• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

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

bulkbiker said:
I think you are being a tad selective
Click to expand...
I'm being down right obtuse.

But there is a serious point behind it all we do not know from the OP
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.

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.

But I can not be certain that both men,I assume there men, have the same definition in mind but it seems likely.

The OP presumes to think he knows how both men define the term poison even though he himself after citing 6 definitions presumes to present an agreed upon definition for us to use by cherry picking the aspects of the definition that suit the proposition of the post sugar is a poison. (@pdmjoker not having a go at you.)

I don't think your argument holds up.
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.

When a discussion start by defining something from the dictionary to make your argument you know you are on shaky ground, when you cherry pick the bits to suit what "you think" someone else means in a quote then:

You are in earthquake county.
 
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 understand some Latin. No it does not.

This has become a stupid argument over semantics, which does nothing to answer the OP We use the term poison to indicate a harmful substance such as lead in paint or petrol. In extremis it kills Whatever, it is not recommended to use it and in the case of sugar, then the diabetic cohort is advised to remove it from our diet.

The opposing view held by many is that being a simple carb then it is a food and therefore safe to use. I would suggest this situation is akin to those with a nut allergy, which could kill very quickly if ingested, but which is sold as safe for general consumption. My mother died from diabetes - it killed her.
 
Sorry, but I disagree - your argument is that it is my body's inability to process arsenic and cyanide that is a problem, rather that they are poisonous to me!
 

Not quite!
There has to be a cause!
There are a group of conditions that are not diabetic but have Hypoglycaemia as a result. I have reactive hypoglycaemia and it is food that causes my Hypoglycaemia, because I produce too much insulin to certain foods namely carbs and sugar!
Then there are pancreatic conditions such as insulinoma and this causes hypos.
So they are not natural but because they occur it is unusual in the general population.
So you can have Hypoglycaemic episodes without having diabetes and not because of meds!
 
Another thought, I suppose you could think of sugar in the same way as alcohol or illicit drugs. Alcoholic poisoning is a common term meaning you've had more than your body can take but is alcohol a poison in that respect? It's certainly fatal if you take too much but what exactly is 'too much'? Everybody's tolerance level differs.
 
ianf0ster said:
Sorry, but I disagree - your argument is that it is my body's inability to process arsenic and cyanide that is a problem, rather that they are poisonous to me!
Click to expand...
You can disagree with anything you want to Ian.
But don't try to put words into my mouth.

That's not what I said.
 
There is no Spoon said:
Hi @Brunneria
Have I got this wrong.

Hypos can occur natural, quick on the spot treatment is sugar.

Click to expand...

yes.
‘Natural hypos’ are relatively rare, but they happen.
There is a widespread and incorrect belief, that often gets presented here on the forum, that hypos only happen if insulin or other glucose lowering medications are used.
@Lamont D and myself are living proof that belief is wrong.
Unfortunately, it is so widespread that people suffering these non-induced hypos can suffer greatly before they encounter someone who takes them seriously.

regarding carbs/sugar as poison...
Goodness, these discussions are always frustrating, and always degenerate into pedantry and absolutist thinking.

Arsenic can be a poison. In small doses, it encourages lush thick hair growth. I believe that Ghengis Khan’s army used to give it to their horses, to improve their coats. In large doses, it kills, horribly.

Alcohol can be a poison. In small doses it lowers inhibitions and people can enjoy it tremendously. It may kill a few brain cells here and there, but small doses don’t ‘harm’ and they don’t kill. Large enough quantities of alcohol can result in alcohol poisoning, cirrhosis of the liver and other potentially death dealing conditions.

Salt can be a poison. Small doses are necessary to human health. Large doses can be harmful. Large enough doses can kill.

My view: calling carbs (or any common food item) a poison is unnecessarily dramatic and usually used to try and cause dissent, indignation and division. It is a cheap shot guaranteed to ruffle feathers and stir up bad feeling. I have never seen it used to contribute to a useful, constructive debate.

I could kill myself by eating too much arsenic, salt, alcohol and/or sugar, or I could live to a ripe old age eating naturally occurring trace elements of arsenic, salting my food to taste, enjoying the odd drink, and eating the amount of sugar that my body tolerates.

Anyone can turn a pedantic discussion into a useful debate by simply saying ‘sugar can be toxic in sufficient quantities, but is not toxic if used in appropriate quantities, and those quantities vary from person to person.’
 
Brunneria said:
‘Natural hypos’ are relatively rare, but they happen.
There is a widespread and incorrect belief, that often gets presented here on the forum, that hypos only happen if insulin or other glucose lowering medications are used.
Click to expand...

Me three.
 
Lamont D said:
Not quite!
There has to be a cause!
Click to expand...
So 1 exclamation mark wasn't enough for you. I would use one too but I think you used them all up.

A hypo is caused by a drop in blood glucose, Have I got that correct?
Natural in this case is not caused by taking medicine in any form they "occur naturally". Is that also correct?

Lamont D said:
So you can have Hypoglycaemic episodes without having diabetes and not because of meds!
Click to expand...
Am I just being thick here?

You are agreeing that hypos "occur naturally" is it because I missed of the "y" in my post. (the spell checker is not very good) Am I wrong in saying you would give this person sugar?
I don'g get it.

(Added in edit)
I went and re-read your previous posts on this thread and see that for you sugar is a bad choice. This does not make it a bad choice for every one. I never mentioned RH I said for someone having a hypo the standard treatment was sugar. That is still correct right.
 
Last edited:
;
 
You have misread the definitions - they all allow the possibility of non-fatal harm which means they can be non-deadly.
There is no Spoon said:
We all know what poison means.
Click to expand...
Apparently, you needed reminding of what "poison" means, so it was a worthy exercise (and I didn't exclude any definitions I found, so I wasn't selective.)
 
Quote system seems to have go awry. "In my experience, sugar is not recommended as the standard treatment. I believe glucose tablets, jelly babies and glucose is preferable for those diabetic hypos."

Why have you gone so far out of you're way to try and avoid saying I'm right.
I don't have a horse in this race. Of course its Glucose. Glucose is a sugar.

Sugar is the topic of this conversation set out by the OP.
 
Not quite. Table sugar (Sucrose) is a disaccharide comprising a 50:50 compound of fructose and glucose (monosaccharides) so is not so biovalent to human digestion as the separate components. It takes longer to act. Glucose can enter cells when insulin is present, and can provide energy directly according to the Citric Cycle, but Fructose goes to the liver and is of no use in the case of solving hypos. It can be used later as a lipid but not a carb.
 

I should have been pedantic and explained further. But I thought you were savvy enough to understand what I was saying.
You are right that glucose is a sugar. But the dictionary definition of this sugar is sugar made from sugar cane or sugar beets, that are used as table sugar.
The terminology can be skewed by using blood glucose instead of blood sugar.
There are many types of sugar in this terminology, as has already been stated, such sucrose, lactose and of course carbs, the chemical formula of sugars is different with the same chemical elements and structure.
Hope this helps.
 
Oldvatr said:
Not quite.
Click to expand...
No matter how much you want me to be wrong.

If someone with diabetes is having a hypo and is conscious, they should initially treat a hypo with 15-20g of fast acting sugary food or drink, such as:
  • 5 glucose tablets
  • 150 to 200ml of a sugary fizzy drink (eg full sugar cola or lemonade)
  • 4 to 5 sugar lumps or teaspoons of sugar
  • 150 to 200ml of fruit juice
IF you or anyone else has an issue with this advice please fee free to take it up with
https://www.diabetes.co.uk/what-is-a-hypo.html

Glucose, Sucrose and Fructose are all recommended. Wonder what the common denominator is there.
 
Lamont D said:
You are right that glucose is a sugar. But the dictionary definition of this sugar is sugar made from sugar cane or sugar beets, that are used as table sugar.
Click to expand...
A wise man once said.....
There is no Spoon said:
When you resort to defining something from the dictionary to make your argument you know you are on shaky ground.
Click to expand...

Why are you still going on about this?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn More.…