"This study proves that sugar is toxic."

I believe that is the very definition of ‘too much’.

Yeah, I’m just a dumb fuck who doesn’t realize that a caloric deficit generally = weight loss. I hadn’t thought of that.

I’m not going to defend my diet. If anyone is interested, see here.

Your body wants to burn sugar first, fat second, and muscle/protein last. Your insulin levels trigger which fuel it burns. If your insulin levels are high, it stores ingested calories as fat until they normalize, and if they’re low, your body burns some fat for energy. If you’re constantly ingesting sugar with candy and soda throughout the day, the levels stay high and it keeps on storing. Combine that with a sedentary lifestyle and excess calorie intake and you’ve got weight gain.

What the link posted says, simplified, is that insulin is just one factor. If you’re active and/or not taking in more calories than you need, you’ll burn thru the glucose, lower your insulin levels and start burning fat - sugar intake alone isn’t the culprit. True enough.

However, if you’re trying to burn excess fat, you will want to keep your sugar intake levels down so that your body burns fat to maintain healthy glucose and insulin levels; this is why the best one-two punch in weight loss is reduced calorie/low carb diets - they keep the body burning fat rather than storing it. Reducing your calorie intake alone will work, but will result in less fat-burning time while you coast on the insulin spike.

The above is wrong as is most of your post.

On the other hand, I feel better after I’ve eaten a McDonald’s cheeseburger and fries. I’ve fairly sure that’s not because they’re good for me…:smiley:

Calm down. Your post emphasized your specific reduction of carbs and x-rays response was a legitimate comment on the general nature of reducing intake.

Let’s not clutter this thread with unnecessary hostility.

= = =

On the other hand, declaring an entire post “wrong” while providing no counter information is unlikely to promote a good discussion, either.

[ /Moderating ]

I already did that in post 14. Are you going to post this moderating note from now on when you are aware that someone said someone was wrong and you think there was no counter information? I’ll report posts like that in the future to remind you as it happens quite frequently here.

I think some people are confused because Lustig is wording this all funny. I’m pretty sure he wasn’t studying the effects of naturally occurring sugars or starches. For example I looked at the linked study and he placed fruits and cereals in a different category than sugars. I think he’s talking specifically about added sugars in food. He seems particularly concerned with fructose.

Nice post / username combo. :slight_smile:

You’ve done nothing of the sort. You posted a link in a content-less post. You haven’t made a single argument for yourself, but just let someone else do all your work for you.

Personally, I don’t put much stock in sites that go the “myth/fact” route as it makes it very difficult to get a complete picture. Throw in the tone of the site, and, honestly, I’d be surprised if anyone reads it.

You read it and summarize what parts are relevant instead of making us read through six pages of that obnoxiousness.

As opposed to… what? Sugars and starches obtained as byproducts from industrial petrochemical processing? Supernaturally occurring sugars and starches extracted from diabetic ghosts?

Fructose comes from fruits.

Whenever someone claims that eating “sugar” does this, or eating sugar does that, it helps to remember that within minutes after eating anything from bread to pasta, or from rice to potatoes, what you ate has been digested into, . . . wait for it, sugar! (And, said transformation occurs within the digestive tract itself - in other words, it is sugar that you are absorbing).

Thin people are also developing Type II diabetes.

And our increased consumption of sugar seems to be behind this.

There seems to be some misunderstanding here. Just because a substance is natural–as sugar definitely is–doesn’t mean it’s good for you. And just because we need sugar for survival doesn’t mean that we need all the honking heaps of it that the average American consumes.

I think Lustig’s word choice is provocative by necessity because if he were to throw in qualifiers, people would focus on those instead of the greater message: we REALLY need to stop eating so much sugar. Not just the fatties, not just the kiddies, but all of us. And I think a little fear is just what we need if what the research is showing is true (bolding mine):

Maybe it is and maybe it isn’t, but it’s gonna take a better cite than that to convince me.

Could you find where I said it was? (SPOILER: You can’t because I didn’t.)

Yeah, I don’t think the solution to people doing stuff that maybe isn’t the greatest thing for them to do is to think up more alarming, less technically accurate terms for those things. Lustig’s word choice is provocative because that’s how clinical researchers get attention and grant money: by loudly announcing that their research is both more conclusive and more groundbreaking than it probably actually is.

If you want the real story, you have to sift through the literature and the criticism of that literature and the revised studies addressing those criticisms and so on and so forth. I admit it isn’t nearly as much fun as running around in circles yelling about poison, though.

You’ll live longer.

Or if you don’t, it’ll feel like a long time anyway.

The “sugar is toxic” mantra will find favor among those who declaim that sugar causes cancers to proliferate, and that you can “starve” tumors by not eating sugar.

This is bogus. Cancer cells adapt to other metabolic inputs, and all you do by cutting out sugars is deprive normal cells of an easily metabolized substrate.

A challenge to the doubters:

Can you find evidence that our high-sugar diets aren’t inflicting serious harm?

The sugar-is-toxic folks seem to have a ton of evidence on their side. For decades we’ve known that sugar isn’t good for us, so I don’t even know why what they are saying is even controversial. Is there a bank of studies showing that sugar doesn’t, say, elicit an inflammatory response, that I simply don’t know about? What’s driving all the skepticism? It surely isn’t the old “this is what we’ve always done” argument. Our ancestors did not evolve with Mountain Dews and Oreo cookies, so we are doing something to our bodies that is brand new and unprecedented.

I understand being a skeptic. But being a skeptic in the face of mounting evidence doesn’t make sense to me. It would be great if someone would offer a serious critique of these studies instead of playing a silly game of semantics.

Yes, Lustig’s alarm is profitable to him. But if half of what science is showing is true, it’s quite appropriate. “Toxic” is quite apt if sugar is a major player in Alzheimer’s disease.

You could take a “wait and see” approach, I guess. But I know for me, I don’t need a telephone book-size body of overwhelming, irrefutable evidence to know that dumping 18 teaspoons of sugar into my bloodstream at one setting is harmful, so I have stopped drinking sodas. I have been moved to do this because of Lustig et al.'s convincing compendium. It was an easy decision to make, one with no consequential trade-off. I’m just wondering what other people are waiting for. This is not a rhetorical question.

Um, “high-sugar diets” are commonly accepted in the medical community to carry significant risks (i.e. through contributing to obesity) so there’s no real controversy there. What’s dubious are blanket statements like “sugar is toxic”.

As for “show me that our diets aren’t inflicting serious harm”, that’s not how science works. If you make a claim, it’s up to you to provide evidence validating it, not the job of “skeptics” to “prove you wrong” (though oftentimes they are willing to do your homework for you).

And I’m asking why this is the case. Why is it dubious? What makes a negative claim about sugar dubious on its face? This is what I’m not understanding.

Lustig has offered plenty of evidence. If he was just saying “sugar is toxic” without having anything to back it up, I’d be joining the chorus. I’m waiting for the chorus to volley the ball back to him in equal fashion.

Like I said, I understand skepticism. But Lustig ain’t no slouch. He and others have compelling research on their side. Does anyone have a serious critique of this work so that we can have an actual debate, or are we going to waste more time talking about whether “toxic” is the right word?

He has me convinced, but then again I’m not a medical researcher (though I was trained in toxicology long ago…FWIW). And as I said, nothing he has said is all THAT surprising to me.

That’s simply not true. A diet “high” or including “too much” of anything isn’t good for us.

Yeah, what’s controversial about claiming sugar is toxic without defining dose? Or attributing a bunch of diseases solely to sugar? I posted a video in post 10 you might find useful. Below are a couple articles explaining not only why what Lustig says is controversial, but why he’s wrong. In the first one Lustig joins in on the comments section and gets his ass handed to him.

http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/

http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/02/19/a-retrospective-of-the-fructose-alarmism-debate/

We’re doing that with EVERYTHING we eat. Do you think our ancestors had fruits and vegetables that resemble what we eat today? An archaeological scientist in the video below goes over this.

It’s difficult to get the straight dope on nutrition. So many websites and pop health magazines do a horrible job at breaking down the studies. You posted to a website called Science Daily that doesn’t exactly have a great reputation and the other was by an acupuncturist that pushes the paleo diet. The “mounting evidence” that Lustig’s claims are true doesn’t exist.

Semantic games? Like claiming sugar is toxic? I already posted a YouTube video of Alan Aragon doing what you asked for. You can check his credentials below. He does a better job at explaining what we can deduce from nutritional studies better than anyone else I know of.

Yeah, “if.”

Some evidence would be nice. There’s about 10 teaspoons of sugar is in a can of soda. A teaspoon of sugar has only 15 calories. It’s very easy for people to fit soda in their diet without worrying that they’re poisoning themselves.