How Much Sugar is Acceptable?

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]JR249 wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
It looks like a higher carb (percentage) diet makes you more insulin sensitive. but the main point is that low carb diets do not increase overall response to a glucose response test. HOWEVER, the lowest mortality occurs with a medium fasting glucose level of about 90-95, NOT low (80) nor high (105). [/quote]

It’d be interesting to find some consensus on what’s acceptable here. I’ve had several blood tests done with a fasting glucose level in the low 100s, yet my diet is pretty dialed in, save for the occasional cheat meal. So some sources say that’s pretty high for a fasting level, and others peg it as acceptable. The doctor’s office told me that for someone of my age and activity level, it’s just a shade below being classified as pre-diabetic.
[/quote]

Yeah, that isn’t very good. And not just for health but also for muscle building and fat loss.[/quote]

When I’ve had mine taken at the Dr. Office it’s always 110-115. When I take it within an hour of waking it’s rarely above 90. The Dr. appointment is always when I normally would have eaten or shortly after.

If you’re concerned about your fasting glucose levels, ask your Doc for an A1C test. It serves as an indicator of your glucose levels over the preceding 2-3 months.

There is debate as to whether fasting glucose is supposed to be on an entire night’s fast. In many countries it is a 4 hour fast. After waking up, your body releases cortisol to give you energy to get moving. (The cortisol makes the liver release glucose for energy). Black coffee can do it too. As can stress. The important thing from the study I posted is that below 85 is as bad as above 105. They both correlate to higher mortality. 95 is not just acceptable, it is optimal. My doctor called my 95 “a little high”. He also runs 45 miles a week and is hypoglycemic.

D(+)-Glucose
MSDS# 00523

EMERGENCY OVERVIEW
Caution! This is expected to be a low hazard for usual industrial handling. Dust may cause mechanical eye irritation. Target Organs: None.

Potential Health Effects:
Eye: Dust may cause mechanical irritation.
Skin: Dust may cause mechanical irritation. Low hazard for usual industrial handling.
Ingestion: No hazard expected in normal industrial use. May cause irritation of the digestive tract.
Inhalation: No hazard expected in normal industrial use. May cause respiratory tract irritation.
Chronic: No information found.

Carcinogenicity: Glucose - Not listed as a carcinogen by ACGIH, IARC, NTP, or CA Prop 65.

Shipping Name: Not regulated as a hazardous material

LD50/LC50: CAS# 50-99-7: Oral, rat: LD50 = 25800 mg/kg;

Scary stuff, lol.

You guys crack me up… and not just because the distinct differences between routine postprandial glucose fluctuations and rampant (disease-associated/induced) hyperglycemia are, seemingly, completely lost on you two.

Considering the overtly-diseased minority to be compelling evidence for your case is just as asinine, but after participating in enough of these discussions, I’m not sure what else I should expect.

Agree to disagree :slight_smile:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]anonym wrote:

Well, no.

If ALL sugar was toxic, it wouldn’t be our bodies preferred fuel source. If ALL sugar was toxic, our body wouldn’t manufacture it. If ALL sugar was toxic, our bodies wouldn’t ration it sparingly when supplies were low. If ALL sugar was toxic, our bodies wouldn’t carefully monitor its presence to ensure we always have some in circulation.[/quote]

It is highly toxic. It is Not the preferred fuel source. Your body gets used to burning whatever it’s given. Most people feed it tons of carbs.

The carbs in a plate of pasta are toxic enough to kill you. It’s just that most people have the ability to process and store it fast enough to prevent it doing damage. Some people don’t and without external medication would die from it.

Carbs are probably one of the very few toxic substances most people consistently put in their bodies at levels high enough to kill them if not processed.[/quote]

Is this post some sort of joke? Have you ever taken a look at basic human physiology?

[quote]TheCarlJay wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]anonym wrote:

Well, no.

If ALL sugar was toxic, it wouldn’t be our bodies preferred fuel source. If ALL sugar was toxic, our body wouldn’t manufacture it. If ALL sugar was toxic, our bodies wouldn’t ration it sparingly when supplies were low. If ALL sugar was toxic, our bodies wouldn’t carefully monitor its presence to ensure we always have some in circulation.[/quote]

It is highly toxic. It is Not the preferred fuel source. Your body gets used to burning whatever it’s given. Most people feed it tons of carbs.

The carbs in a plate of pasta are toxic enough to kill you. It’s just that most people have the ability to process and store it fast enough to prevent it doing damage. Some people don’t and without external medication would die from it.

Carbs are probably one of the very few toxic substances most people consistently put in their bodies at levels high enough to kill them if not processed.[/quote]

Is this post some sort of joke? Have you ever taken a look at basic human physiology?
[/quote]

No, both serious and factual. I’m can only assume you either don’t know human physiology or you don’t understand what toxic means.

The phytanic acid in various fatty foods is enough to cause neurological damage, peripheral neuropathy, and cardiac arrhythmias. It’s just that most people have the ability to process it fast enough to prevent it doing damage. Some people don’t and without abstaining from various meat and dairy products could die from it.

The phenylalanine we get from our high protein diets is enough to cause mental retardation, microcephaly, and seizures. It’s just that most people have the ability to process it fast enough to prevent it doing damage. Some people don’t and without abstaining from foods containing phenylalanine would suffer permanent mental retardation and spend their days posting nonsense on bodybuilding supplement forums.

The tyrosine we get from our bodybuilding diets is enough to cause rickets, liver failure and death. It’s just that most people have the ability to process it fast enough to prevent it doing damage. Some people don’t and without adopting a low protein diet could die from it.

Heck, protein in general is nasty, nasty stuff. The ammonia generated from its metabolism is enough to cause respiratory distress, delirium, comas, stroke, and death. It’s just that most people have the ability to process it fast enough to prevent it doing damage. Some people don’t and without monitoring their intake could die from it.

The protein in a single peanut is enough to kill you. It’s just that most people are able to process it without eliciting an anaphylactic reaction. Some people can’t and without external medication could die from it.

On a more serious note, there are bonus interwebz going to whoever can figure out the misunderstanding of Diabetic Pathophysiology 101 before I check back in.

[quote]anonym wrote:
The phytanic acid in various fatty foods is enough to cause neurological damage, peripheral neuropathy, and cardiac arrhythmias. It’s just that most people have the ability to process it fast enough to prevent it doing damage. Some people don’t and without abstaining from various meat and dairy products could die from it.

The phenylalanine we get from our high protein diets is enough to cause mental retardation, microcephaly, and seizures. It’s just that most people have the ability to process it fast enough to prevent it doing damage. Some people don’t and without abstaining from foods containing phenylalanine would suffer permanent mental retardation and spend their days posting nonsense on bodybuilding supplement forums.

The tyrosine we get from our bodybuilding diets is enough to cause rickets, liver failure and death. It’s just that most people have the ability to process it fast enough to prevent it doing damage. Some people don’t and without adopting a low protein diet could die from it.

Heck, protein in general is nasty, nasty stuff. The ammonia generated from its metabolism is enough to cause respiratory distress, delirium, comas, stroke, and death. It’s just that most people have the ability to process it fast enough to prevent it doing damage. Some people don’t and without monitoring their intake could die from it.

The protein in a single peanut is enough to kill you. It’s just that most people are able to process it without eliciting an anaphylactic reaction. Some people can’t and without external medication could die from it.[/quote]

There is big difference in the fact that carbs also can cause a loss of ability to tolerate them. And we regularly eat enough of them to loose that tolerance. With a modern diet carbs can become deadly to pretty much any human being. Something like 30+ million Americans all ready cannot process carbs properly. Around 10%. And something like an additional 20% are well on their way to losing their tolerance.

Peanuts are Highly toxic for some people. I don’t think you’d argue that they aren’t. But they are only toxic for those specific people, not people in general. You cannot really claim they are highly toxic for humans in general except on very technical terms. Likewise, while certain proteins and fat maybe be toxic, it is virtually impossible for the vast majority of humans to ever loose their immunity except in very rare conditions.

Sugar is something very different. It is far more that just technically toxic. It kills or at least contributes to the death of hundreds of thousands of people in the US alone each year. If you really get into things like amputations and had a true number on it’s contribution to deaths by heart disease, the numbers are freaking stagering. This is not a .001% of the population are born without this enzyme and so they have a reaction to this chemical. This is is a substance that regularly kills and damages large portions of the population of people that have no real underlying genetic or physiological defect.

So yes, I stand by my claim that sugar is highly toxic (not just on technical terms) and is basically the only thing people regularly eat in quantities large enough to kill them.

Most things are toxic as sufficient quantities: salt, msg, etc.

[quote]1 Man Island wrote:
Most things are toxic as sufficient quantities: salt, msg, etc.[/quote]

I’m just going to assume you didn’t read my last post or are trolling.

OK, so here we are being told that Substance A is extremely toxic – just a small amount of it is enough to kill us. It just never does for the vast majority because we can process it properly. But for the fraction of us who CAN’T do so, it’s deadly news.

Yes, you ARE arguing about the toxicity of this substance on “technical” grounds – because very specific and uncommon conditions need to be met for such a consequence to result.

So, then, for your post alluding to T1D: that if we give this fraction of the population a large amount of something they are congenitally unequipped to handle, they will die without external medication* – and that we should therefore generalize these findings to demonize an entire macronutrient group for the healthy majority… but let’s only deal with technicalities in this specific instance, because from here on out we are abruptly switching topics to a secondary group with an acquired intolerance…(?)

Which would bring me to my earlier point: that you are guilty of conflating dietary carbohydrate consumption with pathologically unsuppressed endogenous glucose production to make your case – pathologically unsuppressed endogenous glucose production being in no way, shape, or form the result of simply eating carbohydrates for the vast majority and yet, in spite of that, being the crux of nearly every health issue you have outlined in your post.

This is where your position ultimately falls apart, because there is no compelling evidence to support, well, any of it. Any evidence proffered to substantiate these claims will NOT be uniquely characteristic of any physiological cascade resulting from dietary CHO in and of themselves.

Your contention is, frankly, not something that has been demonstrated scientifically, and it is certainly not something that has been observed or reported anecdotally from nearly any indigenous culture studied.

*still waiting for someone to explain the “toxic” effects of CHO in these instances.

jesus fucking christ. “sugar is toxic” PLEASE post studies of this in active people, not sedentary people/rats(whats the difference, lazy fucks lol)

theres a reason that 99% of experts say its fine in moderation.

99% or 1%, which is the higher likelihood of being quacks.

[quote]anonym wrote:
OK, so here we are being told that Substance A is extremely toxic – just a small amount of it is enough to kill us. It just never does for the vast majority because we can process it properly. But for the fraction of us who CAN’T do so, it’s deadly news.

Yes, you ARE arguing about the toxicity of this substance on “technical” grounds – because very specific and uncommon conditions need to be met for such a consequence to result.

So, then, for your post alluding to T1D: that if we give this fraction of the population a large amount of something they are congenitally unequipped to handle, they will die without external medication* – and that we should therefore generalize these findings to demonize an entire macronutrient group for the healthy majority… but let’s only deal with technicalities in this specific instance, because from here on out we are abruptly switching topics to a secondary group with an acquired intolerance…(?)

Which would bring me to my earlier point: that you are guilty of conflating dietary carbohydrate consumption with pathologically unsuppressed endogenous glucose production to make your case – pathologically unsuppressed endogenous glucose production being in no way, shape, or form the result of simply eating carbohydrates for the vast majority and yet, in spite of that, being the crux of nearly every health issue you have outlined in your post.

This is where your position ultimately falls apart, because there is no compelling evidence to support, well, any of it. Any evidence proffered to substantiate these claims will NOT be uniquely characteristic of any physiological cascade resulting from dietary CHO in and of themselves.

Your contention is, frankly, not something that has been demonstrated scientifically, and it is certainly not something that has been observed or reported anecdotally from nearly any indigenous culture studied.

*still waiting for someone to explain the “toxic” effects of CHO in these instances.[/quote]

ITS TOXIC BECAUSE CHARLES POLIQUIN SAYS SO BRO

i have never even heard of people not being able to process carbohydrates in my entire life. jesus christ, 1000 years ago what do you people think the average person ate? peasants living in rags eating a nice big steak and some broccoli? they ate bread. and please god dont try and use the “THEY ONLY LIVED TO 40 BRO”

You’ve never even heard of people not being able to process carbs?!

Diabetes 101

We’ve (Homo Sapiens) started to evolve around 200 000 years ago, agriculture only existed in the last 12 000

Conventional bread you buy from the supermarket? Maybe 150-200

I guess ‘‘toxic’’ depends how technical the description is

Cigarettes are toxic. Alcohol may be toxic. Yet sugar takes more lives then both, go figure

[quote]outlaws wrote:
You’ve never even heard of people not being able to process carbs?!

Diabetes 101

We’ve (Homo Sapiens) started to evolve around 200 000 years ago, agriculture only existed in the last 12 000

Conventional bread you buy from the supermarket? Maybe 150-200

I guess ‘‘toxic’’ depends how technical the description is

Cigarettes are toxic. Alcohol may be toxic. Yet sugar takes more lives then both, go figure[/quote]

he was implying that they cant process them AT ALL, diabetics can obviously eat some CHO.

bread still contains carbs, whether it is from a supermarket or not…
i think you should seriously educate yourself on this shit. honestly. look up alan aragons stuff.sugar intake has barely gone up in the past 50 years or so. it overall calories and higher fat killing people.
everything is toxic past a certain threshold for fucks sake. dont eat ANY salt kids. its toxic(at doses you could never possibly consume but lets leave that out, it doesnt sound as good)

[quote]Dianaballs wrote:

[quote]outlaws wrote:
You’ve never even heard of people not being able to process carbs?!

Diabetes 101

We’ve (Homo Sapiens) started to evolve around 200 000 years ago, agriculture only existed in the last 12 000

Conventional bread you buy from the supermarket? Maybe 150-200

I guess ‘‘toxic’’ depends how technical the description is

Cigarettes are toxic. Alcohol may be toxic. Yet sugar takes more lives then both, go figure[/quote]

he was implying that they cant process them AT ALL, diabetics can obviously eat some CHO.

bread still contains carbs, whether it is from a supermarket or not…
i think you should seriously educate yourself on this shit. honestly. look up alan aragons stuff.sugar intake has barely gone up in the past 50 years or so. it overall calories and higher fat killing people.
everything is toxic past a certain threshold for fucks sake. dont eat ANY salt kids. its toxic(at doses you could never possibly consume but lets leave that out, it doesnt sound as good)
[/quote]

Other than the fact that fat intake has been going down for the last 50 years.

[quote]Dianaballs wrote:

[quote]anonym wrote:
OK, so here we are being told that Substance A is extremely toxic – just a small amount of it is enough to kill us. It just never does for the vast majority because we can process it properly. But for the fraction of us who CAN’T do so, it’s deadly news.

Yes, you ARE arguing about the toxicity of this substance on “technical” grounds – because very specific and uncommon conditions need to be met for such a consequence to result.

So, then, for your post alluding to T1D: that if we give this fraction of the population a large amount of something they are congenitally unequipped to handle, they will die without external medication* – and that we should therefore generalize these findings to demonize an entire macronutrient group for the healthy majority… but let’s only deal with technicalities in this specific instance, because from here on out we are abruptly switching topics to a secondary group with an acquired intolerance…(?)

Which would bring me to my earlier point: that you are guilty of conflating dietary carbohydrate consumption with pathologically unsuppressed endogenous glucose production to make your case – pathologically unsuppressed endogenous glucose production being in no way, shape, or form the result of simply eating carbohydrates for the vast majority and yet, in spite of that, being the crux of nearly every health issue you have outlined in your post.

This is where your position ultimately falls apart, because there is no compelling evidence to support, well, any of it. Any evidence proffered to substantiate these claims will NOT be uniquely characteristic of any physiological cascade resulting from dietary CHO in and of themselves.

Your contention is, frankly, not something that has been demonstrated scientifically, and it is certainly not something that has been observed or reported anecdotally from nearly any indigenous culture studied.

*still waiting for someone to explain the “toxic” effects of CHO in these instances.[/quote]

ITS TOXIC BECAUSE CHARLES POLIQUIN SAYS SO BRO

i have never even heard of people not being able to process carbohydrates in my entire life. jesus christ, 1000 years ago what do you people think the average person ate? peasants living in rags eating a nice big steak and some broccoli? they ate bread. and please god dont try and use the “THEY ONLY LIVED TO 40 BRO”
[/quote]

1000 years ago is very recent modern history.

[quote]Dianaballs wrote:
jesus fucking christ. “sugar is toxic” PLEASE post studies of this in active people, not sedentary people/rats(whats the difference, lazy fucks lol)

theres a reason that 99% of experts say its fine in moderation.

99% or 1%, which is the higher likelihood of being quacks.[/quote]

The question is what “moderation” means.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Dianaballs wrote:

[quote]outlaws wrote:
You’ve never even heard of people not being able to process carbs?!

Diabetes 101

We’ve (Homo Sapiens) started to evolve around 200 000 years ago, agriculture only existed in the last 12 000

Conventional bread you buy from the supermarket? Maybe 150-200

I guess ‘‘toxic’’ depends how technical the description is

Cigarettes are toxic. Alcohol may be toxic. Yet sugar takes more lives then both, go figure[/quote]

he was implying that they cant process them AT ALL, diabetics can obviously eat some CHO.

bread still contains carbs, whether it is from a supermarket or not…
i think you should seriously educate yourself on this shit. honestly. look up alan aragons stuff.sugar intake has barely gone up in the past 50 years or so. it overall calories and higher fat killing people.
everything is toxic past a certain threshold for fucks sake. dont eat ANY salt kids. its toxic(at doses you could never possibly consume but lets leave that out, it doesnt sound as good)
[/quote]

Other than the fact that fat intake has been going down for the last 50 years.[/quote]

what do you think the average american eats? you mean kfc, mcdonalds,chips, etc are all low fat? im not bothered enough to debate this. look up lyle mcdonald and alan aragon’s "is sugar toxic"you people are the nutritional equivalent of people who believe in our lizardmen overlords(PRAISE BE UNTO THEM) 9/11 was an inside job