• 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?

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.

That would be it, but I have to disagree that it is passively aggressive. IMO, it is just plain old aggressive.

My problem is that I do not understand the impulse to act so ugly on such a non-offensive topic. I expect this sort of stuff in politics or religion, but sugar? really guys? :confused:

The salient points were addressed, there is no need to get personal about it.

So why do it?

I am attempting to gain a better understanding of why people behave this way. I really can't understand this one. So what if someone is saying something that is not correct? Does that mean they are lying or misinformed? Does that make them evil? Contemptable? What makes someone come back after 15 min.s to edit their post just to tell a person they are laughing at them?

I am sorry, and I do not mean to start a fracus or get anyone's ire up, but I just do not get it. I am hoping to hear a reasonable explanation for why this is acceptable behavior.

Thanks & regards, Canis
 
That would be it, but I have to disagree that it is passively aggressive. IMO, it is just plain old aggressive.

My problem is that I do not understand the impulse to act so ugly on such a non-offensive topic. I expect this sort of stuff in politics or religion, but sugar? really guys? :confused:

The salient points were addressed, there is no need to get personal about it.

So why do it?

I am attempting to gain a better understanding of why people behave this way. I really can't understand this one. So what if someone is saying something that is not correct? Does that mean they are lying or misinformed? Does that make them evil? Contemptable? What makes someone come back after 15 min.s to edit their post just to tell a person they are laughing at them?

I am sorry, and I do not mean to start a fracus or get anyone's ire up, but I just do not get it. I am hoping to hear a reasonable explanation for why this is acceptable behavior.

Thanks & regards, Canis
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 topic.

I think it is the apparent refusal to examine his own conceptions that leaves his argument open to ridicule, though I would have been a bit milder in the ridicule myself (more like fls, for instance).

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.
 
I assume that the non-doctor "doctor" is referring to dietary sugars -- which, generally speaking, have extremely high GI values and so can contribute to overeating and weight gain.
That's what I'd assume as well. I have hypothryroidism and the only times that any medical person has mentioned sugar to me is in the context of keeping my weight down. If a doctor tried telling me "sugar is toxic", I'd start slowly backing away.

Yes, sure, sugar is toxic in enough quantities. As is water.
 
...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....

This one's new to me.
Could you point out to me where to find out more?
 
This one's new to me.
Could you point out to me where to find out more?
I've never heard of Bigred's claim either.
As I understand it, all cells consume glucose, but cancerous cells take up more glucose than normal cells (because they grow faster). The woosters have taken this fact and interpreted it ass-backwards, claiming that "sugar feeds cancer" and that cutting out sugar will stop cancer cells growing. Nonsense, of course - glucose comes from a variety of sources and cancer cells will continue to uptake any glucose they can find.
 
Well, the question Bigfooter asks is interesting. Why is "sugar is toxic" the hot topic? Why do we see any of the "X is toxic" ideas making the rounds?

It's possible to take a bunch of half-truths and un-truths and make anything "toxic". So why pick one over another? Or why even do it at all?

And then we are presented with misinformation. First Nursedan and now John Albert has thrown his/her hat into the ring. What do we do about that? The naive inclination is to merely correct any false information ("gluconeogenesis is not metabolically equivalent to ingestion of sugars", "sucrose is found naturally in many food plants", "there are not enzymes in the saliva which convert disaccharides to monosaccharides", "fructose is phosphorylated in the liver while ethanol undergoes oxidation and dehydrogenation - all dissimilar processes"). And caniswalensis is probably right. It should be how we start. But it takes many sentences of careful explanation to counter-act each throwaway sentence of false information. And when you get even more nonsense in return, the work involved grows exponentially, making this strategy unmanageable. It isn't a surprise that after a while, some people just skip that step and move on to the "this is all nonsense" part.

What may be interesting is where this misinformation comes from in the first place and what makes people comfortable passing it on. While some of it could be an honest mistake (the description of the action of salivary amylase does sound like it might describe the conversion of disaccharides to monosaccharides, the description of gluconeogenesis does sorta give the impression that food can be converted to sugars), some of it goes beyond simple misunderstanding (there isn't any way to misread the metabolism of ethanol and find it to be similar to fructose). So what interests me is, where did this information come from and why did you believe it? Does being met with ridicule when you pass on this information lead you to think twice about accepting this information uncritically in the first place?

Linda
 
Last edited:
Well, the question Bigfooter asks is interesting. Why is "sugar is toxic" the hot topic? Why do we see any of the "X is toxic" ideas making the rounds?

It's possible to take a bunch of half-truths and un-truths and make anything "toxic". So why pick one over another? Or why even do it at all?

And then we are presented with misinformation. First Nursedan and now John Albert has thrown his/her hat into the ring. What do we do about that? The naive inclination is to merely correct any false information ("gluconeogenesis is not metabolically equivalent to ingestion of sugars", "sucrose is found naturally in many food plants", "there are not enzymes in the saliva which convert disaccharides to monosaccharides", "fructose is phosphorylated in the liver while ethanol undergoes oxidation and dehydrogenation - all dissimilar processes"). And caniswalensis is probably right. It should be how we start. But it takes many sentences of careful explanation to counter-act each throwaway sentence of false information. And when you get even more nonsense in return, the work involved grows exponentially, making this strategy unmanageable. It isn't a surprise that after a while, some people just skip that step and move on to the "this is all nonsense" part.

What may be interesting is where this misinformation comes from in the first place and what makes people comfortable passing it on. While some of it could be an honest mistake (the description of the action of salivary amylase does sound like it might describe the conversion of disaccharides to monosaccharides, the description of gluconeogenesis does sorta give the impression that food can be converted to sugars), some of it goes beyond simple misunderstanding (there isn't any way to misread the metabolism of ethanol and find it to be similar to fructose). So what interests me is, where did this information come from and why did you believe it? Does being met with ridicule when you pass on this information lead you to think twice about accepting this information uncritically in the first place?

Linda

If we weren't both married I'd propose to you.

Excellent post.
 
...Does being met with ridicule when you pass on this information lead you to think twice about accepting this information uncritically in the first place?
I would make me do that, yes. But possibly not everyone, so I guess you make a fair point.
 
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.

Good post. As per economics of hfcs, do you know what other products might come with the production of hfcs? Animal feeds? Corn starch? Others?
 
Good post.

Quarky, I'm not picking on you. I'm trying to get at the processes behind these various "X is toxic" trends.

What led you to accept the information in that post as "good"?

Linda
 
I'm trying to get at the processes behind these various "X is toxic" trends.

What led you to accept the information in that post as "good"?

Linda

I can't speak to the economic history lesson, but the digestion process looks accurate as long as I ignore the sentence about amylase in saliva and interpret the "similar pathway to ethanol" as meaning that the liver is the only place with equipment to process it. Have you challenges to the other facts listed?

And given that the post starts out flatly denying that sugar is a toxin, how will this post help you understand why people think random**** is toxic?

Edited by Locknar: 
Edited, breach of rule 10; please do not curse in your posts or mask such words in an attempt to by-pass the auto-censor.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I can't speak to the economic history lesson, but the digestion process looks accurate as long as I ignore the sentence about amylase in saliva and interpret the "similar pathway to ethanol" as meaning that the liver is the only place with equipment to process it. Have you challenges to the other facts listed?

Yes. I just picked out two examples from each. I didn't mean to imply they were the only examples.

And given that the post starts out flatly denying that sugar is a toxin, how will this post help you understand why people think random**** is toxic?
Edited by Locknar: 
Edited, moderated content.

It helps me to understand what it is about the presentation that allows "looks accurate" to include half-truths and untruths. And while the poster may deny the "sugar is toxic" part, she/he made claims that HFCS was detrimental ("negative effect on the liver").

Linda
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If I understand the post correctly, it's not so much claiming that HFCS itself is dangerous to the liver, but that overdosing on fructose is (which I learned in class) and that as the vast majority of foods have HFCS added, we are overdosing on fructose without realizing it.
 
If I understand the post correctly, it's not so much claiming that HFCS itself is dangerous to the liver, but that overdosing on fructose is (which I learned in class) and that as the vast majority of foods have HFCS added, we are overdosing on fructose without realizing it.

Okay. That's basically the same thing as saying that HFCS is toxic (for the purposes of my question).

Linda
 
Even though he's saying it's the dose that makes the toxin, same for any other substance in existence?
 
Yes. I just picked out two examples from each. I didn't mean to imply they were the only examples.
I noticed that post claimed that proteins were polysaccharids - not true. No mention, OTOH, of glycogen as a polysaccharid.

It helps me to understand what it is about the presentation that allows "looks accurate" to include half-truths and untruths. And while the poster may deny the "sugar is toxic" part, she/he made claims that HFCS was detrimental ("negative effect on the liver").

A short review of the science on sugar (HFCS actually, but sugar is almost the same thing)

For this moment going with the assumption that the fructose part is the critical part of sugar intake that affects your health - for whatever reason - I don't quite understand why the video picks on HFCS. It compares specifically HFCS55 - 55% fructose, 43% glucose, 2% non-sugars - with table sugar, 100% sucrose. It mentions that the sweetness of fructose is 1.7 times that of sucrose and of glucose 0.8 that of sucrose.

Assuming sweetness is additive, that gives me that an equal mass of HFCS is 1.279 times as sweet as an equal mass of sucrose. So you could use for a certain product 1 kg of HFCS, which contains 550 grams of fructose, or you could use 1.279 kg of sucrose, which contains 640 grams of fructose. The latter would be worse for your health.

Wat am I missing? :confused:
 
Even though he's saying it's the dose that makes the toxin, same for any other substance in existence?

This:

"...that as the vast majority of foods have HFCS added, we are overdosing on fructose without realizing it."

Linda
 

Back
Top Bottom