• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Sugar is Toxic?

A few years ago I read a newspaper article about carrots -- carrots! -- which averred that carrots are bad for you because they're "high in sugar, which is poison for the body".

CARROTS!! Wow, things are getting out of hand. I eat carrots every day, wow, I guess nothing is healthy anymore. That's it, I'm going to eat nothing but dirt from now on!
 
So I'm having lunch with my co-workers today and one of them starts talking about how she has gone three months without sugar. The natural questions ensue, "oh, is it a diet", etc.

She tells us no. She has been off of sugar because "sugar is a toxin" and an "inflamatory". Her doctor has prescribed this approach to help treat her hypothyroidism. It's also his belief that we shouldn't consume any sugar at all in our diets.

Given that I know she's into alternative treatments (she once told me to try oil pulling for my sinus infection), I just had to ask, "so, is this your MD?" She gave a little sheepish giggle and said, "no, he's my kinesiologist".

Then she goes into how much better she's feeling and how her husband who is also on the no sugar regimen for athritic symptoms is feeling so much better too.

This was certainly one of those instances where I had to hold back a bit for the sake of office relations.

The funny thing is that this isn't the first time I've heard the "sugar is toxic" claim being thrown about. Any ideas why this seems to be the hot topic of late?

What you have to understand is the proper definition of toxin in current usage:

:jaw-droppToxin (tok sin) noun = "my hairdresser, astrologer, chiropracter, new age guru, holistic medicine wizard, cousin's best friend's aunt on her mother's side's herbalist, etc./ad infin. said that stuff will make you crap blood, stunt your growth, enlarge things you do not want enlarged and/or shrink things you want bigger and just might kill you too. It's poison I tell yez!!":jaw-dropp
 
CARROTS!! Wow, things are getting out of hand. I eat carrots every day, wow, I guess nothing is healthy anymore. That's it, I'm going to eat nothing but dirt from now on!
A former coworker once pointed out that carrots cause vehicle crashes. If you look at the diets of drivers and pilots, 99% of them had carrots in some form within 48 hours of their crash...
 
A lot of foosl cite the work of Otto Warburg to support the idea that sugar causes cancer.
Fixed. :cool:

I will say that there is evidence that while sugar does not cause, it can can help cancer cells to grow - but not by "feeding" the cells as some say. Rather sugar can cause the body to produce insulin, which "tells" cells to grow - including cancer cells. That is not proven conclusively, but is a valid hypothesis - I don't have links/studies offhand but I think there is some evidence to support it.

As for the pseudo doctors and similar quackaramas, don't get me started....
 
We require sugar. Without glucose, we would simply die, and quickly.

Calling sugar toxic is about as useful as calling water toxic. It is absolutely mandatory that you consume enough of it, or enough of an alternative that your body can convert into it.

Outrageously ridiculous claim.. :mad:

In the context of the OP this is wrong. You do not need to consume sugar. Sucrose, or table sugar, does not occur in nature and is, for all intents and purposes, "toxic" to our bodies, as is HFCS. Even in small amounts these products cause blood sugar to spike, which inevitably then plummets. This is why people seek sugary food over and over again, knowing it is bad for them - they just want the quick fix. In a way, they need it to stave off headaches and other hypoglycemic symptoms. Food is basically converted into sugar in our bodies. You could eat nothing but meat, which has no sugar, and live just fine - you would actually lose weight. Vitamin supplements would be smart on that diet but I digress.

CARROTS!! Wow, things are getting out of hand. I eat carrots every day, wow, I guess nothing is healthy anymore. That's it, I'm going to eat nothing but dirt from now on!

Carrots, along with any root vegetable, are primarily carbohydrates, and therefore create the same effect in the body as does white sugar. The body doesn't differentiate between the name of the food you eat. It only knows carbs, proteins, and fat. Carrots are not, however, necessarily unhealthy when consumed in a moderate amount. To put it another way, people on low carb diets do not eat carrots or potatoes or any root vegetable.
 
In the context of the OP this is wrong. You do not need to consume sugar. Sucrose, or table sugar, does not occur in nature and is, for all intents and purposes, "toxic" to our bodies, as is HFCS. Even in small amounts these products cause blood sugar to spike, which inevitably then plummets. This is why people seek sugary food over and over again, knowing it is bad for them - they just want the quick fix. In a way, they need it to stave off headaches and other hypoglycemic symptoms. Food is basically converted into sugar in our bodies. You could eat nothing but meat, which has no sugar, and live just fine - you would actually lose weight. Vitamin supplements would be smart on that diet but I digress.



Carrots, along with any root vegetable, are primarily carbohydrates, and therefore create the same effect in the body as does white sugar. The body doesn't differentiate between the name of the food you eat. It only knows carbs, proteins, and fat. Carrots are not, however, necessarily unhealthy when consumed in a moderate amount. To put it another way, people on low carb diets do not eat carrots or potatoes or any root vegetable.
Wow... Um...

Sugar only refers to sucrose?
Sucrose doesn't occur naturally?
You could live on nothing but meat and be fine?
All carbohydrates have the effect of white sugar?

You need to start offering some citations for this nonsense, cuz um... That kind of (kind of???) goes against what science tells us.

ETA: I hope the post I quoted was a joke, because I haven't been able to stop laughing since I read it...
 
Last edited:
Ooh, can I play?

You do not need to consume water and so for all intents and purposes, water is toxic to our bodies. It causes ADH production to plummet which inevitably then spikes. We only seek out water to stave off thirst and other hypovolemic symptoms. Food is basically converted into water in our bodies. You could eat nothing but vegetables, which have no water, and live just fine.

Linda
 
Last edited:
Wow... Um...

Sugar only refers to sucrose?
Sucrose doesn't occur naturally?
You could live on nothing but meat and be fine?
All carbohydrates have the effect of white sugar?

You need to start offering some citations for this nonsense, cuz um... That kind of (kind of???) goes against what science tells us.

ETA: I hope the post I quoted was a joke, because I haven't been able to stop laughing since I read it...

1. I was referring to the context of the OP. A poster mentioned that we need sugar to live. This is wrong. Our bodies use glucose as a fuel, which has been converted from other foods, sometimes carbs.
2. White sugar does not occur naturally; it has to be processed from other plants, usually cane or beets.
3. http://www.jbc.org/content/87/3/651.full.pdf+html
4. Sugar is a carbohydrate whic hthe body does not differentiate. Table sugar is metabolized much more quickly than other carbs but nutritionally they are all the same. Again, people on low carb diets do not skip the white sugar and head for the mashed potatoes.

So what you can do now is continue laughing at what science says, or you can think about this and maybe change your mind.
 
1. I was referring to the context of the OP. A poster mentioned that we need sugar to live. This is wrong. Our bodies use glucose as a fuel, which has been converted from other foods, sometimes carbs.
Glucose is a sugar. The OP said "sugar". Sugar does not only refer to table sugar.
2. White sugar does not occur naturally; it has to be processed from other plants, usually cane or beets.
You didn't say white sugar, you said "Sucrose, or table sugar". I addressed the "sucrose" portion of that statement. Back it up, or recant your assertion.
Scurvy anyone? How about osteoporosis? Living on "meat for one year" != "living on nothing but meat". Similarly "living on mostly meat" (as eskimos) != "living on nothing but meat". Adding "dietary supplements" to "living on nothing but meat" != "living on nothing but meat". The key word there is "nothing", in case you missed it.
4. Sugar is a carbohydrate whic hthe body does not differentiate. Table sugar is metabolized much more quickly than other carbs but nutritionally they are all the same. Again, people on low carb diets do not skip the white sugar and head for the mashed potatoes.
No, but they do eat carrots instead of cookies. The rate at which a substance is absorbed doesn't make a difference, suddenly? The difference between a complex carbohydrate and a simple carbohydrate is... nonexistent? If that's the case, why is there a distinction made at all?

Sure, caloric value-wise they may be the same, but we're not talking about calories here, we're talking about things like blood sugar spikes, effects on insulin production, and "toxicity", aren't we?

So what you can do now is continue laughing at what science says, or you can think about this and maybe change your mind.
Yep, I'm going to continue laughing at your post. It's ridiculous. Absolutely hilarious. Less so, now that I realize you were totally serious, but still pretty darned funny.
 
Ooh, can I play?

You do not need to consume water and so for all intents and purposes, water is toxic to our bodies. It causes ADH production to plummet which inevitably then spikes. We only seek out water to stave off thirst and other hypovolemic symptoms. Food is basically converted into water in our bodies. You could eat nothing but vegetables, which have no water, and live just fine.

Linda
:D
 
Sugar is not toxic. It is an essential nutrient.

Sugar is a class of carbohydrates containing many different molecules of varying complexity.

The simplest sugars are called monosaccharides. They consist of a single carbohydrate, or saccharide (a carbon ring with hydroxyl (H-O) groups and a carbonyl (C=O) attached), hence the name "monosaccharides." Glucose and fructose are monosaccharides. Glucose is the basic chemical energy source for most life forms. Fructose is the sugar that naturally occurs in fruit, vegetables, and some grains.

Disaccharides are sugars made of two saccharides bound together into a larger molecule. Sucrose, maltose, and lactose are disaccharides. Sucrose (table sugar), for example, is a single glucose joined to a single fructose.

There are also trisaccharides and polysaccharides, which are longer chains of saccharides. Polysaccharides is a rather large group that contains not only sugars, but also starches and proteins. 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.

Higher sugars, starches and proteins aren't really important to this discussion, so let's focus on the monosaccharides glucose and fructose, and the disaccharide sucrose, which constitute refined sugars like white table sugar and corn syrup.

When people talk about sugar being "toxic," they're usually referring to refined sugars, specifically sucrose and fructose. As I mentioned above, sucrose (table sugar) is a disaccharide containing both glucose and fructose. Sucrose gets broken apart by enzymes in the saliva into free glucose and fructose.

Fructose, while being an important nutrient for human health, is harmful in excessive amounts because it is not processed in the stomach and duodenum like other sugars, but is broken down by enzymes in the liver, along a similar metabolic pathway as ethanol. Thus, excessive amounts of fructose and sucrose (especially when taken as a refined food additive in the absence of sufficient amounts of fiber) place an extra burden on the liver. Besides this negative effect on the liver, fructose also does not trigger the insulin reaction that makes you feel full, so many people have a tendency to overeat foods that are high in fructose but low in fiber.

Despite excessive fructose being generally bad for you, processed foods sold in America (and exported to most of the world) contain outrageous amounts of artificially-added fructose, in the form of high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS).

Next time you're in the supermarket, have a look at the ingredient labels. You may be astounded at the number of products that contain HFCS as a major ingredient (at or near the top of the list). There are several reasons for this.

The main reason is economic, resulting from instability of the cane sugar industry in the 1970s. Prior to the mid-'70s, the US imported a large share of its sugar from in the form of cane sugar, mostly from Mexico, Brazil, and other South American countries. But in 1974, the price of sugar peaked, and the US corn producers aggressively began marketing HFCS, a cheaper and more plentiful product, as a substitute. The sugar market boomed again in 1980, and that caused an even greater shift away from sugar toward HFCS in the American food and (especially) soft drink industries. Since the 1980s, the amount of HFCS in American foods has increased dramatically.

There are many economic reasons for food companies to add HFCS. For one thing, it's cheap: In the US, HFCS sells for about half the price of white sugar. It's also heavy. The large amounts of dissolved sugars and solids in HFCS boosts the specific gravity of foods, resulting in an increased shelf weight. Since most preprocessed foods are sold by weight, higher specific gravity means more weight to divide into smaller portions, resulting in greater profits.

HFCS is also hydrophilic—very soluble in water—which makes it a cheaper and easier ingredient to work with than refined sugar. Using HFCS incurs fewer energy costs for heating and stirring to dissolve it. On an industrial scale, factors like this can make a huge economic difference. HFCS is common in canned and jarred foods because its molecules remain locked up in water, so it provides better shelf stability to foods that otherwise probably wouldn't need any added sugar.

Another obvious reason for the popularity of HFCS is because it's sweet, and people like stuff that tastes sweet. American foods tend to be very, very sweet.

Is sugar poisonous? Of course not. But like anything else, overconsumption of sugar can be very bad for your health.

One way to restrict your sugar intake is to avoid sweet soft drinks. Those things contain ridiculous amounts of sugar. Another thing you can do is stay away from preprocessed, ready-to-eat foods, and instead just get off your lazy ass and cook for yourself. That way you can be reasonably sure of what you're eating, instead of getting your meals from a can like a damn dog.
 
Last edited:
Despite excessive fructose being generally bad for you, processed foods sold in America (and exported to most of the world) contain outrageous amounts of artificially-added fructose and sucrose, in the form of high-fructose corn syrup.

Your post is mostly reasonable (though some of the claims have mixed evidence) but there is one misleading aspect: the weak implication that HFCS contains much more fructose than white sugar, and is therefore worse for you. In fact, the grade of HFCS used in soda is only 55% fructose, and the grade of HFCS used in other goods is generally only 42% fructose. Sucrose is of course 50% fructose. Most likely, if one is having health problems due to simple sugars, it is not because of the exact mix of fructose and glucose.

- Dr. Trintignant
 
Your post is mostly reasonable (though some of the claims have mixed evidence) but there is one misleading aspect: the weak implication that HFCS contains much more fructose than white sugar, and is therefore worse for you.


Yeah, that's right. White cane sugar contains roughly the same proportions of sucrose and fructose. They're both equally bad, but in America at least, HFCS is a bigger problem simply because it's so ubiquitous. It sometimes seems like they put that stuff in damn near everything.

Try going into a gas station or convenience store and finding a bottled soft drink that contains no HFCS. It's ridiculous. I'm just thirsty, dammit! I'm not looking for a sugar buzz!
 
Yeah, that's right. White cane sugar contains roughly the same proportions of sucrose and fructose. They're both equally bad, but in America at least, HFCS is a bigger problem simply because it's so ubiquitous. It sometimes seems like they put that stuff in damn near everything.

Indeed. I think the economic argument against HFCS is the most convincing. It's an incredibly cheap way to make many things taste "better"--in the sense that people would prefer it in a comparative taste test. Of course, we don't actually eat food in total isolation, and further our taste is adaptive, so we end up paying the cost of sweet foods without reaping the benefits.

It annoys me that sweetened bottled tea outnumbers unsweetened by like 10:1...

- Dr. Trintignant
 
Off topic:

This fourm contines to amaze me in regards to the behavior and attitudes displayed here. I cannot fathom why a simple discussion of sugar is viewed as an opportunity to belittle and insult others. There is not much of an idealogical element to this discussion that I can see. Do we really have so much of our ego tied up in having a superior knowledge of sugar that we feel the need to go on the attack?

I just don't get it. Somebody please explain it to me.
 
Off topic:

This fourm contines to amaze me in regards to the behavior and attitudes displayed here. I cannot fathom why a simple discussion of sugar is viewed as an opportunity to belittle and insult others. There is not much of an idealogical element to this discussion that I can see. Do we really have so much of our ego tied up in having a superior knowledge of sugar that we feel the need to go on the attack?

I just don't get it. Somebody please explain it to me.
The only thing I see here that comes close to insult or belittlement is that Nurse Dan's arguments are described as laughable in a perhaps somewhat passive aggressive way.
I tend to agree, seeing how he's pronouncing some fairly obvious falsehoods with great confidence, and is partly arguing against things nobody wrote.

So I'm not sure what your problem is, in this case.
 

Back
Top Bottom