OK, the NYTimes Magazine published an article called Is Sugar Toxic. And we agreed not to read it. But then The Ethicist was inane (actually the ethicist said that something very similar to something I had done, was, in fact unethical) and Frank Rich is no more and the sugar article was #1 on the list of Most-E-Mailed Articles so I started to peruse it. Apparently sugar, in sufficient quantities, is toxic and I had to read the entire article to determine just what the sufficient quantity is, or really, what the insufficient quantity is. I want to know the maximum amount of sugar I can consume that will still be insufficiently toxic.
The writer doesn't say. More research is apparently needed. At one point, he says that health experts would be thrilled if we all returned to the good old level of 40 lbs a year. Sounds like plenty, right? Pass me those mini-eggs. Actually, 40 lbs a year is only 200 calories a day. That doesn't sound like very much. I guess I'll only have 2 mini-eggs.
If I'm going to limit myself to 200 calories a day, well, I'm going to need to ease into this, start slow, cut back over time. And I'm going to have to figure out how many sugar calories are in everything I eat. That chocolate cake for instance, how many of the calories come from fat? I would have to look at the recipe, do some math, how many tablespoons in a cup, how many cups of sugar in the cake? In the frosting? Then divide that number by the number of pieces I'll eat in one day. And what if I want to have just a sliver before bed, two bites in the morning. That's a lot of math. Then I would have to do that for everything I baked. And if there were chocolate chips in the cookie, that would require research (how many sugar calories in a chocolate chip ? In 3 oz. of bittersweet chocolate? I guess I could start baking exclusively with unsweetened chocolate) and even more math. I'm going to need a few more mini-eggs before I get started.