effective when politeness gave a false sense of legitimacy.

In the end, I just decided that the best thing for me was to be true to myself. I do not consider myself naive, but I understand why you might think so. I have been on internet forums for several years now and have argued hard & mean, discussed nice & polite and everything in between. I personally always felt worse after a bitter, hateful exchange. Not only that, I never noticed a lot of success when I did so. At best, I felt like it was simply shouting someone down. I see no value in that.

I'm sorry. My comment about naivety was really meant as a self-deprecating poke at myself.

I may feel better when I am polite, but I have to wonder whether it is a cop-out, an excuse for me to avoid persistently challenging someone because it makes me unpleasant. Do I really want to change minds or do I just want people to like me?

Linda

 

[fls]

Canis: I was also a bit taken that the first response was ridicule.

For those of us who are not well versed in biology or medicine this cite can be a great resource for teasing out the truth of various claims we come across on a daily basis, whether they are based on non-doctor advice or mis-repeating of valid doctor advice.

But, that requires a patient informative response. I've seen others pull it off with or without humor, but here it just didn't play out that way.

Are you talking about tesscaline's ridiculing of Nursedan's post? Or the general levity in response to the OP? There's a difference between someone who comes in and states a bunch of half-truths as fact, and someone who is trying to tease out the truth. I don't think anyone was ridiculing the OP so much as poking fun at this tired, old theme.

Fls: I know well the frustration of trying to refute every thing that is wrong with a post that starts off not even in the wheelhouse of right. And from poking around here I see that you've been at it far longer than I would care to emulate.

I tend not to worry much about the person who is spewing something I have the expertise to refute, I tend to worry about the influence that misinformation will have on others. If I can succinctly point out the major flaws, easy peasy. If I can't, well then I have to decide whether a response is even warranted.

That's where I've been at for a while. I still wonder if there is something helpful to be done for the spewer, though.

Linda

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Many of the higher sugars are not broken down by the body, instead traveling through the digestive system unchanged, until they get broken down via fermentation by bacteria in the colon.

The colon is part of the body, isn't it?

 

[Dr. Keith]

I agree that there may not be any help for this, but rather than accept it, I am exploring the possibility that different approaches may be effective. Even though ridicule may not be comfortable, some people claim that it has been effective when politeness gave a false sense of legitimacy.

Yeah, but it works best alongside real information. At least where the other posters are at least attempting to get at some factual baseline.

At a base level I think we can agree that the US has a sugar consumption problem and reducing sugar intake on average would likely be a good thing. That isn't the same as "sugar is toxic" but the problem may be primarily in the hyperbolic language rather than the intended message. To add more indirect language on top in the form of snark or humor may just muddy the waters more. This from someone who really loves the snark around here.

I may feel better when I am polite, but I have to wonder whether it is a cop-out, an excuse for me to avoid persistently challenging someone because it makes me unpleasant. Do I really want to change minds or do I just want people to like me?

I think it takes a mix and you have to be the person you are most comfortable with.

I hate the skeptic debates as to which approach is better because they start with a false premise: there is an optimal way to change attitudes for all people. We all had various inputs along the way and I remember a time when PZ Myers would not have gotten through to me, a time when I loved everything PZ wrote uncritically, and now where I like to see what PZ is saying whether I agree or not. PZ didn't change, I did. Good for PZ, good for me.

Be Linda. You will piss off some, you will annoy others, you will provide great resources for a few, and you will sleep better. Win, Win, right?

 

[Nursedan]

snip...

Do I really want to change minds or do I just want people to like me?

This gets to the heart of the reason why we post on this forum in the first place. Of course there are other options, such as boredom or "showing everyone how smart I am". There is the other option that it is important that more information be put out into the collective conciousness. It makes ya think....

Nice post.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Are you talking about tesscaline's ridiculing of Nursedan's post? Or the general levity in response to the OP? There's a difference between someone who comes in and states a bunch of half-truths as fact, and someone who is trying to tease out the truth. I don't think anyone was ridiculing the OP so much as poking fun at this tired, old theme.

The tone just took a nosedive. It wasn't one poster, really. I've not been around long enough to see this as a repeating theme, but it caught my interest this time.

That's where I've been at for a while. I still wonder if there is something helpful to be done for the spewer, though.

Despite my cheesy advice in the post above, I think cohesive logical argument will wear down misinformation, half-truth, and straight out hokum over time. Even among those who spew it. We all change positions over time.

For instance, I have found that my weight is directly related to my intake of carbs and sugars in particular. My anecdotal experience is that if I want to lose weight, lower my blood pressure, and even keep my cholesterol and gout under control, I need to avoid sugar as if it were toxic. So, this topic is relevant to me and the information about the ill effects of sugar ring true.

I love that you are laying out where that impression is false or misleading and I think even NurseDan is having to refine his statements to bring them more in line with what he can actually support. That's the discussion of critical thinking and science that I come here for.

 

[Dr. Keith]

The colon is part of the body, isn't it?

The more pertinent question is whether bacterium are part of the body. Since it would be hard to have a body without them, the answer is likely yes.

 

[fls]

The colon is part of the body, isn't it?

Yeah, but sugars don't get absorbed there. The only thing that gets absorbed through the colon is water (and sodium and chloride).

Linda

 

[caniswalensis]

I agree that there may not be any help for this, but rather than accept it, I am exploring the possibility that different approaches may be effective. Even though ridicule may not be comfortable, some people claim that it has been effective when politeness gave a false sense of legitimacy.



I'm sorry. My comment about naivety was really meant as a self-deprecating poke at myself.

I may feel better when I am polite, but I have to wonder whether it is a cop-out, an excuse for me to avoid persistently challenging someone because it makes me unpleasant. Do I really want to change minds or do I just want people to like me?

Linda

Please do not apologize for anything! I did take the naive comment as being directed at my proposal of politeness, but I took no offense whatsoever. Sometimes I feel very naive about it all.

I do not veiw politeness as a copout. I think that people should definitely be challenged on their eroneous (IMO) beliefs, but that it should be done in civil fashion. I just do not see it as a choice between being polite & letting things slide.

I try to 'challenge' people with evidence & logic, and 'challenge' them to refute me in the same way if possible. I don't think that legitimizes their views, only their right to express and discuss those views.

If I am able to clearly refute them with evidence and logic in a way that does not alienate them, I feel that makes a much better & more obvious statement then merely shouting them down. Not just to bystanders, but also to the person as well.

If I can't do that civily, I take that as a sign I need to back off a bit until I have sharpened my game up on the subject at hand. It tells me I am going to much on faith in something for my own opinion, and need to do some reading.

I guess a big part the reason I always felt bad about getting masty or personal with someone is that I felt it was a failure on my part as a skeptic & critical thinker. I felt like my behavior stemmed out of frustration. Frustration either with my inability to properly form an argument, or from unrealistic expectations about controling what people said & thought in an internet forum.

Also, I am a naturally nice and loveable type.

Regards, Canis

P.S. I do tend to get tired of talking to the more tenacious "brick wall" types fairly quickly. That is when I usually bow out. I have accepted that they will go on saying what they are saying indefinately, and I can't stop them. So I bow out, or copout if you will and let them have the field. The only way I have seen these guys stopped by aggressive personal comments is when they are baited into crossing the line by more experienced insulters and getting themselves banned. While that particular tactic can be effective, I don’t think I would feel intellectually honest if I did that intentionally myself.

 

[caniswalensis]

The more pertinent question is whether bacterium are part of the body. Since it would be hard to have a body without them, the answer is likely yes.

I am not sure your conclusion necessarily follows from your premise.

True, it would be hard to have a body without them, but bacteria are seperate & independant organisms.

Great! Now my mind is racing.

Canis

 

[John Albert]

I have been on internet forums for several years now and have argued hard & mean, discussed nice & polite and everything in between. I personally always felt worse after a bitter, hateful exchange. Not only that, I never noticed a lot of success when I did so. At best, I felt like it was simply shouting someone down. I see no value in that.

I agree. I've even found that an overheated exchange on the interwebs can ruin my mood for the entire day. I can only imagine how badly it might have made the other person feel.

Nowadays, if somebody tries to engage me with condescension or belittlement, I just try to turn it around into a joke as best I can.

Maybe some people just truly enjoy the chance to belittle others and insult them. Maybe the reasons for that are no more tangible than my own for not enjoying it.

 

[EvilBiker]

A little bit off topic:

My girlfriend is busy doing some consulting work for the City of Cape Town. The other day she happened to be in a lift with some municipal workers who were about to confront the city council to try and get their salaries paid - they had not been paid for 3 months.

She asked how they managed to survive for that period of time with no money (we're talking really low wages here - these guys tend to live hand-to-mouth). Their answer was: "We live on sugar water".

Essentially they were surviving on just sugar and water, for periods of 3 weeks or more between solid foods.