4 ms·

You fail reading forever. It's not sugarS. He didn't talk about sugar>S<. Nobody is claiming that the entire family of sugar>>>>>>>S<<<<<< is toxic. The title

You fail reading forever. It's not sugarS. He didn't talk about sugar>S<. Nobody is claiming that the entire family of sugar>>>>>>>S<<<<<< is toxic. The title is "SUGAR is toxic" (see, no sugar>>S<<. It's not sugarS. He isn't talking about a class of molecules.) SUGAR - a.k.a. sucrose, saccharose, one part glucose and one part fructose, either bound in a single molecule or alone in what's called HFCS. Extracted. Alone by itself or mixed in a liquid. IS TOXIC. THAT sugar. NOT sugarS.

dekhn 14y ago
No, if you read the article, the Methods section says "sugars". They don't have data for just sucrose.
mbreese 14y ago
In science, "sugar" is a class of molecules, of which sucrose is one. One thing I'm trying to point out the difference between common language uses of scientific terms. The other is the sheer ludicrous nature of the statement "sugar is toxic" (meaning sucrose). No, it isn't. Too much sugar in your diet can lead to health problems, but you will not die from eating sugar. In sufficient quantities, even water is toxic to some degree (and I'm not even talking about drowning). So, why don't you tone it down a little.
- natrius 14y ago
  If sugar causes diabetes and people die of diabetes, doesn't that mean that the amount of sugar that is commonly consumed is toxic? By the logic you've laid out, cigarettes aren't toxic. Smoking them can cause a variety of diseases that kill you.
  - mbreese 14y ago
    Water isn't toxic, yet drinking too much water can cause your blood to become so diluted that you can die (water intoxication/hyponatremia). And yet water is essential for life. Consuming sugar (in some form, not necessarily sucrose) is also essential for life. It's what your brain runs on. So to call it toxic is quite a stretch. I'm not criticizing the research. I haven't read the paper and I probably won't - it's not my field. But I am criticizing the overly broad generalities in the NYT article.
    - eurleif 14y ago
      Consuming any amount of any form of pure sugar will spike your blood glucose. If it's a small enough amount, the spike will be small enough that it won't do you harm, but the human body evolved to handle gradual rises in blood glucose, like complex carbohydrates cause, not spikes. Comparing that to water is a stretch.
    - natrius 14y ago
      Commonly consumed amounts of water don't make you ill. Commonly consumed amounts of sugar do make you ill. Is it an exaggeration to call trans fats toxic? Your body can use them to run, but if you eat them, you'll get sick.
Natsu 14y ago
The article unhelpfully uses the term "sugar" broadly when a more specific term would be clearer, using a few specific terms only in passing. Then mentions the causality problem by claiming it's also impossible to "prove" climate change or that smoking causes cancer (???). It says in one place that fructose is the problem, but concludes that "sugar" is toxic. I feel bad for the authors of this study.

dekhn 14y ago

No, if you read the article, the Methods section says "sugars". They don't have data for just sucrose.

mbreese 14y ago

In science, "sugar" is a class of molecules, of which sucrose is one. One thing I'm trying to point out the difference between common language uses of scientific terms. The other is the sheer ludicrous nature of the statement "sugar is toxic" (meaning sucrose). No, it isn't. Too much sugar in your diet can lead to health problems, but you will not die from eating sugar. In sufficient quantities, even water is toxic to some degree (and I'm not even talking about drowning). So, why don't you tone it down a little.

natrius 14y ago
If sugar causes diabetes and people die of diabetes, doesn't that mean that the amount of sugar that is commonly consumed is toxic? By the logic you've laid out, cigarettes aren't toxic. Smoking them can cause a variety of diseases that kill you.
- mbreese 14y ago
  Water isn't toxic, yet drinking too much water can cause your blood to become so diluted that you can die (water intoxication/hyponatremia). And yet water is essential for life. Consuming sugar (in some form, not necessarily sucrose) is also essential for life. It's what your brain runs on. So to call it toxic is quite a stretch. I'm not criticizing the research. I haven't read the paper and I probably won't - it's not my field. But I am criticizing the overly broad generalities in the NYT article.
  - eurleif 14y ago
    Consuming any amount of any form of pure sugar will spike your blood glucose. If it's a small enough amount, the spike will be small enough that it won't do you harm, but the human body evolved to handle gradual rises in blood glucose, like complex carbohydrates cause, not spikes. Comparing that to water is a stretch.
  - natrius 14y ago
    Commonly consumed amounts of water don't make you ill. Commonly consumed amounts of sugar do make you ill. Is it an exaggeration to call trans fats toxic? Your body can use them to run, but if you eat them, you'll get sick.

Natsu 14y ago

The article unhelpfully uses the term "sugar" broadly when a more specific term would be clearer, using a few specific terms only in passing. Then mentions the causality problem by claiming it's also impossible to "prove" climate change or that smoking causes cancer (???). It says in one place that fructose is the problem, but concludes that "sugar" is toxic. I feel bad for the authors of this study.