| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
 Posted: Thu Jul 28, 2011 12:40 pm Post subject: Is Sugar Toxic? |
 |
|
Lustig and Taubes grapple with the dangers of fructose
| Gary Taubes wrote: |
The conventional wisdom has long been that the worst that can be said about sugars of any kind is that they cause tooth decay and represent �empty calories� that we eat in excess because they taste so good.
By this logic, sugar-sweetened beverages (or H.F.C.S.-sweetened beverages, as the Sugar Association prefers they are called) are bad for us not because there�s anything particularly toxic about the sugar they contain but just because people consume too many of them.
Those organizations that now advise us to cut down on our sugar consumption � the Department of Agriculture, for instance, in its recent Dietary Guidelines for Americans, or the American Heart Association in guidelines released in September 2009 (of which Lustig was a co-author) � do so for this reason. Refined sugar and H.F.C.S. don�t come with any protein, vitamins, minerals, antioxidants or fiber, and so they either displace other more nutritious elements of our diet or are eaten over and above what we need to sustain our weight, and this is why we get fatter.
Whether the empty-calories argument is true, it�s certainly convenient. It allows everyone to assign blame for obesity and, by extension, diabetes � two conditions so intimately linked that some authorities have taken to calling them �diabesity� � to overeating of all foods, or underexercising, because a calorie is a calorie.
. . .
Lustig�s argument, however, is not about the consumption of empty calories � and biochemists have made the same case previously, though not so publicly. It is that sugar has unique characteristics, specifically in the way the human body metabolizes the fructose in it, that may make it singularly harmful, at least if consumed in sufficient quantities.
The phrase Lustig uses when he describes this concept is �isocaloric but not isometabolic.� This means we can eat 100 calories of glucose (from a potato or bread or other starch) or 100 calories of sugar (half glucose and half fructose), and they will be metabolized differently and have a different effect on the body. The calories are the same, but the metabolic consequences are quite different.
The fructose component of sugar and H.F.C.S. is metabolized primarily by the liver, while the glucose from sugar and starches is metabolized by every cell in the body. Consuming sugar (fructose and glucose) means more work for the liver than if you consumed the same number of calories of starch (glucose). And if you take that sugar in liquid form � soda or fruit juices � the fructose and glucose will hit the liver more quickly than if you consume them, say, in an apple (or several apples, to get what researchers would call the equivalent dose of sugar). The speed with which the liver has to do its work will also affect how it metabolizes the fructose and glucose. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
isisaredead
Joined: 18 May 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 28, 2011 6:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
you can die from a water-overdose.
everything in moderation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Louis VI
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
Location: In my Kingdom
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 28, 2011 6:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The liver has to process fructose (even in fruit) the same way it processes ethanol (alcoholic beverages); the same stress is put on your liver from squeezed low pulp orange juice as from whiskey or vodka. I'll link the biochemistry lecture presentation sometime after my vacation this week.
Glucose, on the other hand, is nature's energy source and easily used by the bodies of plants, mammals and humans. Rice, beans, potatoes, basically nonfruit carbs, are good sugars in terms of their effects on the human liver.
It's hypothesized that for 99.9% of our species' history, fructose was rare, certainly infrequent, contrary to images of pineapples and bananas consumed in tropical locales. And to the image of our ancestors as 'hunters and gatherers', humans in all likelihood were not spear-wielding big mammal hunters long, more like frog catchers and alligator egg robbers, GATHERERS of tubers, root veggies, with anthropological evidence suggesting the scavenging of bone marrow from abandoned carcases. Less noble stuff.
If only we had stuck to tilling the soil and hadn't eaten the forbidden fruit... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shapeshifter
Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Location: Paris
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2011 1:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Louis VI wrote: |
| The liver has to process fructose (even in fruit) the same way it processes ethanol (alcoholic beverages); the same stress is put on your liver from squeezed low pulp orange juice as from whiskey or vodka. I'll link the biochemistry lecture presentation sometime after my vacation this week. |
Are you seriously suggesting that freshly squeezed orange juice is as harmful to the liver as alcohol?
I'm familiar with the notion of drinking oneself to death but I had no idea you could do it in the produce section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2011 7:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| shapeshifter wrote: |
| Louis VI wrote: |
| The liver has to process fructose (even in fruit) the same way it processes ethanol (alcoholic beverages); the same stress is put on your liver from squeezed low pulp orange juice as from whiskey or vodka. I'll link the biochemistry lecture presentation sometime after my vacation this week. |
Are you seriously suggesting that freshly squeezed orange juice is as harmful to the liver as alcohol?
I'm familiar with the notion of drinking oneself to death but I had no idea you could do it in the produce section. |
A daily Mountain Dew regimen may do damage to your liver, yes.
Remember that even Taubes admits the evidence hasn't yet been fully developed. But there are some indications that sugar is especially bad for us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shapeshifter
Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Location: Paris
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2011 7:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| shapeshifter wrote: |
| Louis VI wrote: |
| The liver has to process fructose (even in fruit) the same way it processes ethanol (alcoholic beverages); the same stress is put on your liver from squeezed low pulp orange juice as from whiskey or vodka. I'll link the biochemistry lecture presentation sometime after my vacation this week. |
Are you seriously suggesting that freshly squeezed orange juice is as harmful to the liver as alcohol?
I'm familiar with the notion of drinking oneself to death but I had no idea you could do it in the produce section. |
A daily Mountain Dew regimen may do damage to your liver, yes.
Remember that even Taubes admits the evidence hasn't yet been fully developed. But there are some indications that sugar is especially bad for us. |
Well...
Of course Mountain Dew is bad for you. That's one thing.
Saying fresh orange juice is a[b][b]s bad for the liver as whiskey or vodka [/b]is another. I find it a little puzzling, but I'm certainly not a doctor.[/b] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bobrocket
Joined: 26 Jan 2011
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2011 4:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Haha, I remember a few years ago, some US quack was saying oranges had to much sugar and were unhealty, maybe that's part of the obesity problem now. I don't know what they put in their fruit but in my part of world, fresh fruit is the healthy option.
....to much sugar, potatoe's have to many carbs, just keep going on your search for protein shakes while I enjoy my fresh fruit and veges, meats and beer.
Moderation is a good thing, just because the label says it's good for you doesn't mean squat |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
schwa
Joined: 18 Jan 2003
Location: Yap
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bobrocket
Joined: 26 Jan 2011
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2011 5:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
Of course it's easier to buy orange juice, why would anyone want to use real oranges and make it themselves, that's just stupid, who has time for that?
Again the labels are advertising, even Mc Ds has a healthy option? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gorf
Joined: 25 Jun 2011
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2011 7:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I sincerely hope you don't teach English, bobrocket. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Louis VI
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
Location: In my Kingdom
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2011 4:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bobrocket wrote: |
| ...just because the label says it's good for you doesn't mean squat |
If it HAS a label, it's not the healthiest option. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
UknowsI
Joined: 16 Apr 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2011 11:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Different toxicity levels are clearly defined. Why doesn't he simply ask a toxicity lab to measure the level of sugar? My guess is that it's because it wouldn't be classified as a toxic substance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Illysook
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2011 11:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sugar a toxin... what will they think of next?
The word toxic means poisonous.
Are you not English teachers?
Don't you know this?
Carbohydrates are broken down into glucose which is your body's main fuel. It happens faster with simple sugars than with more complex carbohydrates. Eating too many sweets or drinking a lot of syrupy sodas will make you fat and the extra weight has consequences for your long term health, but the sugars themselves are not poisons. Geesh! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2011 8:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| UknowsI wrote: |
| Different toxicity levels are clearly defined. Why doesn't he simply ask a toxicity lab to measure the level of sugar? My guess is that it's because it wouldn't be classified as a toxic substance. |
Yes, he admits that there needs to be more research on glucose's impact on the liver. But there are indications it may be similar to alcohol.
| Illysook wrote: |
Sugar a toxin... what will they think of next?
The word toxic means poisonous.
Are you not English teachers?
Don't you know this? |
Read the article. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Louis VI
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
Location: In my Kingdom
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2011 10:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| UknowsI wrote: |
| Different toxicity levels are clearly defined. Why doesn't he simply ask a toxicity lab to measure the level of sugar? My guess is that it's because it wouldn't be classified as a toxic substance. |
Yes, he admits that there needs to be more research on glucose's impact on the liver. But there are indications it may be similar to alcohol. |
FRUCTOSE (in processed sugar and in fruits) is the problem for your liver, not glucose!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
