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

Sugar is toxic

Yeah, saw that. Now I'm diabetic and can't eat it, I think they should put high tax levies on it! :thumbup:
 
All for that Grazer. as a sweet tooth by nature, when first diagnosed I used to look at things containing sugar and tell my myself it was poison to me, seems it is poison to everyone :)
 
Of course sugar should be regulated more strictly and manufacturers should do their part in reducing the content in the food they produce, as for restricting the levels at home this would be an impossible task and it would take a very high tax levy to deter people from using it or reducing their intake, you only have to look at cigarette tax to see it doesn't always work!
 
HpprKM said:
Sorry if this is repeated anywhere, I did have a quick check and could not see it!
Click to expand...


It is repeated, you've started two threads on the same subject! :)
 
Must be true its in the daily mail :roll:

Everything is toxic if you eat or drink too much of it, to non diabetics sugar is no more toxic than any other food stuffs, anyway in a years time the daily mail will be telling us that we should all eat more sugar :lol:

Thats my take on it anyway.
 
I think his cause is somewhat undermined by the Daily Mail's sensationalist writing (Lustig is aware of the fact that there isn't just "sugar" as this lecture shows).

For the record, I'd back regulatory efforts to limit sugar intake because the voluntary labelling efforts aren't working (e.g. salt - voluntary labelling/traffic light is rather pointless if every single ready meal contains 200% GDA salt per serving)
 
AMBrennan said:
(e.g. salt - voluntary labelling/traffic light is rather pointless if every single ready meal contains 200% GDA salt per serving)
Click to expand...

Yes I see where you are coming from but wouldnt it just be easier to regulate ready meals?

Isn't it the ready meals that are the real problem not the sugar or salt?
 
Well, yes but that may not be an option - this was about my grandmother who insists on living alone despite not really being able to do so; she requires assistance getting dressed and oblivious can't cook so she ends up eating microwavable ready meals a lot. I was shocked to find that these meals, bought by a (nominally health professional) carer contained 100% GDA salt per serving; I ended up checking virtually all ready meals at the local supermarket but was unable to find anything healthier
 
I think we are of the same mind AMB, regulate the ready meal industry so they can not use high levels of salt or any other nutrient for that matter.

I still say that sugar is not the devil here it is just that many people, myself included, have not had a good relationship with it down the years, its about self discipline which I have only recently - post diabetes - acquired. My self discipline did waiver over xmas when I hit the chocks but I have renewed my vow of near abstinence now and lost the xmas excess lb's I had put on :D
 
As a Type 1, I need sugar sometimes to stop myself going hypo. Taxing it would be like taxing medication.
Not that anyone cares about us type 1s. sob. :cry:
 
Admittedly the reality of this happening is that it wont :D, and as a member has pointed out, some diabetics actually need sugar at some time, my point of posting was that at last it has been acknowledged just how toxic sugar can be = :wink:
 
I agree with Sid, control the levels of sugar and salt added to food, and learn self-discipline, my own is still patchy, sometimes very good, sometimes not so good :roll:
 
perhaps sugar might not the real issue.

For 10 weeks, Mark Haub, a professor of human nutrition at Kansas State University, ate one of these sugary cakelets every three hours, instead of meals. To add variety in his steady stream of Hostess and Little Debbie snacks, Haub munched on Doritos chips, sugary cereals and Oreos, too..........The premise held up: On his "convenience store diet," he shed 27 pounds in two months........His body mass index went from 28.8, considered overweight, to 24.9, which is normal. He now weighs 174 pounds......Haub's "bad" cholesterol, or LDL, dropped 20 percent and his "good" cholesterol, or HDL, increased by 20 percent. He reduced the level of triglycerides, which are a form of fat, by 39 percent.
Click to expand...


http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html
 
For 10 weeks, Mark Haub, a professor of human nutrition at Kansas State University, ate one of these sugary cakelets every three hours, instead of meals. To add variety in his steady stream of Hostess and Little Debbie snacks, Haub munched on Doritos chips, sugary cereals and Oreos, too..........The premise held up: On his "convenience store diet," he shed 27 pounds in two months........His body mass index went from 28.8, considered overweight, to 24.9, which is normal. He now weighs 174 pounds......Haub's "bad" cholesterol, or LDL, dropped 20 percent and his "good" cholesterol, or HDL, increased by 20 percent. He reduced the level of triglycerides, which are a form of fat, by 39 percent.
Click to expand...


Not something he would want to keep up long-term :wink:
 
For 10 weeks, Mark Haub, a professor of human nutrition at Kansas State University, ate one of these sugary cakelets every three hours, instead of meals. To add variety in his steady stream of Hostess and Little Debbie snacks, Haub munched on Doritos chips, sugary cereals and Oreos, too..........The premise held up: On his "convenience store diet," he shed 27 pounds in two months........His body mass index went from 28.8, considered overweight, to 24.9, which is normal. He now weighs 174 pounds......Haub's "bad" cholesterol, or LDL, dropped 20 percent and his "good" cholesterol, or HDL, increased by 20 percent. He reduced the level of triglycerides, which are a form of fat, by 39 percent.
Click to expand...

What?!? :shock: 27lbs? Surely not?
 
Good luck on the new diet Pat :thumbup:
 
Back
Top