Is Sugar Toxic?

Options
123457

Replies

  • xarge
    xarge Posts: 484 Member
    Options
    You are absolutely right! Not only is sugar toxic, but cancer cells feed on sugar stored in the body.

    Uhmm... No.
    And... all cells use glucose. A cancer cell as evil as it may be, is still a cell.

    That said, some types of cancer are statistically related to impaired glucose metabolism and some glycogen metabolism enzymes promote growth in different types of cancer etc etc. but your crucifiction is a bit too far-fetched.
  • SHAMLEYCHAR
    SHAMLEYCHAR Posts: 19
    Options
    LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :)
  • GnochhiGnomes
    GnochhiGnomes Posts: 348 Member
    Options
    What I do find interesting is if you look at the timeless methods of preserving food they pretty much involve sugar salt, smoke or dehydration. Intuitively that tells me something that I don't need a phD or any fancy research paper to figure out.... basically those things (sugar, salt, smoke, dehydration) are great at preserving food and not so great for living organisms.

    Medium sized mammals =/= Microbes.
  • xarge
    xarge Posts: 484 Member
    Options
    What I do find interesting is if you look at the timeless methods of preserving food they pretty much involve sugar salt, smoke or dehydration. Intuitively that tells me something that I don't need a phD or any fancy research paper to figure out.... basically those things (sugar, salt, smoke, dehydration) are great at preserving food and not so great for living organisms.

    It's not about toxicity for sugar and salt but about osmotic equlibrium :/

    When you screw up the the optimum living conditions of an organism by putting it into a hypertonic environment, you'll cause that cell to lose water as according to osmosis, solvents move to the higher solute concentration. Same goes for sugar. Smoking is different of course, that one is toxic indeed.
  • xarge
    xarge Posts: 484 Member
    Options
    What I do find interesting is if you look at the timeless methods of preserving food they pretty much involve sugar salt, smoke or dehydration. Intuitively that tells me something that I don't need a phD or any fancy research paper to figure out.... basically those things (sugar, salt, smoke, dehydration) are great at preserving food and not so great for living organisms.

    Medium sized mammals =/= Microbes.

    A cell is still a cell. In Ancient Egypt natron was used for mummification. It's the salt of a sodium mixture and a dehydrating agent. And ironically some species of bacteria form endospores in unfavorable environments to keep them dormant but alive so some microbes adapt better than medium sized mammals.
  • GnochhiGnomes
    GnochhiGnomes Posts: 348 Member
    Options
    A cell is still a cell.

    Yeah and..? My point still stands.
  • xarge
    xarge Posts: 484 Member
    Options
    Yeah and..? My point still stands.

    It stands dehydrated.

    As I explained above preservation is not about toxicity but drawing the moisture away. Same conditions applied to a human body will give the same result so microbes = medium size mammals in that sense.

    ETA: If you want more semantics, everything is toxic because toxicity is dose dependent.
  • AllTehBeers
    AllTehBeers Posts: 5,030 Member
    Options
    Yeah and..? My point still stands.

    It stands dehydrated.

    As I explained above preservation is not about toxicity but drawing the moisture away. Same conditions applied to a human body will give the same result so microbes = medium size mammals in that sense.

    The same conditions would have to be muliplied exponentially to equal, that's what Gnochhi was getting at I'm sure. You could use hand sanitizer as an example. Kills microbs but harmless to humans.
  • xoyasminxo
    xoyasminxo Posts: 132
    Options
    It is if you have too much. I avoid it as much as possible. The only sugar I eat most of the time is from fruit. Sugar is ok as long is there is fiber with it. I don't want to risk any health issues by consuming extra added sugar (fruit juice, cookies, etc).
  • rjt1000
    rjt1000 Posts: 700 Member
    Options
    Sugar is apparently as toxic as cocaine. Only difference is that refined sugar is readlily available, and if it became against the law, many companies would go bankrupt. I have started to do some research and reading, and refined sugar is deadly.

    Pure cocaine is so toxic they have to cut it. are they cutting sugar now? Must've missed that one.

    I cut my sugar WITH cocaine......
  • tsh0ck
    tsh0ck Posts: 1,970 Member
    Options
    I'm not going to delve into the semantics debate attempting to define "toxin vs toxic"

    I don't think anybody here thinks a diet high in sugar is a good thing- But I don't think very many rational people think that the occasional splurge on a tiny bit of sugar will kill you either.

    What I do find interesting is if you look at the timeless methods of preserving food they pretty much involve sugar salt, smoke or dehydration. Intuitively that tells me something that I don't need a phD or any fancy research paper to figure out.... basically those things (sugar, salt, smoke, dehydration) are great at preserving food and not so great for living organisms.

    uh ... what?

    because it is a preservative, it will hurt us? I smoke ribs all the time. I promise. it's good. also, there is plenty of sugar involved in the rub and glaze for those ribs. gives it a nice bark, ya know? still, good. definitely involve a little salt with the pepper in my rub. yup. you guessed it ... good.

    I don't dehydrate my ribs. that's just wrong. but I do dehydrate my jerky. which, well, you get the idea.
  • ironanimal
    ironanimal Posts: 5,922 Member
    Options
    6lbs of chocolate is supposed to be the standard deadly dosage, but I'm pretty sure I've exceeded that at times.
  • jillebean60
    jillebean60 Posts: 78 Member
    Options
    I don't have to watch the link to know that yes! it is toxic, and responsible for an increase in heart disease and diabetes, not to mention obesity. Since sugar became prevalent in this country, you can see from that point the rapid rise in these disease processes.
  • jillebean60
    jillebean60 Posts: 78 Member
    Options
    The only source of fuel for your brain is sugar. So, well ... you tell me.

    The only source of fuel for your brain is glucose. Which it can make from any available carbohydrates in your food, or from fat ("ketosis"). Added sugar is absolutely unnecessary, medically, if that's what you're trying to say.

    Absolute truth! I agree whole heartedly with all that you've posted.
  • rjt1000
    rjt1000 Posts: 700 Member
    Options
    I don't have to watch the link to know that yes! it is toxic, and responsible for an increase in heart disease and diabetes, not to mention obesity. Since sugar became prevalent in this country, you can see from that point the rapid rise in these disease processes.

    Interesting view. I take a different view. Since sugar usage became prevalent in the US, the average lifespan of US citizens has increased from low 50s to high 70s. I believe sugar actually INCREASES our life spans. You know, based on the bull**** anecdotal correlation type of view of things rather than a cause and effect viewpoint on life.
  • tsh0ck
    tsh0ck Posts: 1,970 Member
    Options
    The only source of fuel for your brain is sugar. So, well ... you tell me.

    The only source of fuel for your brain is glucose. Which it can make from any available carbohydrates in your food, or from fat ("ketosis"). Added sugar is absolutely unnecessary, medically, if that's what you're trying to say.

    Absolute truth! I agree whole heartedly with all that you've posted.

    well, right. carbs are broken down the same way, into the same stuff, as sugar. eat a snickers, that sugar is broken down the same way as the carbs in a slice of organic whole wheat bread. the body doesn't much care which you eat. but if either is broken down the same way, into fuel for your brain and the rest of your body, I kind of think it's probably ok to eat. guess I didn't think I'd have to explain that out.
  • tsh0ck
    tsh0ck Posts: 1,970 Member
    Options
    I don't have to watch the link to know that yes! it is toxic, and responsible for an increase in heart disease and diabetes, not to mention obesity. Since sugar became prevalent in this country, you can see from that point the rapid rise in these disease processes.

    Interesting view. I take a different view. Since sugar usage became prevalent in the US, the average lifespan of US citizens has increased from low 50s to high 70s. I believe sugar actually INCREASES our life spans. You know, based on the bull**** anecdotal correlation type of view of things rather than a cause and effect viewpoint on life.

    yup.

    the increase in obesity probably has no relation to the fact that as our society advances and gets more reliant upon technology to do our work for us, we simply move less than our grandparents did.
  • Silverkittycat
    Silverkittycat Posts: 1,997 Member
    Options
    I don't have to watch the link to know that yes! it is toxic, and responsible for an increase in heart disease and diabetes, not to mention obesity. Since sugar became prevalent in this country, you can see from that point the rapid rise in these disease processes.

    Interesting view. I take a different view. Since sugar usage became prevalent in the US, the average lifespan of US citizens has increased from low 50s to high 70s. I believe sugar actually INCREASES our life spans. You know, based on the bull**** anecdotal correlation type of view of things rather than a cause and effect viewpoint on life.

    Haha! Like!
  • rjt1000
    rjt1000 Posts: 700 Member
    Options

    yup.

    the increase in obesity probably has no relation to the fact that as our society advances and gets more reliant upon technology to do our work for us, we simply move less than our grandparents did.

    that and the fact that the federal government created that whole food pyramid thing which pushed eating multiple servings of high carb items each day. Eat more carbs and get less exercise because we're a dormant society now and SURPRISE people get fatter.

    But I still want one of these "everything gives you cancer" types to explain to me why the average lifespan for us keeps getting longer if all these thigns we eat, drink and use are so bad for us.
  • missjacki
    missjacki Posts: 51
    Options

    But I still want one of these "everything gives you cancer" types to explain to me why the average lifespan for us keeps getting longer if all these thigns we eat, drink and use are so bad for us.

    I'm with you on this. I think that if you live long enough you're bound to get cancer. People are living longer....so VOILA! more cancer.

    Not to mention we have early detection techniques now that we didn't used to have. Result we FIND a lot more cancer....even if that person would have never died from it....perhaps they were bound to die from heart disease long before the cancer ever manifest itself....but since we have gotten so great at finding the cancer we now freak out because cancer rates are up.

    I think cancer rates are up primarily because we are better at finding cancer and because we are living longer. I think it is possible that some environmental or social changes may account for a slight uptick in certain types of cancer....but not the majority.

    I also think that RESEARCH causes cancer in laboratory animals.... :-)

    let's face the music people "SOMETHING HAS TO KILL YOU!!!!" if it's not one thing it's another....it's not morbid it's just reality.

    What matters is what you do with yourself in the meantime and your quality of life. If a little sugar now and again improves your quality of life, but results in you dying at 88 instead of 88 and a half....maybe it's worth it. If eating a box of donuts every morning cuts 12 years off your life....well then I'll leave it up to you whether or not it was worth it because I don't plan on finding out!

Categories