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

Hmmmm, good post. I would think he means that 'sugar' in and of itself isn't a poison in the traditional sense of a poison. Of course ANY medication is a poison, ie too much of it or taking it when it's not needed would be poisonous but taken correctly and in the correct amounts it won't harm or kill you. Is that the same with sugar? Obviously anything that causes harm to a person over any length of time is definitely not good for them but I'm guessing to label sugar as a poison for type 2s (or any other type) is a step too far. Personally though, like everything else if you know something is bad for you then minimise or avoid it.

Sorry, but this is like saying smoking isn't a problem. Maybe the conversion of carbs to sugar isn't perfect, but it is relevant. People always want to justify this obvious anti-health ingredient, so one has to make up their own mind. "We" had around a lb of sugar in the early 1900's, now the average is about an adults body weight, what I am missing.

The number 1 hospital admission for children between 6 and 10 years old is tooth extraction - not caused by Steak and Eggs. Do people think the damage ends with teeth and gums showing problems....how about another 10 to 20 years of the stuff.

Sugar is worldwide accepted for it's taste. No matter what population it destroys. Everything in moderation is a joke, not a hope.

This link tells the absolute truth which many find hard to accept:

Think of a person with type2 who is in a large constant energy deficit, for that person suger is not a poison. Hence he sees the issue is as the total food/drink intake not suger in ioslation.

pdmjoker said:

Here is "Poison" as defined by various online dictionaries:

Click to expand...

When you resort to defining something from the dictionary to make your argument you know you are on shaky ground.

pdmjoker said:

So, essentially something that causes harm.

Click to expand...

The sugar does not cause harm the body's inability to process it causes harm.

If your body is running to low on sugar you need to quickly ingest fast acting sugar to avoid a potential fatal response in extreme cases. Now go back to the dictionary and see if it defines a poison as something you take to do avoid harm.

You can't have it both ways.

pdmjoker said:

I thought eating sugar raises blood glucose, which becomes too high in people with Type 2 Diabetes, and causes harm to blood vessels etc (hence possible loss of sight, kidney problems etc)

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

So does sugar become a poison to type 2 diabetics? 'That's not supported by the evidence,' answers Prof Kar.​

(Professor Partha Kar is NHS England's chief diabetes expert.)

Here is "Poison" as defined by various online dictionaries:

The Free Dictionary: A substance that causes injury, illness, or death, especially by chemical means.
Cambridge: a substance that can make people or animals ill or kill them if they eat or drink it
Oxford Learner's Dictionaries: a substance that causes death or harm if it gets into the body
Collins: Poison is a substance that harms or kills people or animals if they swallow it or absorb it.
Dictionary.com: a substance with an inherent property that tends to destroy life or impair health. something harmful or pernicious, as to happiness or well-being:
Merriam-Webster: a substance that through its chemical action usually kills, injures, or impairs an organism​

So, essentially something that causes harm.

Can anyone, please, help me understand what Prof Kar means, or point me to the evidence he is talking about?

Click to expand...

Prof Kar is apparently a Type 1 expert / Consultant, so why is he being quoted in an article that is T2D specific (although it uses a prediabetic as the guinea-pig) He does not speak for me.

Prof Taylor of the DiRECT study calls Type-2 Diabetes “chronic food poisoning” And no one seems to be lambasting him. David Unwin does use the phrase "almost metabolic poison to Type 2's" when describing sugar. It seems to be the glucose in the bloodstream that is the poison since it causes direct damage and inflammation so technically is a poison in excess. Since not all blood glucose comes from sugar, then sugar is not the cause QED

Arsenic is classed as a poison, yet poisoners know that taken in small doses can create a form of immunity, so there are cases of murderers sharing poisoned food with an outcome of (n= -1). Digoxin is a poison, but is also therapeutic for treating heart disorder. Fluoride is a poison in excess, but we add it to water supplies, along with aluminium hydroxide. There is a latin motto - that which I eat destroys me - which Angelins Jolie had tattooed on her arm. These are all semantics that are being used to obfuscate the truth. Diabetics and sugar have a love hate relationship.

pdmjoker said:

Professor Partha Kar is NHS England's chief diabetes expert

Click to expand...

Not really.. he specialises in T1 and has limited knowledge of T2 as his many twitter utterances prove.

There is no Spoon said:

If your body is running to low on sugar you need to quickly ingest fast acting sugar to avoid a potential fatal response in extreme cases.

Click to expand...

Err what about gluconeogenesis? Your body only "needs" exogenous sugar if you have reduced your own blood sugar levels artificially by taking an excess dose of insulin or another hypoglycaemic medication.

Your scenario doesn't happen in the real world as even those who have RH so far as I am aware don't die from it.

@Brunneria @Lamont D is that correct? Taking exogenous glucose in your situation would likely not help at all.

bulkbiker said:

Err what about gluconeogenesis? Your body only "needs" exogenous sugar if you have reduced your on blood sugar levels artificially by taking an excess dose of insulin or another hypoglycaemic medication.

Your scenario doesn't happen in the real world as even those who have RH so far as I am aware don't die from it.

@Brunneria @Lamont D is that correct? Taking exogenous glucose in your situation would likely not help at all.

Click to expand...

You are correct, only by trial and error did I find that my intolerance to sugar is enough for me to avoid it at all costs. But because of going hypo when not in control or its trigger of excess insulin happens, we need to have something that will help alleviate the hypo, which is to nudge it back into normal levels by a few low carbs, until you stabilise blood levels. If you over treat the hypo, you will get a rebound effect of fluctuating blood levels, to high, too low.
I think what the op is after is an answer about a certain foods effecting health and using sugar as an example.
Similarly to portion size, too little is fine, enough is ok, too much is not good!
So for someone who has no problem with issues of blood sugar, that rule is fine.
For someone who has T2, hormonal response to food, especially carbs and sugar, enough can be too much, little may be ok, but too much is really bad.
And because of how much your health is effected by this imbalance, depends on how much you can tolerate sugar.
I have to add that it is linked to how much glucose our brains need for good brain function. Too little is not enough, enough is fine, too much is not good. But how much is enough?. For me, very little because of my initial insulin response. And too much insulin is worse!

I have had to discover how my body works. And what I can put in it! Definitely not sugar!

@bulkbiker @There is no Spoon @pdmjoker

my experience of reactive hypoglycaemia (no hypo inducing meds required) is that if I wait for my body to sort itself out, I may not die, but it gets pretty horrible. I'm certainly not safe ‘operating machinery’, whether that is a strimmer, a car or a carving knife. Yes, I have nearly stabbed someone when in full hypo-rage. It got ugly. So maybe a hypo correction could be viewed as potentially life-saving?

Gluconeogenesis is a slow process, nowhere near as fast as a liver dumping glycogen in response to stress hormones, also, I believe that gluconeogenesis works better if the body is fat adapted or in ketosis, which of course is not the case for many of us. If we are in ketosis then a liver dump may be sluggish or inadequate.

My own response to RH hypos is
1) pre-empt/avoid in the first place, if humanely possible
2) when I realise a hypo is incoming, I eat something (just about anything, and usually the nearest thing). I believe @Lamont D eats biscuits. I am more likely to glug milk from the bottle in the fridge, or eat choc, or whatever my shaking hand can reach without me having to walk far, or climb stairs. If the only thing handy were a boiled sweet on the floor covered with dog hair, then that would do.
3) sit and wait till I felt ready to
4) go and find a nice big satisfying low carb/keto/carnivore meal to prevent rebound bg bounces and head off the next round of munchies.

having said that, my lowest recorded reading was 1.6mmol/l
At that level, coherent thought isn’t guaranteed, so rules 1-4 are more like guidelines.

bulkbiker said:

Err what about gluconeogenesis?

Click to expand...

Hi Biker, yes I was referencing a hypo but I deleted it when correcting a typo with out realising.
Also citing an extreme outcome, seizures coma and death, to make a point.
Just as if drinking to much water can lead to death.
If I'm wrong let me know.

If i'm right and you agree that the OP uses 6 quotes from dictionary definitions all of which state that poison is deadly, begin re-framed as "so, essentially something that does you harm" is changing the definition to fit a desired out come i.e. sugar is a poison. Then tell him....

...it's just not cricket.

pdmjoker said:

I was more trying to find a consensus of what "poison" means.

Click to expand...

We all know what poison means.

There is no Spoon said:

If i'm right and you agree that the OP uses 6 quotes all of which state that poison is deadly,

Click to expand...

That's not quite what the definitions say though is it?

Poisons are not always deadly but can be harmful. Sugar is completely inessential for life and can be harmful in many ways so in the terms of the OP Prof Kar is indeed incorrect. Sugar can be harmful and there is much supporting evidence for that statement.

Using extreme outcomes to disprove something is, as I'm sure you are aware, not cricket either.

bulkbiker said:

That's not quite what the definitions say though is it?

Click to expand...

1.Death
2. Kill
3. Death
4. Kills
5. Destroy life
6. Kills

That s each quote in turn. "reductio ad absurdum" applies

bulkbiker said:

Sugar can be harmful

Click to expand...

You will get no argument form me on that.

Brunneria said:

hypoglycaemia

Click to expand...

Hi @Brunneria
Have I got this wrong.

Hypos can occur natural, quick on the spot treatment is sugar. I don't need to be right just don't want to be spouting nonsense, I did check it before I posted is there a sutaltie that I am missing?

P.s. If I ever gt hold of the person who created this spell checker him/her and the bloke that put the Almost Dry Setting on my tumble dryer will get such a slap.

There is no Spoon said:

1.Death
2. Kill
3. Death
4. Kills
5. Destroy life
6. Kills

That s each quote in turn. "reductio ad absurdum" applies

Click to expand...

I think you are being a tad selective in your quotes - I could simply say 1-6 "harm" which would be perfectly adequate too.