05-20-12, 03:19 PM #1
Sugar and salt are poisons/toxins?
The question here is should we consider sugar and table salt to be poisons?
Does the body have a need for dietary sugar when the body can produce glucose from protein or produce energy from Ketones?
If there is no nutritional value and the body does not need it should it be considered toxic like transfats? What about sugars such as high fructose corn syrup?
The four deadly whites of white table sugar, white table salt, white flour, and white oil seem to be the main causes of disease yet these 4 are in just about any product you try and buy. If you try to go to a store every product just about has high fructose corn syrup, or a lot of sodium, or a lot of white flour, or a lot of white oil (partially hydrogenated oils etc).
There are books which discuss whether or not sugar and salts are poisons and this is a video or lecture calling sugar toxin.
What do you at sciforums think? Is are sugar and salt toxic poisons? Or is there a nutritional value to using it?
05-20-12, 09:41 PM #2
NaCl (salt) is an essential mineral. When you drink water one big reason you need to is for the NaCl. Freshwater has the trace amounts you need (or it should) to maintain your optimal level - which I believe is three percent of your blood - which is the exact same amount of salt that seawater has. Think about that! It's like we left the ocean but have had to bring it along with us. I believe that the fluids in the womb bare also three percent salt.Obviously too much salt is no good. One of man's poor relations, wild orangutans go their whole lives without deliberately digesting salt - no salt licks, no trips to the sea and munching whitish sand... they seem to get all they need from their vegetable diet and freshwater. Fact: no high blood pressure or heart disease among wild orangutans!
White, refined, sugar you're absolutely right about. It is poison! Once I stopped using it absolutely for 40 days or so. Then I had an ice cream cone. I THOUGHT I WAS GOING TO DIE! The body needs sugar of course, it's our fuel, but it's best to get it in fructose, it's natural form as in fruit, vegetables, roots etc.
If I am wrong about any of this, I hope someone will step in and correct me.
05-21-12, 06:24 AM #3
Refined carbohydrates, salt and LDL fat are indeed bad for you - especially in quantity.
Unprocessed whole foods are optimum for fuel and nutrition. We have a built-in urge to eat fats, sugars and salt due to our biological heritage, but our current level of food technology provides us with healthier alternatives if we can choose them.
If white sugar and salt are available at the table all of the time, it becomes easy to throw them into everything in quantity. If they are not there, they don't get used.
I agree that consuming a healthy diet means that you do not need to add salt or sugar to your food for it to be palatable and good for you.
05-21-12, 07:24 AM #4The question here is should we consider sugar and table salt to be poisons?
The chlorine insecticides, like DDT, are known to move through the food chain and to make bald eagle lay paper thin shelled eggs or poison the milk of the Inuit (Eskimo) women. The amounts thrown on the fields may look minute but once these carcinogens enter the food chain in small levels, starting with the microscopic algae, it binds to the fat molecules and reaches an increasingly higher concentration (a process named biomagnification) while moving from algae to larvae, fish and eagle or to seal and Inuit.
That's why they were banned in the 70's in U.S. Thousands of everyday chemicals have been checked for their safety by assessing how easily they dissolve in water versus fat. The water-loving ones do not build up in the food chain. But this approach ignores another way for accumulation: air.
A new research has assessed how easily a chemical travels from the lungs into the air versus how easily it dissolves in fats and water. It appeared that thousands of contaminants can build up in air-breathing animals, if not water-breathing ones.
Many chemicals that dissolve relatively easy in water can persist in the air, accumulating "specifically in nonaquatic food webs: mammals, birds, human beings. In mammals and humans, we don't breathe water, we breathe air," said lead researcher Frank Gobas, an environmental toxicologist at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia.
05-21-12, 07:39 AM #5
Too bloody right they should be banned, or hugely regulated. They are killing people who are not evolutionarily equipped to deal with them, and enriching assholes.
Now if you don't mind, I'm off for a shake and a Big Mac. But don't blame me. It's in my genes.
05-21-12, 02:23 PM #6
Working in retail grocery, I have read the labels on hundreds, if not thousands, of products over the last seven years. There are several things that have become noticeable to me in that time.
There are a great many different names used for sugar, salt, milk ingredients and others which are confusing to many of the population. Anyone who is heavily reliant on processed foods will be ingesting a significant amount of both sugar and salt, which is found in many unexpected places.
Sugar and salt are both used for preservative and flavor enhancing attributes because they are inexpensive ingredients in a food industry whose first priority is profit, not human health.
The medical industry likewise is more about profit than human health, despite ideological mission statements that might indicate otherwise.
Now we have an emerging 'health food industry' that needs to be examined very carefully by any discerning consumer.
Yes. I am cynical. Please do your best to become an informed consumer and make the best decisions for yourself based on what you learn. You cannot trust anyone else to act in your own best interests.
05-21-12, 02:50 PM #7
05-21-12, 07:00 PM #8
I think most of this is psychosomatic. I remember years ago my brother;s first wife insisted her son had a severe reaction to sugar, causing him various problems. One day I was visiting my brother and his step son, who was 4 years old, was left with us. I felt bad he never had a candy bar or even a can of coke, so I gave him some. He was fine and enjoyed being with the guys with not ill effects. I knew it was all in her head, due to what she had been conned into believing or wanted to believe. The little boy was watching us be normal and he was normal.
A few hours later she returned and caught him with the coke. As soon as the little boy saw her reaction, he started to act out the symptoms his mother wanted him to have. I told her he had been drinking the soda for several hours and that she was the problem, not the sugar. It is not good to mess up a small brain, which she ultimately did.
The whole white sugar thing is feminine in nature. These foods will pack on the pounds if you sit in front of A TV and eat too much. While salt causes you to retain water weight. This began as a diet pitch for how to lose weight so a female could fit in skinny clothes. The fear pitch has replaced desire to lose weight pitch to help the ladies lose weight. This is an easy sales pitch and I am sure there are many alternative ready to be sold as replacement.
05-21-12, 07:27 PM #9
05-21-12, 07:29 PM #10
05-22-12, 06:58 AM #11
I like some light cream in my coffee. I like my tea straight up.
05-22-12, 10:46 AM #12
In response to some of the comments above, it has been observed that some people have genetics that make mockery of any diet while some can gain weight just looking at a donut or danish.
As for 'The whole white sugar thing is feminine in nature.', I wonder how one explains this obesity chart then, by The World Health Organization, for MALES.
The following is the same chart for women.
I certainly observe as many or more 'Dunlops' on men (done lopped over the belt) as I do abuses of spandex by women. There IS an upper limit to what can be restrained by nylon.
06-21-12, 02:32 AM #13
I could agree that white table sugar is a poison, as well as being highly addictive, and probably should be banned. We get enough sugar from fruits and other sources to make up for any nutritional need our bodies may have for it. For consumer markets, it could easily be replaced by lower glycemic ones, like palm sugar, honey and agave, that are much better for you.
As for salt, isn't that a mineral that our body requires? Obviously we need to take it in moderation, but I think it's essential for survival isn't it? Also, the iodine they put in most table salt is there to prevent thyroid problems which used to be epidemic in some parts of the states before they did this.
06-21-12, 08:09 AM #14
It is the lack of awareness by the consumer and the inconsistency of labeling practice that contributes much of the problem.
On many products, 'serving size' is a variable option and % of salt or sugar is usually shown per serving.
Therefore if 125 ml (4 ounces or 1/2 cup) of soup contains 37% of the RDI (Recommended Daily Intake) of salt, the whole can of 284 ml contains 84% of the RDI, but most people's thought processes register the 37% and not the portion size.
Now do me a favor. Go and pour 4 ounces of any liquid into a bowl and tell me if you would consider that a 'portion', even as an appetizer.
Health effects of iodine
Many medicines and cleansers for skin wounds contain iodine.
Iodine is a building material of thyroid hormones that are essential for growth, the nervous system and the metabolism. Humans that eat little to no bread can experience iodine shortages. The function of the thyroid gland will than slow down and the thyroid gland will start swelling up. This phenomenon is called struma. This condition is rare now as table salt is dosed with a little iodide. Large quantities of iodine can be dangerous because the thyroid gland will labour too hastily. This affects the entire body; it causes disturbed heartbeats and loss of weight.
Elemental iodine, I2, is toxic, and its vapour irritates the eyes and lungs. The maximum allowable concentration in air when working with iodine is just 1 mg m-3. All iodides are toxic if taken in excess.
Iodine 131 is one of the radionuclides involved in atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons, which began in 1945, with a US test, and ended in 1980 with a Chinese test. It is among the long-lived radionuclides that have produced and will continue to produce increased cancers risk for decades and centuries to come. Iodine 131 increases the risk of cancer and possibly other diseases of the thyroid and those caused by thyroid hormonal deficiency.
Read more: http://www.lenntech.com/periodic/ele...#ixzz1yQsoh2gY
06-21-12, 09:53 AM #15
Everything is a poison if you use it too much. People can die of drinking to much water.
Hey, why don't we ban water???
P.S.: What is the point of this thread?
P.P.S.: You can get my salty French fries and tall caramel late out of my cold, dead hands!!
06-21-12, 11:10 AM #16
How about just banning them in processed foods? If those companies can't find a more nutritious way to make their products attractive then maybe they should go out of business.
08-24-12, 03:55 PM #17
Sugar (sucrose) is composed of 1 molecule of glucose and 1 molecule of fructose. Glucose is a necessity for life and your body will cannibalise itself to death (if necessary) in order to produce sufficient glucose (via gluconeogenesis - conversion of protein to glucose). The main organ that must have glucose is the brain and then only some 5% to 15% of its energy gradient must be glucose, the remainder can come from keytones (products of fat metabolism). However, the brain cannot ever be starved of glucose and requires a permanent steady flow, which if interrupted for even a short time can result in serious brain damage or death. To ensure this flow the body maintains a very strict and narrow range of glucose in the blood, the amount is about 5g (about a teaspoonful) at any given time. Above this range for extended periods glucose acts as a deadly toxin and can result in death. Below the range results in other unwanted effects the first of which tends to be unconsciousness. Diabetics know all these well. The control of how much glucose remains in the blood is the role of the hormone insulin. Insulin operates by pushing glucose into cells to be burned as energy and beyond that converting the excess to triglycerides (fat). The fat is stored in adipose tissue (fat cells) and will remain there until insulin levels drop. If sugar levels always remain high then the fat stores continue to accumulate and are never used as energy - the result is obesity. Another adverse effect of constant high levels of glucose and hence insulin is that cells become resistant to insulin and the body has to produce ever increasing amounts of insulin to keep control. This increasing need for insulin causes stress on the pancreas (the producer of insulin), and some insulin produces cells will die (permanently). At a certain point the pancreas fails to maintain adequate insulin and the body can no longer control glucose levels - this is diabetes.
Another affect of too much sugar is cancer. Cancer cells, apart from some very rare ones, can only metabolize glucose for energy and cannot use fat. This has been known since the 1920s. It follows then that more sugar in the diet will result in a greater risk of cancer. This can be shown clearly from the stats of cancer occurrence and the current dietary guidelines in the western world encouraging high intakes of carbohydrates. At the turn of the century 1899/1900 cancer rates were about 1 in 10, the current rate is 1 in 2. The correlation with increased sugar consumption is very obvious. The WHO (world health organization) some years ago attempted to introduce limitations on sugar consumption but were threatened by funding withdrawals by the US governmental - a direct result of the powerful sugar industry.
Fructose is the component of sugar that provides the sweet taste, glucose alone is not particularly sweet. Fructose is mostly a toxin and the body treats it carefully. From the moment it is absorbed through the gut it is transported directly to the liver for appropriate destruction, either into glycogen where it can be used for energy later, or more commonly directly into triglycerides. While in the liver fructose interferes with insulin signaling and acts the same as alcohol (without the brain buzz). In other words it acts much like a true toxin.
The key point is that too much sugar over sustained periods can be deadly or at least cause significant disease - usually termed metabolic syndrome. Consumption of sugar as as separate product is entirely unnecessary. The food industry would disagree as it is the sweet taste that enables them to sell more products.
Or rather sodium is one of three critical minerals, the others being magnesium and potassium. All three are essential for optimum health in appropriate portions, and they all tend to interact with each other. Deficiency or excess in any of these tends to lead to poorer health. In the modern media too much sodium is associated with high blood pressure and that myth is so prevalent that most uninformed people have bought into it. The science says otherwise. The original paper that planted this seed exaggerated the effects and the myth was born. The actual absolute increase was only seen in the region of 1 to 2 millimeters - an inconsequential amount.
The best way to obtain appropriate levels of these minerals is to consume a wide variety of foods that are not accompanied by a nutrition label. Just avoid sugar and salt laden manufactured foods.
03-15-13, 06:58 AM #18
Never knew about this....thanks
By Billy T in forum Business & EconomicsLast Post: 05-12-13, 03:02 PMReplies: 419
By leopold in forum Health & FitnessLast Post: 05-09-09, 12:49 PMReplies: 66
By Tiassa in forum General Science & TechnologyLast Post: 12-08-08, 05:19 PMReplies: 12
By Free Israel in forum PoliticsLast Post: 06-23-06, 07:39 AMReplies: 86