Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Sugar Addiction Myths
Options
Replies
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »people defend their sugar with a lot of zeal that is often not seen with the other food or macros.
I don't actually think this is true. It's just under more attack on these forums (sugar is the devil and all that). I'm currently avoiding it (the added kind, not fruits, veg, or dairy), so am not knee jerk defending it, but people respond in similar ways to the rarer attacks on meat, dairy (I've been in some of those), fat, and cheese (I remember one thread mocking the idea of cheese addiction, which seems to be a thing in some WFPB forums similar to sugar addiction among some on the lower carb side).
Me, I think it's all about hedonism (more specifically, I basically agree with Stephan Guyenet's explanation).
I do enjoy the argument that sugar is essential because you can't make a good apple pie without it. I think a better version of the same argument against "sugar is unnecessary in food" is that it's obviously not unnecessary to all foods, many foods (that almost everyone will recognize as perfectly good additions to the diet) come with it, like broccoli and blueberries, sweet potatoes and milk, and the idea of trying to remove it from those foods so as to improve them is absurd. But that says nothing about needing it in the diet, as the link says.
In other words, IF the argument is that sugar is unnecessary and therefore less sugar is ALWAYS better (which I do think is an argument that one runs into), that would mean that we would have to consider the sugar with broccoli et al. a bad side to it (vs. an inherent part of why anyone eats it in the first place). That's messed up, IMO. Better not to suggest (at least for the vast majority of people) that the ideal is no sugar, but that avoiding excess sugar is a good thing. A diet with fruits and veg and dairy and various other foods (even if you ate all whole foods) would contribute sugar into the diet. You don't need that sugar to live (we are adapted to making what we need if we have to), but suggesting that it might be better to avoid such foods (or removing the sugar from them) seems to me absurd, yet that's the logical conclusion of the "food doesn't need sugar" argument.
Not getting into any other parts of this discussion, at least not yet. ;-)
I think that added sugar is the main problem, but that sugar in fruits and other carbs became a problem for people like me who have autoimmune issues and insulin resisance - like me. I wonder if I had been brought up with much less (or no) added sugars like honey, sucrose and HFCS, along with fewer refined grains (especially since I am a celiac) if my health in my middle age would have been improved. I suspect it would have been.
Highly refined sugar and grains does affect my health more than the same carbs in a more natural state like berries or yellow peppers. I think there is something to the delivery system of the sugar, which in produce is often more limited and comes with a fair bit of fibre. A fast hit of sugar from a refined or ultra processed food in the blood stream is a different expereince than what you get from a salad and fruit bowl. KWIM?
Nutritionally, in terms of micronutrients, there's quite a difference too.
I tend to think that less sugar is better, but that's in terms of added sugar or naturally occurrng sugar. I don't believe that more sugar in one's lfe is better/healthier than less.
Are there any Blue Zone diets that are high in added sugar and refined grains?6 -
It could be just me, but apple pie doesn't really need sugar, or strawberry shortcake imo.
You don't need a lot, but most recipes I've enjoyed include some, and I think it's better with it than it would be without.
I'm not a strawberry shortcake fan (assuming good strawberries, I'd always rather just have strawberries and plain whipping cream or just add the strawberries to some pancakes or waffles, perhaps, or some vanilla ice cream, but I digress...). Here's a pretty standard recipe: https://cooking.nytimes.com/recipes/11823-strawberry-shortcake. The shortcake normally has sugar in it.
Obviously the apples and strawberries also have sugar, which is what actually relates to the point I was making.0 -
gamerbabe14 wrote: »Does anyone listen to podcasts? Freakonomics just released one on sugar. They do a good job of showing both arguments although it's pretty clear at the end of the episode which one is the standout.
I used to listen to that one but haven't in ages. I'll have to find the episode.0 -
I think that added sugar is the main problem, but that sugar in fruits and other carbs became a problem for people like me who have autoimmune issues and insulin resisance - like me. I wonder if I had been brought up with much less (or no) added sugars like honey, sucrose and HFCS, along with fewer refined grains (especially since I am a celiac) if my health in my middle age would have been improved. I suspect it would have been.
I suspect that too, probably especially if the celiac had been caught earlier. But there don't seem to be people who struggle with IR in blue zone cultures, even higher carb ones (relating to what you ask below).A fast hit of sugar from a refined or ultra processed food in the blood stream is a different expereince than what you get from a salad and fruit bowl. KWIM?
For someone with IR, certainly. On the other hand, a banana or potato can be a quick hit, and I don't think those are problems in healthy people (or in a balanced diet eaten with other foods, not even for plenty of people with IR, although I think genetic sensitivity and other factors can make a difference so that some might need to avoid them entirely after developing issues). But I would say that doesn't make sugar really the culprit or suggest that it always would be better avoided in general (vs. for some, just as some with Crohn may need to avoid vegetables that would be really healthful to include in a diet for others -- you can make do without vegetables, but I would never say as if I were recommending it "vegetables are entirely unnecessary," which was the point I was making re sugar, really).Nutritionally, in terms of micronutrients, there's quite a difference too.
Depending on how it's used. Apples aren't any better than cranberries with a bit of sugar or rhubarb with a bit of sugar. But you know me well enough to know I'm not saying there's no difference between foods, and I see lots of differences between some blueberries and a cookie (although I think both can be part of a healthful diet)!I tend to think that less sugar is better, but that's in terms of added sugar or naturally occurrng sugar. I don't believe that more sugar in one's lfe is better/healthier than less.
Are there any Blue Zone diets that are high in added sugar and refined grains?
Not to my knowledge, and I'd guess not.
I share your bias that keeping added sugar low is better (although I don't think it's important to keep it as low as you possibly can if it's at a reasonably low level -- proper level and reasons for that being debatable still, of course -- and you have no other reasons, such as health issues, desire to stay in ketosis, personal hunger level, whatever, to worry about it). I also tend to agree with some others (Attia, Noakes, many more) that there are some individual genetic differences as to how much is too much even before developing issues.0 -
anyway, I found it interesting and it is no way peer reviewed...
It's just one guy's thoughts. If you look at his LinkedIn profile his education is a bachelor's in psychology/law and a master's in IT. No background at all to discuss the pluses and minuses of anything related to nutrition.
Personally don't think sugar is physically addictive, psychologically maybe.3 -
Sugar makes things taste nice.
Especially when paired with fats.
Mmmm, sugar fats.17 -
Packerjohn wrote: »anyway, I found it interesting and it is no way peer reviewed...
It's just one guy's thoughts. If you look at his LinkedIn profile his education is a bachelor's in psychology/law and a master's in IT. No background at all to discuss the pluses and minuses of anything related to nutrition.
Personally don't think sugar is physically addictive, psychologically maybe.
Many people with no more nutritional education than that write diet books or make "documentaries" telling you sugar is horrible for you too.4 -
Great article!!!!
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »anyway, I found it interesting and it is no way peer reviewed...
It's just one guy's thoughts. If you look at his LinkedIn profile his education is a bachelor's in psychology/law and a master's in IT. No background at all to discuss the pluses and minuses of anything related to nutrition.
Personally don't think sugar is physically addictive, psychologically maybe.
Many people with no more nutritional education than that write diet books or make "documentaries" telling you sugar is horrible for you too.
Exhibit A: Gary Taubes is a journalist with no nutritional/medical training whatsoever.
Incidentally, he's one of the biggest demonizers of carbs, has written several books and is often quoted as a "source" by low-carb/anti-sugar people. No background at all to discuss the pluses and minuses of anything related to nutrition. Kim Kardashian or Snooki would have just as much credibility regarding nutrition. And their books would probably sell better.7 -
stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »anyway, I found it interesting and it is no way peer reviewed...
It's just one guy's thoughts. If you look at his LinkedIn profile his education is a bachelor's in psychology/law and a master's in IT. No background at all to discuss the pluses and minuses of anything related to nutrition.
Personally don't think sugar is physically addictive, psychologically maybe.
Many people with no more nutritional education than that write diet books or make "documentaries" telling you sugar is horrible for you too.
Oh I agree.
My challenge with the original post is the article debunks a lot of myths, but the "debunking" is done by an individual with no applicable background and no references to any science backing his statements.
No better/worse than sugar demonizers with no background that write blog posts.2 -
stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »anyway, I found it interesting and it is no way peer reviewed...
It's just one guy's thoughts. If you look at his LinkedIn profile his education is a bachelor's in psychology/law and a master's in IT. No background at all to discuss the pluses and minuses of anything related to nutrition.
Personally don't think sugar is physically addictive, psychologically maybe.
Many people with no more nutritional education than that write diet books or make "documentaries" telling you sugar is horrible for you too.
Exhibit A: Gary Taubes is a journalist with no nutritional/medical training whatsoever.
Incidentally, he's one of the biggest demonizers of carbs, has written several books and is often quoted as a "source" by low-carb/anti-sugar people. No background at all to discuss the pluses and minuses of anything related to nutrition. Kim Kardashian or Snooki would have just as much credibility regarding nutrition. And their books would probably sell better.
Agree. Doesn't it suck? The dumbing down continues.1 -
Packerjohn wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »anyway, I found it interesting and it is no way peer reviewed...
It's just one guy's thoughts. If you look at his LinkedIn profile his education is a bachelor's in psychology/law and a master's in IT. No background at all to discuss the pluses and minuses of anything related to nutrition.
Personally don't think sugar is physically addictive, psychologically maybe.
Many people with no more nutritional education than that write diet books or make "documentaries" telling you sugar is horrible for you too.
Oh I agree.
My challenge with the original post is the article debunks a lot of myths, but the "debunking" is done by an individual with no applicable background and no references to any science backing his statements.
No better/worse than sugar demonizers with no background that write blog posts.
Are they myths or not?0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »anyway, I found it interesting and it is no way peer reviewed...
It's just one guy's thoughts. If you look at his LinkedIn profile his education is a bachelor's in psychology/law and a master's in IT. No background at all to discuss the pluses and minuses of anything related to nutrition.
Personally don't think sugar is physically addictive, psychologically maybe.
Many people with no more nutritional education than that write diet books or make "documentaries" telling you sugar is horrible for you too.
Oh I agree.
My challenge with the original post is the article debunks a lot of myths, but the "debunking" is done by an individual with no applicable background and no references to any science backing his statements.
No better/worse than sugar demonizers with no background that write blog posts.
Are they myths or not?
Like most agenda driven articles this has some truth, some BS and a lot of spin.9 -
My addiction is sour candies. I've cut down to almost none because I stopped in February and had some sours the other day and they tasted flat out nasty to me now.0
-
Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »anyway, I found it interesting and it is no way peer reviewed...
It's just one guy's thoughts. If you look at his LinkedIn profile his education is a bachelor's in psychology/law and a master's in IT. No background at all to discuss the pluses and minuses of anything related to nutrition.
Personally don't think sugar is physically addictive, psychologically maybe.
Many people with no more nutritional education than that write diet books or make "documentaries" telling you sugar is horrible for you too.
Oh I agree.
My challenge with the original post is the article debunks a lot of myths, but the "debunking" is done by an individual with no applicable background and no references to any science backing his statements.
No better/worse than sugar demonizers with no background that write blog posts.
Are they myths or not?
Like most agenda driven articles this has some truth, some BS and a lot of spin.
Such as?2 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »anyway, I found it interesting and it is no way peer reviewed...
It's just one guy's thoughts. If you look at his LinkedIn profile his education is a bachelor's in psychology/law and a master's in IT. No background at all to discuss the pluses and minuses of anything related to nutrition.
Personally don't think sugar is physically addictive, psychologically maybe.
Many people with no more nutritional education than that write diet books or make "documentaries" telling you sugar is horrible for you too.
Oh I agree.
My challenge with the original post is the article debunks a lot of myths, but the "debunking" is done by an individual with no applicable background and no references to any science backing his statements.
No better/worse than sugar demonizers with no background that write blog posts.
Are they myths or not?
Like most agenda driven articles this has some truth, some BS and a lot of spin.
Such as?Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »anyway, I found it interesting and it is no way peer reviewed...
It's just one guy's thoughts. If you look at his LinkedIn profile his education is a bachelor's in psychology/law and a master's in IT. No background at all to discuss the pluses and minuses of anything related to nutrition.
Personally don't think sugar is physically addictive, psychologically maybe.
Many people with no more nutritional education than that write diet books or make "documentaries" telling you sugar is horrible for you too.
Oh I agree.
My challenge with the original post is the article debunks a lot of myths, but the "debunking" is done by an individual with no applicable background and no references to any science backing his statements.
No better/worse than sugar demonizers with no background that write blog posts.
Are they myths or not?
Like most agenda driven articles this has some truth, some BS and a lot of spin.
Such as?
I noticed a few. I'm sure you have good reading comprehension and critical thinking skills. Why don't you read the article again, think about it and post what you've identified as biases?6 -
JohnnyPenso wrote: »This one is especially funny:
Myth 7: Sugary foods are a food industry plot to get us hooked on cheap ingredients
The idea that we are controlled by the food industry is as bad as the idea that we are controlled by sugar. Nobody is piling our shopping trolleys with sweet treats but us.
Sure, it's a myth that the food industry is in business to get us hooked on their products. Really? For what other purpose do they exist but to sell you more of their products?
It's simpler than that. They exist to make money.
The easiest way for a food company to make money is to sell you things you want, at a price you'll pay, and use the least expensive inputs (ingredients and process).
If they could make millions selling people single-serve Brussels sprouts, they'd do it. But candy's more popular.
16 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »anyway, I found it interesting and it is no way peer reviewed...
It's just one guy's thoughts. If you look at his LinkedIn profile his education is a bachelor's in psychology/law and a master's in IT. No background at all to discuss the pluses and minuses of anything related to nutrition.
Personally don't think sugar is physically addictive, psychologically maybe.
Many people with no more nutritional education than that write diet books or make "documentaries" telling you sugar is horrible for you too.
Oh I agree.
My challenge with the original post is the article debunks a lot of myths, but the "debunking" is done by an individual with no applicable background and no references to any science backing his statements.
No better/worse than sugar demonizers with no background that write blog posts.
Are they myths or not?
Like most agenda driven articles this has some truth, some BS and a lot of spin.
Such as?Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »anyway, I found it interesting and it is no way peer reviewed...
It's just one guy's thoughts. If you look at his LinkedIn profile his education is a bachelor's in psychology/law and a master's in IT. No background at all to discuss the pluses and minuses of anything related to nutrition.
Personally don't think sugar is physically addictive, psychologically maybe.
Many people with no more nutritional education than that write diet books or make "documentaries" telling you sugar is horrible for you too.
Oh I agree.
My challenge with the original post is the article debunks a lot of myths, but the "debunking" is done by an individual with no applicable background and no references to any science backing his statements.
No better/worse than sugar demonizers with no background that write blog posts.
Are they myths or not?
Like most agenda driven articles this has some truth, some BS and a lot of spin.
Such as?
I noticed a few. I'm sure you have good reading comprehension and critical thinking skills. Why don't you read the article again, think about it and post what you've identified as biases?
Because I'm not asking myself, I am asking you....2 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »anyway, I found it interesting and it is no way peer reviewed...
It's just one guy's thoughts. If you look at his LinkedIn profile his education is a bachelor's in psychology/law and a master's in IT. No background at all to discuss the pluses and minuses of anything related to nutrition.
Personally don't think sugar is physically addictive, psychologically maybe.
Many people with no more nutritional education than that write diet books or make "documentaries" telling you sugar is horrible for you too.
Oh I agree.
My challenge with the original post is the article debunks a lot of myths, but the "debunking" is done by an individual with no applicable background and no references to any science backing his statements.
No better/worse than sugar demonizers with no background that write blog posts.
Are they myths or not?
Like most agenda driven articles this has some truth, some BS and a lot of spin.
Such as?Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »anyway, I found it interesting and it is no way peer reviewed...
It's just one guy's thoughts. If you look at his LinkedIn profile his education is a bachelor's in psychology/law and a master's in IT. No background at all to discuss the pluses and minuses of anything related to nutrition.
Personally don't think sugar is physically addictive, psychologically maybe.
Many people with no more nutritional education than that write diet books or make "documentaries" telling you sugar is horrible for you too.
Oh I agree.
My challenge with the original post is the article debunks a lot of myths, but the "debunking" is done by an individual with no applicable background and no references to any science backing his statements.
No better/worse than sugar demonizers with no background that write blog posts.
Are they myths or not?
Like most agenda driven articles this has some truth, some BS and a lot of spin.
Such as?
I noticed a few. I'm sure you have good reading comprehension and critical thinking skills. Why don't you read the article again, think about it and post what you've identified as biases?
Because I'm not asking myself, I am asking you....
Sorry you don't want to examine and use your critical thinking/reading skills.
It's a shame. Really something that is worth lifetime development.
5 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »It could be just me, but apple pie doesn't really need sugar, or strawberry shortcake imo.
You don't need a lot, but most recipes I've enjoyed include some, and I think it's better with it than it would be without.
I'm not a strawberry shortcake fan (assuming good strawberries, I'd always rather just have strawberries and plain whipping cream or just add the strawberries to some pancakes or waffles, perhaps, or some vanilla ice cream, but I digress...). Here's a pretty standard recipe: https://cooking.nytimes.com/recipes/11823-strawberry-shortcake. The shortcake normally has sugar in it.
Obviously the apples and strawberries also have sugar, which is what actually relates to the point I was making.
tbh I didn't read your post carefully enough. I think I wanted to put here though that once I experienced leaving off most processed sugary foods and drinks I came to a place where desserts made with sugar, or veg with added sugar, disgusts my taste buds, I don't like the feeling it gives me in my mouth. I have a lemon tree out in the garden and I eat whole lemons like they were oranges. As I remarked in my post, taste has something to do with it.
1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 390 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions