Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Scientists say sugar is as toxic as alcohol – and there should be a drinking age for soda [View all]Avalux
(35,015 posts)124. Sugar in what form? Sucrose? Fructose? Glucose?
The idiots proposing to restrict 'sugar' will have their hands full trying to figure out which is the most toxic, and how much should be allowed.
STUPID.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
143 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Scientists say sugar is as toxic as alcohol – and there should be a drinking age for soda [View all]
The Straight Story
Feb 2012
OP
There is sugar in EVERYTHING. Sugar has no redeeming value nutritionally, but they'll never
gateley
Feb 2012
#4
Thanks for the interesting history. I try to stay away from Coke, too, but when
gateley
Feb 2012
#63
Yeah, well I don't need to find them! Besides, I was a Coke snob (although I did try the Pepsi
gateley
Feb 2012
#73
and they tasted a hell of a lot better and didn't have the aftertaste of the regular kind.
Occulus
Feb 2012
#107
I love water. I've started having a pitcher of cucumber water in the fridge...
Luminous Animal
Feb 2012
#81
... but the reason we restrict alcohol to minors has nothing to do with toxicity.
surrealAmerican
Feb 2012
#6
Sugar is actually a nutrient that the body needs in order to survive, unlike alcohol and tobacco.
Crunchy Frog
Feb 2012
#13
Our ancient ancestors didn't live very long, so I don't think they are a very convincing example. nt
ZombieHorde
Feb 2012
#19
Their life expectancy wasn't limited because they didn't have access to refined sugar.
renie408
Feb 2012
#21
I am not defending anything, I was attacking your argument strictly on tactical issues.
ZombieHorde
Feb 2012
#35
I find it interesting that you treat one of the most natural foods in the world--honey, the same as
niyad
Feb 2012
#22
I don't think he mans it's the same, just that there is no specific dietary need for either.
renie408
Feb 2012
#26
yup, it's marketed as a "natural" replacement sweetener and it's worse than HFCS....
mike_c
Feb 2012
#62
The reason that it has a low glycemic index is that it contains mostly fructose and little glucose
FarCenter
Feb 2012
#126
yes, let's talk about sugar, and not all the chemicals and other crap that is in our food and our
niyad
Feb 2012
#23
We should have been dead 40 years ago. I'm heading to a healthy 75. 100, eh? Congrats. I eat
demosincebirth
Feb 2012
#114
It's not exactly the same, but the effect on your body is pretty much identical
Major Nikon
Feb 2012
#130
I've finally found a group to be called 'Health Nazis': adults intimidating children at convenience
muriel_volestrangler
Feb 2012
#95
I use very little refined sugar, but this is the dumbest "sciencey" thing I've read in a long time.
slackmaster
Feb 2012
#113
Ok, drink sucralose (Splenda) and aspartame (Nutrasweet) and see what happens.
roamer65
Feb 2012
#133