Sugar/Fructose

Jason N. wrote: I'm not sure anymore, haha. I think I was at first, but after pondering it more I think it could be accurate. Bringing up selenium again as an example - I think it is generally described as toxic. But it is also an important micro-nutrient in the human diet. So what defines "moderation" is crucial here. What if our definition of moderate sugar consumption is way off? I think the mainstream interpretation of "toxic" is too black/white (which is inaccurate, it is way more of a spectrum). Toxicity is a complicated thing, there is a whole profession dedicated to it's study after all!

Actually, the mainstream usage is where the gray is. The scientific classification of toxicity is black and white and quantifiable.

redlude97 wrote: Actually, the mainstream usage is where the gray is. The scientific classification of toxicity is black and white and quantifiable.

I guess what I mean is that I think the average person believes that something is toxic or it isn't. The science is well defined and quantifiable, but it is a more complex definition as well.

redlude97 wrote: Actually, the mainstream usage is where the gray is. The scientific classification of toxicity is black and white and quantifiable.

No. Science is never black and white, toxicology is no exception.

redlude97 wrote: But to make that statement without any qualifications is being deliberately obtuse to get someone's attention.

And the video does, as far as I could tell, qualify the assertion that sugar is toxic; i.e., they say that it is toxic when excessively consumed.

Newsflash! If you have a lousy, unbalanced diet, your health will be suboptimal. If sugar is toxic, everything is toxic. If everything is toxic, then toxic doesn't mean anything.

Richard Radcliffe wrote: No. Science is never black and white, toxicology is no exception.

How so, the study of toxicology is about dose and response

Richard Radcliffe wrote: And the video does, as far as I could tell, qualify the assertion that sugar is toxic; i.e., they say that it is toxic when excessively consumed.

No, the video shows that excessive sugar could potentially lead to various health problems, but there is no direct link yet, and there are too many variables to come to a concrete conclusion yet, certainly not enough to label sugar as toxic in the common understanding of the word.

The main conclusion I draw from this discussion so far is that "toxic" is not a very useful descriptive term because of how dependent it is on context; that is, one must have a very thorough understanding of the context in which a substance is being consumed to determine whether or not it is toxic, but by the time one has such an understanding of the context, whether or not the substance is toxic becomes irrelevant. If a substance being "toxic" or not is SO dependent on context, then I'm not sure what value can be derived of calling describing something pejoratively as a toxic. This isn't to undermine toxicology, but rather to say that whether sugar (or anything else, really) "is toxic" is almost meaningless.

So, in a sense, I agree with redlude. Saying "sugar is toxic" is sensationalist. However, I don't dispute the negative affects the over-consumption of sugar (or carbohydrates in general) can have on health, in the context of our modern, largely sedentary society. I don't have a list of journal publications to pull up in order to support this belief. In the same vein, I don't have a laundry list of publications to pull up to support my belief in evolution - frankly, it's just not worth my time to procure such a list of publications. I just really don't see what could be so contentious about the core claim (i.e., that the over-consumption of sugar/carbs significantly/substantially contributes to many health problems in modern society) that provokes a call for extensive citation.

To redlude's point, I don't think ANYONE is claiming that a glass of OJ a day is "toxic". My understanding is that, given the typical physical activity of the average person in modern society (i.e., sitting in front a computer 8 hours per day), the typical diet that relies heavily on sodas, sports drinks, corn, wheat, potatoes, etc is directly implicated in a variety of negative health outcomes. To be fair, this is much more of a 'duh' statement than "sugar is toxic". I do believe that there needs to be sweeping change in how nutrition and diet is perceived by the public, but I also agree that though trying to achieve this via sensationalism might seem like the easiest strategy, it's not honest and ultimately people need to be informed by the actual science than by the popular distillation of the science. Although perhaps from a cynical/realist perspective, the most effective way to stimulate informed discussion about the subject is to begin with sensationalized or simplified pop-sci like we see in the NYT, New Yorker or Economist.

Dan Austin wrote:The main conclusion I draw from this discussion so far is that "toxic" is not a very useful descriptive term because of how dependent it is on context; that is, one must have a very thorough understanding of the context in which a substance is being consumed to determine whether or not it is toxic, but by the time one has such an understanding of the context, whether or not the substance is toxic becomes irrelevant. If a substance being "toxic" or not is SO dependent on context, then I'm not sure what value can be derived of calling describing something pejoratively as a toxic. This isn't to undermine toxicology, but rather to say that whether sugar (or anything else, really) "is toxic" is almost meaningless. So, in a sense, I agree with redlude. Saying "sugar is toxic" is sensationalist. However, I don't dispute the negative affects the over-consumption of sugar (or carbohydrates in general) can have on health, in the context of our modern, largely sedentary society. I don't have a list of journal publications to pull up in order to support this belief. In the same vein, I don't have a laundry list of publications to pull up to support my belief in evolution - frankly, it's just not worth my time to procure such a list of publications. I just really don't see what could be so contentious about the core claim (i.e., that the over-consumption of sugar/carbs significantly/substantially contributes to many health problems in modern society) that provokes a call for extensive citation. To redlude's point, I don't think ANYONE is claiming that a glass of OJ a day is "toxic". My understanding is that, given the typical physical activity of the average person in modern society (i.e., sitting in front a computer 8 hours per day), the typical diet that relies heavily on sodas, sports drinks, corn, wheat, potatoes, etc is directly implicated in a variety of negative health outcomes. To be fair, this is much more of a 'duh' statement than "sugar is toxic". I do believe that there needs to be sweeping change in how nutrition and diet is perceived by the public, but I also agree that though trying to achieve this via sensationalism might seem like the easiest strategy, it's not honest and ultimately people need to be informed by the actual science than by the popular distillation of the science. Although perhaps from a cynical/realist perspective, the most effective way to stimulate informed discussion about the subject is to begin with sensationalized or simplified pop-sci like we see in the NYT, New Yorker or Economist.

agreed mostly with your point. I still don't like the use of sensationalism in science. I never disputed the science, just the presentation of it.

Some of it is a little much, but it's worth watching these:

Episode 1:
uctv.tv/search-details.aspx…

Episode 2:
uctv.tv/skinny-on-obesity-s…

• there are foods in nature that are both fat and carbohydrates. Coconut? It hurts his credibility to have said otherwise

Episode 3:
uctv.tv/search-details.aspx…

I'm so glad my girl doesn't have a tail... would just ruin dinostyle.

table sugar, being half glucose and half fructose has several negative side effects. Glucose causes your body to release insulin, which is the primary fat storage hormone in your body. Your muscles physically cannot burn fat in the presense of insulin. Fructose on the other hand has to be converted to triglycerides in the liver, and then dumped into the bloodstream, where they are either immediately used as energy (but not in the presence of insulin) or stored as fat. Then again, white bread has quite a similar effect. I have lost 22lbs since switching to a paleo/primal diet 3 months ago, and have had a more stable energy level, and gained strength and muscle. I have around 4-5% body fat now.