Article: Sugar may be toxic

Sugar is toxic for mice in dosages that in humans would equal a "safe" diet that includes three cans of soda per day, scientists said Tuesday.

Mice fed a diet in which sugar contributed a quarter of their daily calories did not become obese or ill, yet died younger and had fewer babies than animals on a healthy diet, said the team -- raising red flags about "added sugar" levels some consider safe for humans.
 
Three cans of soda is quite a bit in terms of sugar consumption...
 
My name is Mila. Touch my sugar and you Will die.

Oke?
You got that?
Now go watch some tv and leave the sweet stuff alone.


:o
I'm a sugar addict
:o
 
What does not kill you nowadays? Sugar is old news but I think there are many others that will get to you before sugar does.
 
This needs a bit of back-story: Wayne Potts is doing excellent work in his narrow studies on simple and complex sugars. However this is an almost identical test to that which he performed in 2011 relating to the effects of sugar delivery via glucose, sugar-free, and sucrose (table sugar). The results however are different. http://www.sciencenews.org/view/gen...rent_necessarily_simple_animal_study_suggests

http://worldofsciencelifeeducation.blogspot.com/2011/04/table-sugar-is-not-only-glucose-plus.html

In the previous tests, Potts et al discovered that glucose in moderate doses has a significant adverse effect on mortality and reproduction. Sucrose on the other hand had a mildly adverse effect, and one that really didn't tip any statistical scales all that much. So what's changed since then? The methodology is the same, and there is a common denominator - the sugar, yet both show different results. The issue is also the way in which these tests are performed. There is no real control, nor accurate comparative. Allow me to explain: if mice are fed a diet high in sugar, one would have to balance that with a similar intake of food that forms a part of their ordinary consumption. To the best of my knowledge, this is not done. In addition, there are simply two groups - one with a certain form of sugar, and another with a different form. There is no control group.

Another serious issue which Potts himself has admitted with his methodology is "data acquired from such a system are unlikely to impress regulators, like risk-assessment analysts with the Food and Drug Administration. And the reason: “it’s just an end measurement – where the animals either die or they don’t breed.” There is nothing to explain the results. There is no physiological reason for this, so one has to begin the pain-staking process of ruling out every single possibility, of which the sugar intake was one.

On the breeding side of things, he simply replicated older tests where mice fed sugars showed less aggression and dominance towards other mice. It kinda just chilled them out (no, they were not fat - this is dealt with in the article). So females chose not to mate with them more often than the other group. This is hardly a sign that sugar is toxic. Regarding the mortality rate, well now the process of elimination, repetition and detailed study begins. In other tests conducted over the past few decades (independent, before you harp on about big business influence) no such data has come to the fore, with respect to similar intake levels.

What is staggering though are the similarities between this and previous studies by Potts two years ago. The results are almost identical. Female mortality rate was far higher than male mortality rate. Females chose the non-sugar intake partners to breed with, and this is more interesting considering that previous studies by Potts compared them against other sugars, and the same results are found. All mice showed abnormal mortality rates.

So this is either far too much of a coincidence, or he really and truly is on to something. However it is not accurate to be reporting that sugar may be toxic. The study is far from complete, hasn't been replicated outside of his lab, is a very, very basic comparison that involving no relative control, and does not in itself conclude that sugar is toxic. There are still many questions that need to be answered before it becomes responsible to report such a headline.

I find his work fascinating however and I certainly don't discount it. I do however go in with a sceptical mind and a few alarms are always triggered when looking at his work. Luckily for me however, I am not a soda pop drinker, nor do I drink tea or coffee. My sugar intake is very low, by personal preference, not health reasons...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X