Is sugar toxic?

On 2011-04-20, James Silverton wrote:

The whole thing is pointless drivel unworthy of exploration beyond the
reference to like pap on that other useless rag on the Right Coast.
The whole planet is circling the drain and these oxygen wasters ponder
sugar. No wonder newspapers are dying ...and rightfully so.

nb
 
On Apr 20, 7:10?am, notbob wrote:

this is old news. Back in the 70s, I read "Sugar Blues" by William
Dufty, which cited a "Dr. William Coda Martin," who wrote in 1957.

WHY SUGAR IS TOXIC TO THE BODY

In 1957, Dr William Coda Martin tried to answer the question: When is
a food a food and when is it a poison? His working definition of
"poison" was: "Medically: Any substance applied to the body, ingested
or developed within the body, which causes or may cause disease.
Physically: Any substance which inhibits the activity of a catalyst
which is a minor substance, chemical or enzyme that activates a
reaction."1 The dictionary gives an even broader definition for
"poison": "to exert a harmful influence on, or to pervert".

Dr Martin classified refined sugar as a poison because it has been
depleted of its life forces, vitamins and minerals. "What is left
consists of pure, refined carbohydrates. The body cannot utilize this
refined starch and carbohydrate unless the depleted proteins, vitamins
and minerals are present. Nature supplies these elements in each plant
in quantities sufficient to metabolize the carbohydrate in that
particular plant. There is no excess for other added carbohydrates.
Incomplete carbohydrate metabolism results in the formation of 'toxic
metabolite' such as pyruvic acid and abnormal sugars containing five
carbon atoms. Pyruvic acid accumulates in the brain and nervous system
and the abnormal sugars in the red blood cells. These toxic
metabolites interfere with the respiration of the cells. They cannot
get sufficient oxygen to survive and function normally. In time, some
of the cells die. This interferes with the function of a part of the
body and is the beginning of degenerative disease."2

1,2. Martin, William Coda, "When is a Food a Food-and When a Poison?",
Michigan Organic News, March 1957, p. 3.
 
In article ,
James Silverton wrote:


It does seem like a rather sensible article. I don't know about
toxicity. I do know that we limit our added sugar, we rarely use more
refined sugars and we have great teeth, great health, are rarely sick
(our doctor told us that eating refined sugar could compromise our
immune system and to avoid it when we were sick or fighting sickness)
and even the two of us who are overweight are not fat by any means.

I don't treat sugar as poison or cocaine, though. We use it when we
have need of it or want a cookie or something. Between our fasting and
abstinence and making almost all of our food at home, though, I think
our sweet and salt teeth are a little more tempered than the average,
because we just don't eat much packaged food or restaurant food to be
steadily fed very sweet or very salty things. We usually find those
things too sweet and/or salty. So, there is probably a little
self-limiting going on here already.

Regards,
Ranee @ Arabian Knits

"She seeks wool and flax, and works with willing hands." Prov 31:13

http://arabianknits.blogspot.com/
 
James Silverton wrote:

In recent decades Americans went from eating an average of a few pounds
of sugar per year to a few pounds of sugar per week. Some even eat
sugar on the level of a few pounds per day at the most extreme
consumption. Sugared sodas at larger than 8 ounces and drunk many times
per day not most weeks. Entire racks of candy and sugary baked goods in
stores. Low fat food that has sugar in the place of fat. The result
has been an epidemic of obesity and diabetes.

Our current level of intake is making us sick. That's what toxic means
- Makes us sick.

Should we cut our sugar consumption back to a tenth what it is now new
cases of diabetes would start dropping rapidly. It would stop being
toxic.

Translation - Sugar is toxic when consumed by the ton. Sugar is not
toxic when consumed at a tenth the current rate. This is not difficult
to figure out.

There's a further problem - Over use of sugar has already made plenty of
folks sick. To them it's more toxic than to others. Diabetics,
hypoglycemics, insulin resistants need to avoid sugar more than the
general population. To them it starts being toxic at much lower
exposure levels, often as a result of damage from prior over use.

How much down side is there to treating sugar with suspicion? Lower
variety in your foods. How much danger is there to eating sugar at a
tenth the rate currently used in the US? Very little to anyone without
existing problems. Should specific people avoid sugar much more
carefully than the general population? Definitely.
 
James Silverton wrote:

Water is toxic starting at over 10 liters per day. Water is not toxic
below that level. Sugar works the same way. In the US the total
consumption of sugar has gotten high enough to make a lot of people sick.
 
On Apr 20, 11:35?am, Doug Freyburger wrote:


Going crazy with sugar is no better for you than going crazy with
alcohol or nitrates.
 
On Apr 20, 9:16?am, Mark Thorson wrote:

Hey, if you can't trust the words of an obscure "Dr." writing in an
obscure periodical, what can you trust?

Now, I'm off to my Tai chi class.
 
On Apr 20, 10:35?am, Doug Freyburger wrote:

==
Most people do not have a problem with sugar other than diabetics. The
human body uses sugar much like your car uses gasoline and can
manufacture its own from starches and does so quite efficiently and
automatically with no prompting from the user...you. People have been
railing against sugar consumption for decades for all the good that it
does.
==
 
In article
,
Roy wrote:


The difference, is that some people are now warning about the dangers of
fructose, not just any sugar. It's true that the body uses "sugar" as a
basic source of energy for cells, but it uses glucose, not fructose.
Fructose is not digestible by the GI system, but only by the liver.

That's the claim.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA
[email protected]
 
On 20/04/2011 12:45 PM, Roy wrote:


That may be a chicken and egg sort of question. Sugar is indeed an
issue for diabetics. From what I have gathered over the years, it is use
of overuse of sugar that often leads to diabetes.
 
On 4/20/2011 1:17 PM, Roy wrote:

I wish people would specify what they mean. I'm quite willing to accept
that too much "sugar" is a bad idea in general but table sugar is
*sucrose*, which is gluco-furanose. In other words, *equal* amounts of
glucose and fructose linked by an easily broken bond. What sort of
"sugar" does the body make from starches? Is it glucose or what? Does
eating excessive amounts of glucose cause problems?

--


James Silverton, Potomac

I'm "not"
[email protected]
 
On Apr 20, 11:33?am, James Silverton
wrote:

==
Google is your friend or enemy when it comes to research on this
subject of "sugar". There is so much CRAP out there. Perhaps your
friendly local library would be the best bet or your own physician.
Hard to separate the chaff from the wheat.
==
 
On 20-Apr-2011, spamtrap1888 wrote:


Politicians?


--
"Calling an illegal alien an 'undocumented immigrant' is like calling a drug
dealer an 'unlicensed pharmacist' "

Change Cujo to Juno in email address.
 
On Apr 20, 10:40?am, spamtrap1888 wrote:

Those are clear statements. Is " Nature supplies these elements in
each plant in quantities sufficient to metabolize the carbohydrate in
that particular plant" supported by anything other than opinion? The
opinion by the person who opines that foods have a "life force"? "Elan
vital" dates from when "acute indigestion" was a common name for a
heart attack

Some "organic" foods (manure and kerosene are organic) are sweetened
not with sugar, but with "dehydrated cane juice." The sugar I get is
mostly in food other people cook. At home, I use less than a a pound a
year, much of it in other people's coffee.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
 
On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 07:40:17 -0700 (PDT), spamtrap1888 wrote:


Mandrake, do you realize that in addition to fluoridating water, why, there
are studies underway to fluoridate salt, flour, fruit juices, soup, sugar,
milk... ice cream. Ice cream, Mandrake, children's ice cream.

your pal,
blake
 
James Silverton wrote:

Americans now eat many times as much sugar as in decades past. The rate
of diabetes is much higher. Too much sugar in general is bad. Worse
for people who already have problems.


There are studies done with rats fed too much of various sorts of sugar.
They get fat. Calorie for calorie the ones fed HFCS get fatter so HFCS
is worse than other types of sugar. Realistically the difference among
types of sugar is small compared to the over use of sugar in general.


Starches are digested into glucose. It's a lot of glucose all bonded
together.

Fructose is an alternate type of sugar that is converted to glucose in
the liver. Whatever type of sugar that's eaten it gets converted to
glucose first if it didn't start out as glucose and then it's used for
fuel. I don't know how the ribose in DNA/RNA is made, probably from
glucose.

The difference is digested into glucose versus digested into simple
sugars and then converted from another type of sugar into glucose.


Yes. Generally too much sugar causes problems. How much is too much
depends on the type of sugar. Glucose is the probably the least harmful
calorie for calorie but Americans eat sugar by the pound. The
differences among types matters less than the total amount.
 
On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 10:50:36 -0700 (PDT), Roy
wrote:


I've read that sugar does nothing positive for the human body other
than giving it exaggerated energy temporarily.

I've also read that it causes every organ in the human body to
function in ways other then its optimum performance. Either faster,
slower or not at all, and that over long periods, chronic use of sugar
will cause negative effects on the body with every person.

It seems that a lot of Doctors agree with this. It would be
interesting if each of you asked your personal Physician if the above
statement is true and relayed the answer here.

My Doctor is an internal medicine specialist and he says that the
statement is true.

The information on this page is pretty informative:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sucrose
 
Back
Top