Is sugar toxic?

[Lady Henevere]

I saw this NY Times article about sugar today and thought you all would find it interesting. The author discusses physical changes in the body caused by eating sugar (fructose/glucose combo, so cane or beet sugar or high fructose corn syrup), and distinguishes it from the consumption of other carbs (i.e. potatoes).

The article is very long -- 16 pages when I printed it, so be prepared! But here is one little piece:

[W]e can eat 100 calories of glucose (from a potato or bread or other starch) or 100 calories of sugar (half glucose and half fructose), and they will be metabolized differently and have a different effect on the body. The calories are the same, but the metabolic consequences are quite different.

The fructose component of sugar and H.F.C.S. is metabolized primarily by the liver, while the glucose from sugar and starches is metabolized by every cell in the body. Consuming sugar (fructose and glucose) means more work for the liver than if you consumed the same number of calories of starch (glucose). And if you take that sugar in liquid form soda or fruit juices the fructose and glucose will hit the liver more quickly than if you consume them, say, in an apple (or several apples, to get what researchers would call the equivalent dose of sugar). The speed with which the liver has to do its work will also affect how it metabolizes the fructose and glucose.

In animals, or at least in laboratory rats and mice, its clear that if the fructose hits the liver in sufficient quantity and with sufficient speed, the liver will convert much of it to fat. This apparently induces a condition known as insulin resistance, which is now considered the fundamental problem in obesity, and the underlying defect in heart disease and in the type of diabetes, type 2, that is common to obese and overweight individuals. It might also be the underlying defect in many cancers.

You all tend to be pretty nutritionally savvy. What do you think?

 

[Wifezilla]

I have being going on about this for about 3 years now

 

[Lady Henevere]

WZ, I knew you'd answer.
You've discussed the health effects of carbs in general in many posts. Do you think there's much of a difference between sugar and other carbs? Are other carbs okay and sugar is bad, or do you see them all as equally bad?

 

[freemotion]

All carbs are not created equal but the typical American diet, even sugar free, is loaded with carbs that the body converts to sugar and stores as fat.

Many vegetarians are really carbotarians.

I eat whole food carbs only (of the carbs I eat) and they are a very small part of my diet.....whole wheat and oats, beans, sweet potatoes, winter squash, fruit, etc. If they start sneaking up in quantity, I gain weight.

Even if someone were to eliminate only three things from their diet.....hydrogenated fats, HFCS, and soy.....they'd be healthier and probably drop some weight. If white flour and other sugars were added to that list.....they'd drop a lot of weight and also drop some health concerns and pharmaceuticals!

Your questions are very important ones.

 

[Wifezilla]

One the food breaks down, sugar is sugar. The body can't tell sugar derived from a piece of cheese cake or sugar derived from an apple. The difference is the amount hitting the system at one time.

I do believe all carbohydrates are inherently damaging....BUT...the body evolved (or is designed...take your pick ) to handle small amount at one time and mitigate the damage. Eat some strawberries? No problem. Eat an apple? No problem. Juice a dozen apples and swig down the juice? OVER LOAD! Same with eating white bread, pasta, rice, etc... The refining makes it not much better than sugar water.

Add to the excess carb damage the damage caused by inflammatory omega 6 fatty acids from refined plant oils (soy, corn, cotton seed, etc...) and you have a recipe for heart disease, obesity, and more.

Once those continued assaults day after day year after year cause permanent damage (insulin resistance, pancreatic damage, etc...) then you end up like me. 1 slice of bread has me swollen for at least 24 hours. A cup of rice sends my blood pressure and blood sugar through the roof. Small carbohydrate assaults that should be no big deal to a healthy functioning body create a cascade reaction.

 

[Lady Henevere]

Ah, now I'm starting to "get" it. (Finally! Even after reading stuff here and there on this subject for years.) But what about this (from the article):

The Japanese eat lots of rice, and Japanese diabetics are few and far between; rice is mostly carbohydrate, which suggests that sugar, also a carbohydrate, does not cause diabetes. But sugar and rice are not identical merely because theyre both carbohydrates. Joslin could not know at the time that the fructose content of sugar affects how we metabolize it.
Joslin was also unaware that the Japanese ate little sugar....

(On page 4 of the article as it appears on the webpage.)
The article doesn't really answer this one, or talk about how different carbohydrates are metabolized differently. Does anyone know about this (or have a resource where I can find out more)? Is this about glycemic index, perhaps? Thanks.

 

[Wifezilla]

It's about fructose being metabolized in the liver. Sugar is fructose and glucose. The carbs in rice do not contain fructose. No liver hit.

 

[Lady Henevere]

Thanks. Still kinda confused between the "all carbs are bad" and "unrefined carbs are okay" dichotomy, but I'll figure it out.