Should sugar be considered toxic?

I came across this article today, which highlights a group of scientists from University of California, San Francisco. These scientists are pushing to have fructose, the main ingredient in table sugar and high-fructose corn syrup, classified as a toxic substance, which has been harmful to society.

http://news.yahoo.com/sugar-regulated-toxin-researchers-180605186.html

Personally, I think the "toxic sugar" camp has a lot of valid points. I'd like to hear what everyone thinks.

The paper in Nature:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v482/n7383/full/482027a.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20120202


Some more articles on this subject:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.html?pagewanted=all
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/02/sugar-toxic-regulation_n_1248397.html

I do think sugar should be regarded by society the same way alcohol is. That is to say fine in limited occasional quantities but very harmful to be consuming every day.

We are saturated by sugar from cradle to grave. You should see the amount of sugar in baby formula! Sugar is also found in whole wheat bread, dried fruit, medicine, most low fat products, etc.

This is absurd! Why target sugar when refined flour has a similar effect when it hits your blood stream? Almost everything we ever put in our bodies is toxic at some quantity- even water! This "villify everything" approach to health is just ridiculous. Nothing is inherently evil, it's all about how much of it you're eating, where you're getting it from, and how it impacts the overall balance within your body. Well, except for transfats, which DO seem to be evil at any level. However, I also tend to think alcohol is overly regulated. Why does progressive state like CA let you buy anything in your local grocery store while a conservative state like VA mandates that hard liquor only be sold by a state-run liquor store monopoly? I've got a better idea- how about we stop the enormous corn subsidies that make HFCS so cheap? Would people drink so much soda if it was priced according to the REAL costs of it's ingredients?

I don't think it is a matter of vilifying sugar but rather to put it in its proper place with regard to diet. I say the same thing with regards to refined flour.

This is so ridiculous I can't even decide what to write. If someone doesn't know that too much sugar is bad for you, then they have bigger problems than toxic sugar..

Well I guess I am doing something "very harmful" to myself then, because I consume sugar on a daily basis and its delicious and I am fit as hell!

If people knew sugar was toxic then we wouldn't have this epidemic of diabetes... which was once considered and adult only disease but now affects children even less than 1 year old.

I also believe that the over consumption of sugar is related to the out of control kids diagnosed with ADD & ADHD. According to the American Association of Pediatrics parents are told to put their toddlers on low fat milk by the age of 2.

It is a sad state of affairs that our vaunted nutritional experts are shoveling out awful advice that has been discredited over and over for the past umpteen years.

Dietary fat has been vilified since the 1950's and we are now fatter and sicker than ever. And we keep hearing the same advice, reduce your fat intake. When fat is removed what is it replaced with?

I agree that we have a national epidemic but think how we need to handle it from a policy perspective is through education and, unfortunately, making the consumer pay for more of their healthcare costs. If you had to pay something more reflective of the real cost of managing your diabetes (typically tens of thousands of dollars a year) instead of just the copays, wouldn't you be more motivated to change your actions? Type 2 diabetes IS preventable. I dislike that this approach to healthcare would also require me to pay more to treat my chronic sinus issues (which I have NOT found a way to successfully manage through my lifestyle), but I think our system would be less expensive overall and people would be healthier if they did have to deal more with the costs of treating their conditions- especially preventable ones.

I don't disagree with you Natalie. I think this new nationalized health care is absurd and I hope it gets over turned in the courts. However, how are people supposed to know that diabetes is avoidable AND curable when the diet information provided by the American Diabetic Association is so utterly wrong? This is the organization that educates our medical professionals. If our doctors don't have a clue how can the patients?

People know that cigarettes and smokeless tobacco are HORRIBLE for them and people still smoke and chew tobacco. People know that tanning can cause cancer and they still do it. People know that driving drunk can be deadly, and yet there are still DUI's and fatalities caused by impaired driving.

The problem isn't that people don't KNOW that too much sugar is bad for them, it's that they don't CARE.

erika, you need to have a chat with Rpalmst. He doesn't seem to know that it is bad for him.

Oh he knows. He just runs 17 million miles a week so he burns it all up immediately.

I'm not saying that I agree with the vilification of sugar; I just said that there are some interesting points to be discussed.

I think an important distinction needs to be made between natural sugars, refined sugars and chemically-modified sugars. All sugars are not created equal.

According to the paper in Nature, the fructose molecule is metabolized in the liver in the same way as alcohol, much differently than the glucose molecule which naturally occurs in starchy foods. The health effects of fructose metabolism have been studied in multiple independent studies, and have almost universally been found to be harmful.

I'm not going to go to the extreme of saying that "sugar is evil", but it is definitely harmful if eaten to excess, regardless of weight gain or loss. This same standard has been used to restrict manufacture and sales of alcohol and tobacco products, so why not sugar? If the standard does not apply to refined sugar, by what logic can we justify restrictions on tobacco?

Sadly, it seems that the answer is "money in politics". There are strong lobbies involved with agriculture and sugar production, and the popular sentiment is not yet strong enough to motivate politicians to vote against their own financial interests.

I'm not sure how the conversation turned to nationalized health care, but I honestly don't see the connection with this particular topic, except in the most superficial way.

To me, this really is as simple as whether we accept the statement, "Too much sugar is harmful to your health." If we accept this as true, then maybe we shouldn't sell sugared soda in public schools, and maybe we should put measures in place to induce manufacturers to use less sugar in their products.

Larry Lustig definitely has an agenda. Having said that, I believe that his science is valid.

A big part of the problem with the American food system is that refined sugar is government subsidized. Can you say farm bill? The US pays farmers to produce bloody ridiculous amounts of corn. A whole lot of that corn is turned into high-fructose corn syrup and added to damned near everything. Why is soda so cheap? Government subsidies.

We would probably get rid of a lot of our health problems if we just stopped subsidizing big agrobusiness. At the very least, we should tax sweeteners to undo the subsidies that make them unnaturally cheap.

Erika, hopefully he never stops running then.

Mike I am sure you are a nice guy and I know you read alot..but you've got all the answers on all topics but are still 30 pounds from your goal, significantly overweight, and you haven't lost a pound since October. I struggle with all this preaching to others on a daily basis when you can't get your own house in order.

Rpalmist, we are all happy that you are a healthy and fit individual who is blessed with an excellent genetic make up and outstanding metabolism, but what are you trying to prove on a weight loss forum? That you do not have the problem that the rest of us have, or that you found the cure?

Mike, keep posting, your posts are excellent and are food for thoughts. Thank you for sharing you knowledge and experience.

Yeah you are probably right might be time to leave, I just can't believe this guy can rant and rave out here daily and nobody holds him accountable.

No need for this discussion to turn personal.

Whether or not someone is currently overweight or fit doesn't have any bearing on the truth of their claims, or whether or not they're qualified to talk about nutrition or obesity. And there is no minimum age to have personal experience with obesity - that should be quite obvious, particularly in the US.

Fewer ad hominems and more evidence, please.

Rpalmst, by your perspective few here should offer up any advice. I could mention the fact that I've lost quite a bit more weight than you but I think your own comments are enough for people to see you have nothing of value to add to a conversation.

And you know, I WELCOME people to challenge any of my topics I post on. I don't claim to know the answers to everything and I've changed my perspective on a lot of things since I began my journey in earnest last May.

Why don't YOU hold me 'accountable'? If I say something you don't agree with... prove me wrong! Or is it easier to point and laugh?