Please help me understand: sugar isn't "poison" for T2D

[Member496333]

The main issue with sucrose is its fructose component that acts directly in the liver to increase insulin resistance. So yes it’s very, very, very bad for anyone with type 2 diabetes, and anyone who says otherwise is mistaken.

 

[pdmjoker]

You selected the part of the definition you liked.

I don't think so. I was merely using it as a shorthand. From the definitions: a poison causes illness or death (so I concluded poisons are "harmful", which still seems reasonable).

Also, every definition includes the possibility of a poison being non-fatal. Also, it can be helpful to research the accepted meaning of terms before entering into a discussion, simply to avoid false assumptions....

 

[Mr_Pot]

I think this thread should have ended @KK123 's post #2.

 

[pdmjoker]

We do not know what David Unwin means when he says "poison" I believe we can with a high degree of certainty presume that it is poison as it is commonly accepted to be lethal. Similarly with Prof Kar's response I believe in this context he is also talking about the commonly accepted definition of poison as lethal.

The actual quote from David Unwin was:

'If you have type 2 diabetes, sugar becomes a sort of metabolic poison,'​

which seems to imply "harmful" as the primary meaning.

 

[There is no Spoon]

The actual quote

There is a big difference between "sort of metabolic poison" and poison.

Honesty this who thread has been like herding cats.

 

[lucylocket61]

It depends.
For some of us, its a slow acting poison which will eventually kill us. In the meantime, it will harm us gradually and irreversibly until we die, costing us our eyes, legs etc.

So not harmless, not instant death, but still ultimately fatal to us, and causing disability leading to premature death.

In other circumstances, eg hypo treatment, its a life saver at times.

its not either/or. It depends on the circumstances.

 

[pdmjoker]

There is a big difference between "sort of metabolic poison" and poison.

Honesty this who thread has been like herding cats.

I hadn't attributed anything to David Unwin in this thread.
It looks like you made a false assumption, judging from your reaction.
Edit: It was fully quoted here in post #7 so you had opportunity to see it earlier: https://www.diabetes.co.uk/forum/th...ugar-isnt-poison-for-t2d.176451/#post-2299854

 

[pdmjoker]

The premise that "So, essentially something that causes harm." is making assumptions that both men agree on this to be the definition, which is highly unlikely when "poison" is used in conversation.

One was a lecture and the other a newspaper interview - not merely in conversation.

 

[Mummybear3]

*monkey face covering his eyes*

 

[There is no Spoon]

I hadn't quoted David Unwin in this thread.
It looks like apparently you made a false assumption, judging from your reaction.

Look at your OP.

From that infamous Mail on Sunday article about David Unwin and bananas, we have the quote

I assumed you were not quoting the banana's.

Seriously what is going on?
Stop now.

 

[Brunneria]

Ok.
This debate has been going round in circles for pages.

1 would like to draw everyone’s attention to Forum Rule A 6. This is a Forum of many different personalities – if you disagree with someone then start a constructive debate or use the Private Message (PM) system to have a conversation. It is unhelpful to have to read miles of disagreeing posts, and can deflect from the purpose of the thread (i.e. thread derailing).

If no one is willing to do anything other than bicker about minutiae, this thread will be locked by the moderation team.

 

[KK123]

I think this thread should have ended @KK123 's post #2.

I agree lol. x