I have a friend who is into health foods. For a long time he’s been telling me that most of out bodily ills come from the consumption of refined sugar (sucrose). His claims:
-tooth decay was almost unknown before the 1600’s (at the time that white sugar became readily available)
-the rate of cancer shows a correlation with the consumption of white sugar
-sugar (in the human diet) replaces nutrients and vitamines with "empty " colries
-white sugar consumption leads to obesity and diabetes
So, is white sugar the all-time villain of food?
Should we avoid it like the plague?
Uh-huh.
You might start by asking your friend this one: if most of our “bodily ills” stem from the use of refined sugar since the 1600s, how does he account for the dramatic increase in life expectancy since that time? (Sugar surely isn’t responsible for that, but if it was such a poison, you’d expect us to be dropping like flies in our teens).
Overloading on sugar is not especially good for you, refined or not (what’s the magic significance of “refined”?), as is overindulgence in a variety of foods.
Sugar gets blamed for a variety of ills, as do carbohydrates in all of their insidious and multifarious complexity. The blame game is convenient for those who seek simplistic answers to complex situations.
My two cents.
Must be time for my afternoon candy bar.
Given that I can eat a pound of sugar and not die, calling white sugar a deadly poison is pure hyperbole. While eating too much isn’t good for, just about anything can cause illness if you eat too much of it. Vitamin A, is leathal at doses far below that of sugar. You can die if you drink too much water. As long as you keep things in moderation, then you won’t have problems.
Well, the first bullet item is easily refuted by archaelogical evidence:
http://www.ci.palmer-lake.co.us/plhs/dentaltools.html
http://www.eng-h.gov.uk/ArchRev/rev96_7/enviro.htm
http://www.dentistry4u.com/history_of_dentistry.htm
And so on.
It sort-of true in a sense, giving your friend a germ of truth in a sea of bullshit.
The standard (and highly simplified) diegestive process:[list=1]
[li]Food goes in[/li][li]Body produces insulin[/li][li]Insulin breaks down food[/li][/list=1]
Human evolution gave us a very powerful set of digestive tools to break down foods, which up until the advent of agriculture ~10,000 years ago consisted of whatever meat we could kill and whatever berries or tubers we could scrounge.
Refined sugar (“refined” meaning all the shells and skins and other undigestible junk has been removed) is nearly-pure carbohydrate and the insulin the body automatically releases has no problem at all breaking it down. It has such an easy time, in fact, that much of the insulin ends up hanging around where it attacks anything it can find, and you end up with lower blood sugar than when you started (this is why, somewhat counter-intuitively, some people feel tired after eating sugary snacks). As a result, your blood sugar fluctuates wildly, making you prone to eventual failure of your body’s insulin-production, i.e. diabetes.
Or so the Atkins proponents claim.
In a similar vein, evolution made it possible for a human to run 50 miles a day across an African savannah. We have the muscular and cardiovascular capacity, but agriculture and (later) mechanization reduced the need for such daily labours so we have all this capability going to waste. Result; increased obesity among the population, except for those of us who simulate the rigors of pre-mechanized life by getting daily exercise.
I’ll get to it! Stop nagging me!
No offense meant to Bryan, but the Atkins people’s conception of insulin and diabetes, rather than featuring a germ of truth, is more like a large foul turd floating in a sea of bullshit.
Jesus H. Christ in a chariot-driven sidecar.
Insulin does not “break down” glucose. It doesn’t “absorb” it either, as some mush-head with a Masters’ degree claims on the Atkins website.
This site describes the role of insulin and known causes of diabetes with pretty cartoon pictures to boot.
Eating too many sugary snacks does not give you diabetes, with the caveat that such snacks may make you fat. And fat people are more prone to have insulin resistance and develop (Type II) diabetes. But blaming sugar ignores genetics and other important factors.
It’s so simple just to wave your arms, let your eyes bug out of your head and yell: "CARBOHYDRATES ARE EVIL! REFINED SUGAR IS PURE EVIL!! REPENT!!!.
Urk.
Pour some poison on me.
Refined sugar is not a ‘deadly poison’, which is something that has a low LD50. It is hardly any different from raw sugar. Just washed of a few minerals, fructose and glucose. Yeah I know the cobalt is removed - bfw.
Consumption of refined sugar is not responsible for most of our bodily ills.
Sucrose is definately overconsumed in many countries and contributes to disease in these countries --> dental caries and obesity.
It isnt as bad as your mate makes it out to be, but try to avoid it. Get your energy from complex carbo’s.
Eat fat. It’s good for ya.
To paraphrase Voltaire’s famous comment about coffee, “Refined sugar must be a slow poison indeed, for I have been eating it for 30 years and I am not dead yet!”
I will say one thing for ralph’s friend: he’s right about sugar being empty calories, as it’s got as much vitamins and nutrients as booze. That doesn’t make it a poison, though.
You sound cranky.
Have some ice cream.
OK, if I can sprinkle some steamed pork dumplings on top.
Anyone who eats carrots WILL DIE :eek: (sooner or later) Well, I suppose the same goes for sugar, too.
this has been admirably dealt with. Next.
Correlation is not causation. Maybe, just maybe people who eat a lot of sugar also do other bad stuff.
Uh…no. Just no.
it’s more like
- blood levels of glucose rise
- insulin levels rise
- insulin takes excess glucose from blood, and packs it away in your liver in
the form of glycogen, a complex starch. - blood levels of glucose decrease
- insulin production decreases