Is Sugar Toxic?

[mm84321]

Recent New York Times article by Gary Taubes detailing UCSF pediatric endocrinologist Dr. Robert Lustig and his arguments on the toxic effects of fructose. If Lustig is right, then our excessive consumption of sugar is the primary reason that the numbers of obese and diabetic Americans have skyrocketed in the past 30 years. But his argument implies more than that. If Lustig is right, it would mean that sugar is also the likely dietary cause of several other chronic ailments widely considered to be diseases of Western lifestyles — heart disease, hypertension and many common cancers among them. In Lustig’s view, sugar should be thought of, like cigarettes and alcohol, as something that’s killing us. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/ma...pagewanted=all

 

[Nicola]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypoglycemia Ya don't want any sugar in your body.

 

[globetrotter]

read the article, makes sense to me

 

[mm84321]

Originally Posted by Nicola

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypoglycemia Ya don't want any sugar in your body.
This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Do you even know the pathology of the condition hypoglycemia?

 

[Scrumhalf]

Alan Aragon doesn't seem to have a very high opinion of Lustig's fructose theories.. http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/0...tose-alarmism/

 

[mm84321]

Originally Posted by Scrumhalf

Alan Aragon doesn't seem to have a very high opinion of Lustig's fructose theories.. http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/0...tose-alarmism/
That's nice, I don't have a very high opinion of Alan Aragon, either. I've read his arguments, and his obsession with citing the Japanese as an example that fructose is harmless borders on comical. These bodybuilder "gurus" don't seem to realize that just because something might not make one fat at first, does not mean it isn't doing harm internally. It's not all about the definition of your abdominal muscles.

 

[Lagrangian]

Didn't Lustig go all gaga on some blog commenting his fructose rant? A lot of the stuff you seem to poast here is about low-carb or taubes' book and that's just great, but I'd advise you to take all that with a grain of salt (an expression, or if you must, use sea salt).

 

[mm84321]

Originally Posted by TrH

Didn't Lustig go all gaga on some blog commenting his fructose rant? A lot of the stuff you seem to poast here is about low-carb or taubes' book and that's just great, but I'd advise you to take all that with a grain of salt (an expression, or if you must, use sea salt).
A grain of salt is something I would normally take, but when one is making a nonsensical argument, such as Aragon does, I prefer to stick to the facts. If you read the New York Times article, you'll see Taubes mentioning the Japanese argument, and then promptly dismissing it.

 

[SeanathonHuff]

You can live on fat & protein alone, and you may be better off because of it. Removing carbs from your diet is also going to contribute to calorie restriction (unless all the carbs are compensated with calories from the remaining food groups) that can lead to longevity. Obviously, fruit & vegetables are acceptable.

 

[MikeDT]

Of course too much sugar is bad for you. Too much of anything can be bad for you. Too much sugar, salt, junk food, etc. This is the main problem with the western diet. Since I've been in China, specifically Inner Mongolia, my diet is much more healthy.

 

[virus646]

Originally Posted by mm84321

A grain of salt is something I would normally take, but when one is making a nonsensical argument, such as Aragon does, I prefer to stick to the facts.

If you read the New York Times article, you'll see Taubes mentioning the Japanese argument, and then promptly dismissing it.

I don't think you have read much of Aragon.

 

[BBSLM]

Originally Posted by mm84321

A grain of salt is something I would normally take, but when one is making a nonsensical argument, such as Aragon does, I prefer to stick to the facts.

If you read the New York Times article, you'll see Taubes mentioning the Japanese argument, and then promptly dismissing it.

fuckin loled.

 

[AlmostFullBenefits]

TLDR: Like with alcohol, you know drinking to much will kill you, but in moderation its okay, and you don't have to cut it out completely. Same thing basically.

I think the major issue people have with his claim is what constitutes as moderate consumption, not that excessive fructose consumption could be unhealthy. Our daily sugar (glucose + fructose, in some form) intake as dramatically increased since WW2, and abundant quantities of government subsidize sweeteners (HFCS) have only enabled this sugar rush.

However, in order to popularize himself, Lustig resorts to using scare-tactics and other tools of propaganda, rather than pure science, to make than reason driven by scientific evidence. This does not bode well for his intentions, as his methods raise too many red flags amongst the research community. Fructose is not toxic, as it a does not have a true toxicogenic pathway in the body. The liver will metabolize fructose in glucose, which when in excess in the blood stream, will then be converted to triglycerides and stored in adipose tissue. Excessive water or salt will also kill you, but these are not toxins either.

However, having a chronic state of high-blood sugar, which stimulates an insulin response, especially without physical activity is perhaps harmful, in ways other than just leading to insulin insensitivity or diabetes, as Lustig and others claim. One could speculate using logic, that if a person has chronic high blood sugar from poor diet, and both insulin insensitive and low physical activity, the body's two ways of maintaining normal blood glucose levels, then the body will attempt to adapt to the new environment and maintain homeostasis, in ways which could ultimately be pathological (e.g., tumorigenesis).

 

[AlmostFullBenefits]

Here's a more thorough, and research-supported explanation: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=6501

 

[djlukin]

Sugar is very responsible however more generally, high glycemic carbohydrates (which break down to simple sugars in your body quickly) are just as bad. Whole grain initiative is high GI carbs, don't buy into it. Low GI carbs are vegetables and fruits in most cases. Stick to that. Remember quite simply, carbs break down into simple sugars.