Is sugar addiction real?

GlassslippersAndFairyDust

Less of an addiction and more of a bad habit. Calling it an addiction marginalizes true addictions.

Opinion, doesn't mean anything.

FunkyTobias

In for answers on the diagnostic criteria for "sugar addiction" and proof that doesn't involve rats

I don't understand what this comment means?

It means someone likes to argue......and YES, sugar addiction is real.......says about 98% of humans, not rats......seems you are once again outnumbered :laugh: :laugh:

So approx 7 billion people agree that sugar addiction is real? You'd think if that was the case there would be pretty clear and uniform diagnostic criteria for it. Does health insurance typically cover sugar addiction treatment or is there a premier rehab clinic for sugar addiction?

I realize you want to throw the burden of proof on others......but again I ask you, where's your proof? Since you are so opinionated on the subject......got anything to back it up other than your opinion? And the health insurance thing......there is a lot they don't cover, doesn't mean the person's health issue isn't real.

The burden of proof is on the claim maker, so still awaiting you to present your evidence of it's existence. So far we've gotten anecdotal evidence and studies on rats.

waiting.....................zzzzzzzzzzzzzz........that's what I thought. :noway:

You'll have to please quote what claim you want substantiated.

As I said, so far I've only seen you post your opinion about sugar addiction but nothing to back it up. Just proof, plain and simple.......and per your self-imposed rules; no rats, please.

You'll have to please quote what claim you want substantiated. And to quote you "I realize you want to throw the burden of proof on others"

I don't necessarily want to throw the burden of proof on others,.........I'm just tired of hearing others opinions vs what scientists have shown to be true. You may not accept it as proof but the medical community does and in MY OPINION that is more than good enough for me. As far as quoting what I want substantiated, it's more your opinion......that's the point. You've never, to my knowledge offered a 'REAL" claim based on anything other than your opinion. And while I'm asking, I would love to know what degrees you hold that back up your opinion. My opinion is not based on me but on the work of respected professors and scientists, which makes it fact not opinion.

I don't think you know what the word fact actually means in the context of this discussion. As for the medical profession accepting it as proof, you'll have to enlighten me why things like sugar addiction are not being included in the new DSM V, if it was a "fact" you'd think it would be included, if not there, you'd think there'd be some mention of it while searching the NIH website or other similar websites. At the very least if it was a fact, you'd think there'd be some universally accepted diagnostic criteria for such an ailment.

If i've never claimed anything in this debate, I fail to see what you want me to substantiate. You are the one making claims left and right, but fail to substantiate any of them.

Is it your opinion "sugar addicts" cannot have sugar in moderation and if so what amount quantifies as moderation?

Of course I know what context it's being used. And I think you know exactly what I want you to substantiate but you can't so you keep trying to throw it back to me. We've had this conversation before and I've given you the studies and you refuse to accept them because of the rats. Once again, rats have been used and will continue to be used in studies in relation to humans. Do you know better than the scientists? Still waiting on your degrees too, btw.

Rat studies are useful only insofar as they are hypothesis-generating. No scientist worth his/her salt would make claims about humans based solely on animal models.

gkstrss007

Yes ! As bad an addiction as crack cocaine! Speaking from experience :sad:

Please tell me more about the last time your children went hungry because you spent all your money on cupcake frosting.

The problem with sugar addiction-or any other type of food addiction-is that it can be totally shared WITH your children, and will teach them horrible habits. As a food addict myself, let me tell you, it's really not easy to deal with...at all. The kids won't go hungry, but it's really easy to use kids as the reason to get food, to go out to eat, to buy and eat an entire tub of ice cream in a night (or cupcake frosting). You show your kids that it's okay to eat that way, and the cycle repeats itself. So honestly, I'd say it's worse than a crack addiction because you're actually doing it in front of your kids and showing them that this is the way to be. It's a struggle...and not a joke.

RushBabe214

Acg67

In for answers on the diagnostic criteria for "sugar addiction" and proof that doesn't involve rats

I don't understand what this comment means?

It means someone likes to argue......and YES, sugar addiction is real.......says about 98% of humans, not rats......seems you are once again outnumbered :laugh: :laugh:

So approx 7 billion people agree that sugar addiction is real? You'd think if that was the case there would be pretty clear and uniform diagnostic criteria for it. Does health insurance typically cover sugar addiction treatment or is there a premier rehab clinic for sugar addiction?

I realize you want to throw the burden of proof on others......but again I ask you, where's your proof? Since you are so opinionated on the subject......got anything to back it up other than your opinion? And the health insurance thing......there is a lot they don't cover, doesn't mean the person's health issue isn't real.

The burden of proof is on the claim maker, so still awaiting you to present your evidence of it's existence. So far we've gotten anecdotal evidence and studies on rats.

waiting.....................zzzzzzzzzzzzzz........that's what I thought. :noway:

You'll have to please quote what claim you want substantiated.

As I said, so far I've only seen you post your opinion about sugar addiction but nothing to back it up. Just proof, plain and simple.......and per your self-imposed rules; no rats, please.

You'll have to please quote what claim you want substantiated. And to quote you "I realize you want to throw the burden of proof on others"

I don't necessarily want to throw the burden of proof on others,.........I'm just tired of hearing others opinions vs what scientists have shown to be true. You may not accept it as proof but the medical community does and in MY OPINION that is more than good enough for me. As far as quoting what I want substantiated, it's more your opinion......that's the point. You've never, to my knowledge offered a 'REAL" claim based on anything other than your opinion. And while I'm asking, I would love to know what degrees you hold that back up your opinion. My opinion is not based on me but on the work of respected professors and scientists, which makes it fact not opinion.

I don't think you know what the word fact actually means in the context of this discussion. As for the medical profession accepting it as proof, you'll have to enlighten me why things like sugar addiction are not being included in the new DSM V, if it was a "fact" you'd think it would be included, if not there, you'd think there'd be some mention of it while searching the NIH website or other similar websites. At the very least if it was a fact, you'd think there'd be some universally accepted diagnostic criteria for such an ailment.

If i've never claimed anything in this debate, I fail to see what you want me to substantiate. You are the one making claims left and right, but fail to substantiate any of them.

Is it your opinion "sugar addicts" cannot have sugar in moderation and if so what amount quantifies as moderation?

Of course I know what context it's being used. And I think you know exactly what I want you to substantiate but you can't so you keep trying to throw it back to me. We've had this conversation before and I've given you the studies and you refuse to accept them because of the rats. Once again, rats have been used and will continue to be used in studies in relation to humans. Do you know better than the scientists? Still waiting on your degrees too, btw.

You yourself stated I've made no claims, so what do you want substantiated? Also the rat studies withheld food for 12 hrs, how long is that relative to humans? Hint: Not 12 hrs

I have degrees in finance and economics, although not sure what that has anything to do with it.

GlassslippersAndFairyDust

In for answers on the diagnostic criteria for "sugar addiction" and proof that doesn't involve rats

I don't understand what this comment means?

It means someone likes to argue......and YES, sugar addiction is real.......says about 98% of humans, not rats......seems you are once again outnumbered :laugh: :laugh:

So approx 7 billion people agree that sugar addiction is real? You'd think if that was the case there would be pretty clear and uniform diagnostic criteria for it. Does health insurance typically cover sugar addiction treatment or is there a premier rehab clinic for sugar addiction?

I realize you want to throw the burden of proof on others......but again I ask you, where's your proof? Since you are so opinionated on the subject......got anything to back it up other than your opinion? And the health insurance thing......there is a lot they don't cover, doesn't mean the person's health issue isn't real.

The burden of proof is on the claim maker, so still awaiting you to present your evidence of it's existence. So far we've gotten anecdotal evidence and studies on rats.

waiting.....................zzzzzzzzzzzzzz........that's what I thought. :noway:

You'll have to please quote what claim you want substantiated.

As I said, so far I've only seen you post your opinion about sugar addiction but nothing to back it up. Just proof, plain and simple.......and per your self-imposed rules; no rats, please.

You'll have to please quote what claim you want substantiated. And to quote you "I realize you want to throw the burden of proof on others"

I don't necessarily want to throw the burden of proof on others,.........I'm just tired of hearing others opinions vs what scientists have shown to be true. You may not accept it as proof but the medical community does and in MY OPINION that is more than good enough for me. As far as quoting what I want substantiated, it's more your opinion......that's the point. You've never, to my knowledge offered a 'REAL" claim based on anything other than your opinion. And while I'm asking, I would love to know what degrees you hold that back up your opinion. My opinion is not based on me but on the work of respected professors and scientists, which makes it fact not opinion.

I don't think you know what the word fact actually means in the context of this discussion. As for the medical profession accepting it as proof, you'll have to enlighten me why things like sugar addiction are not being included in the new DSM V, if it was a "fact" you'd think it would be included, if not there, you'd think there'd be some mention of it while searching the NIH website or other similar websites. At the very least if it was a fact, you'd think there'd be some universally accepted diagnostic criteria for such an ailment.

If i've never claimed anything in this debate, I fail to see what you want me to substantiate. You are the one making claims left and right, but fail to substantiate any of them.

Is it your opinion "sugar addicts" cannot have sugar in moderation and if so what amount quantifies as moderation?

Of course I know what context it's being used. And I think you know exactly what I want you to substantiate but you can't so you keep trying to throw it back to me. We've had this conversation before and I've given you the studies and you refuse to accept them because of the rats. Once again, rats have been used and will continue to be used in studies in relation to humans. Do you know better than the scientists? Still waiting on your degrees too, btw.

Rat studies are useful only insofar as they are hypothesis-generating. No scientist worth his/her salt would make claims about humans based solely on animal models.

There were brain scans on humans too but of course those aren't good enough either........pffft

Acg67

In for answers on the diagnostic criteria for "sugar addiction" and proof that doesn't involve rats

I don't understand what this comment means?

It means someone likes to argue......and YES, sugar addiction is real.......says about 98% of humans, not rats......seems you are once again outnumbered :laugh: :laugh:

So approx 7 billion people agree that sugar addiction is real? You'd think if that was the case there would be pretty clear and uniform diagnostic criteria for it. Does health insurance typically cover sugar addiction treatment or is there a premier rehab clinic for sugar addiction?

I realize you want to throw the burden of proof on others......but again I ask you, where's your proof? Since you are so opinionated on the subject......got anything to back it up other than your opinion? And the health insurance thing......there is a lot they don't cover, doesn't mean the person's health issue isn't real.

The burden of proof is on the claim maker, so still awaiting you to present your evidence of it's existence. So far we've gotten anecdotal evidence and studies on rats.

waiting.....................zzzzzzzzzzzzzz........that's what I thought. :noway:

You'll have to please quote what claim you want substantiated.

As I said, so far I've only seen you post your opinion about sugar addiction but nothing to back it up. Just proof, plain and simple.......and per your self-imposed rules; no rats, please.

You'll have to please quote what claim you want substantiated. And to quote you "I realize you want to throw the burden of proof on others"

I don't necessarily want to throw the burden of proof on others,.........I'm just tired of hearing others opinions vs what scientists have shown to be true. You may not accept it as proof but the medical community does and in MY OPINION that is more than good enough for me. As far as quoting what I want substantiated, it's more your opinion......that's the point. You've never, to my knowledge offered a 'REAL" claim based on anything other than your opinion. And while I'm asking, I would love to know what degrees you hold that back up your opinion. My opinion is not based on me but on the work of respected professors and scientists, which makes it fact not opinion.

I don't think you know what the word fact actually means in the context of this discussion. As for the medical profession accepting it as proof, you'll have to enlighten me why things like sugar addiction are not being included in the new DSM V, if it was a "fact" you'd think it would be included, if not there, you'd think there'd be some mention of it while searching the NIH website or other similar websites. At the very least if it was a fact, you'd think there'd be some universally accepted diagnostic criteria for such an ailment.

If i've never claimed anything in this debate, I fail to see what you want me to substantiate. You are the one making claims left and right, but fail to substantiate any of them.

Is it your opinion "sugar addicts" cannot have sugar in moderation and if so what amount quantifies as moderation?

Of course I know what context it's being used. And I think you know exactly what I want you to substantiate but you can't so you keep trying to throw it back to me. We've had this conversation before and I've given you the studies and you refuse to accept them because of the rats. Once again, rats have been used and will continue to be used in studies in relation to humans. Do you know better than the scientists? Still waiting on your degrees too, btw.

Rat studies are useful only insofar as they are hypothesis-generating. No scientist worth his/her salt would make claims about humans based solely on animal models.

There were brain scans on humans too but of course those aren't good enough either........pffft

Oh the ones you've yet to produce?

GlassslippersAndFairyDust

[/quote]

I have degrees in finance and economics, although not sure what that has anything to do with it.
[/quote]

Exactly! Discussion with you is over.

GlassslippersAndFairyDust

In for answers on the diagnostic criteria for "sugar addiction" and proof that doesn't involve rats

I don't understand what this comment means?

It means someone likes to argue......and YES, sugar addiction is real.......says about 98% of humans, not rats......seems you are once again outnumbered :laugh: :laugh:

So approx 7 billion people agree that sugar addiction is real? You'd think if that was the case there would be pretty clear and uniform diagnostic criteria for it. Does health insurance typically cover sugar addiction treatment or is there a premier rehab clinic for sugar addiction?

I realize you want to throw the burden of proof on others......but again I ask you, where's your proof? Since you are so opinionated on the subject......got anything to back it up other than your opinion? And the health insurance thing......there is a lot they don't cover, doesn't mean the person's health issue isn't real.

The burden of proof is on the claim maker, so still awaiting you to present your evidence of it's existence. So far we've gotten anecdotal evidence and studies on rats.

waiting.....................zzzzzzzzzzzzzz........that's what I thought. :noway:

You'll have to please quote what claim you want substantiated.

As I said, so far I've only seen you post your opinion about sugar addiction but nothing to back it up. Just proof, plain and simple.......and per your self-imposed rules; no rats, please.

You'll have to please quote what claim you want substantiated. And to quote you "I realize you want to throw the burden of proof on others"

I don't necessarily want to throw the burden of proof on others,.........I'm just tired of hearing others opinions vs what scientists have shown to be true. You may not accept it as proof but the medical community does and in MY OPINION that is more than good enough for me. As far as quoting what I want substantiated, it's more your opinion......that's the point. You've never, to my knowledge offered a 'REAL" claim based on anything other than your opinion. And while I'm asking, I would love to know what degrees you hold that back up your opinion. My opinion is not based on me but on the work of respected professors and scientists, which makes it fact not opinion.

I don't think you know what the word fact actually means in the context of this discussion. As for the medical profession accepting it as proof, you'll have to enlighten me why things like sugar addiction are not being included in the new DSM V, if it was a "fact" you'd think it would be included, if not there, you'd think there'd be some mention of it while searching the NIH website or other similar websites. At the very least if it was a fact, you'd think there'd be some universally accepted diagnostic criteria for such an ailment.

If i've never claimed anything in this debate, I fail to see what you want me to substantiate. You are the one making claims left and right, but fail to substantiate any of them.

Is it your opinion "sugar addicts" cannot have sugar in moderation and if so what amount quantifies as moderation?

Of course I know what context it's being used. And I think you know exactly what I want you to substantiate but you can't so you keep trying to throw it back to me. We've had this conversation before and I've given you the studies and you refuse to accept them because of the rats. Once again, rats have been used and will continue to be used in studies in relation to humans. Do you know better than the scientists? Still waiting on your degrees too, btw.

Rat studies are useful only insofar as they are hypothesis-generating. No scientist worth his/her salt would make claims about humans based solely on animal models.

There were brain scans on humans too but of course those aren't good enough either........pffft

Oh the ones you've yet to produce?

Find them yourself, they're out there. I'm not your gopher. I read three the other day. If you can't find them, then maybe it's because you don't want to??

schondell

Sugar is not a food group. Junk food is not a food group.

BeachIron

Yes ! As bad an addiction as crack cocaine! Speaking from experience :sad:

Please tell me more about the last time your children went hungry because you spent all your money on cupcake frosting.

The problem with sugar addiction-or any other type of food addiction-is that it can be totally shared WITH your children, and will teach them horrible habits. As a food addict myself, let me tell you, it's really not easy to deal with...at all. The kids won't go hungry, but it's really easy to use kids as the reason to get food, to go out to eat, to buy and eat an entire tub of ice cream in a night (or cupcake frosting). You show your kids that it's okay to eat that way, and the cycle repeats itself. So honestly, I'd say it's worse than a crack addiction because you're actually doing it in front of your kids and showing them that this is the way to be. It's a struggle...and not a joke.

No one is arguing whether people have horrible eating habits, struggle or binge with food, or emotionally eat, and that these behaviors can be very damaging. The argument has to do with whether the bad habit rises to the level of addiction. As for your assertion that your food issues are "worse than a crack addiction" I have to tell you that this is exactly why several of us, myself included, are so heavily against these ridiculous claims. Crack, or for that matter, cocaine in general, is no joke and it destroys addicts' families and children as well as the addict. I mean this with all compassion, but grow up.

Edit: typo

tsh0ck

dr oz is a cardiologist, too.

Are you implying that cardiologists (in general) are wrong...bad...irresponsible? Because that's too much of a generalization for me. If you haven't read the book, don't imply anything about the author. Thanks.

I'm implying that just because he's an expert in one area doesn't mean he's an expert in another -- as dr oz proves time and time again.

I'm a damn good sports reporter/writer/editor/journalist. for this reason, I should be able to write a trustworthy book on, say, war-time correspondence. right?

pittbullgirl

I would say yes. I am addicted to sugar, to the point that I get extremely cranky if I don't get it. My husband has actually gone to the store, bought chocolate for me and then practically thrown it at me when he got home because I was such a bear!

I'm the type of person that will sit and eat 1/2 a bag of Hershey's Hugs. My daughter bought me a huge box of chocolates for Mother's Day. I ate it all in less than two weeks. I will usually eat chocolate until I feel sick. I don't do it because I'm feeling depressed or stressed or anything like that, I do it because I want chocolate and I want a lot of it!

So my short answer is a very definite YES, you can get addicted to sugar!

This could be me. Totally addicted to sugar.

GlassslippersAndFairyDust

dr oz is a cardiologist, too.

Are you implying that cardiologists (in general) are wrong...bad...irresponsible? Because that's too much of a generalization for me. If you haven't read the book, don't imply anything about the author. Thanks.

I'm implying that just because he's an expert in one area doesn't mean he's an expert in another -- as dr oz proves time and time again.

I'm a damn good sports reporter/writer/editor/journalist. for this reason, I should be able to write a trustworthy book on, say, war-time correspondence. right?

If you do your research, sure, why not?

Acg67

In for answers on the diagnostic criteria for "sugar addiction" and proof that doesn't involve rats

I don't understand what this comment means?

It means someone likes to argue......and YES, sugar addiction is real.......says about 98% of humans, not rats......seems you are once again outnumbered :laugh: :laugh:

So approx 7 billion people agree that sugar addiction is real? You'd think if that was the case there would be pretty clear and uniform diagnostic criteria for it. Does health insurance typically cover sugar addiction treatment or is there a premier rehab clinic for sugar addiction?

I realize you want to throw the burden of proof on others......but again I ask you, where's your proof? Since you are so opinionated on the subject......got anything to back it up other than your opinion? And the health insurance thing......there is a lot they don't cover, doesn't mean the person's health issue isn't real.

The burden of proof is on the claim maker, so still awaiting you to present your evidence of it's existence. So far we've gotten anecdotal evidence and studies on rats.

waiting.....................zzzzzzzzzzzzzz........that's what I thought. :noway:

You'll have to please quote what claim you want substantiated.

As I said, so far I've only seen you post your opinion about sugar addiction but nothing to back it up. Just proof, plain and simple.......and per your self-imposed rules; no rats, please.

You'll have to please quote what claim you want substantiated. And to quote you "I realize you want to throw the burden of proof on others"

I don't necessarily want to throw the burden of proof on others,.........I'm just tired of hearing others opinions vs what scientists have shown to be true. You may not accept it as proof but the medical community does and in MY OPINION that is more than good enough for me. As far as quoting what I want substantiated, it's more your opinion......that's the point. You've never, to my knowledge offered a 'REAL" claim based on anything other than your opinion. And while I'm asking, I would love to know what degrees you hold that back up your opinion. My opinion is not based on me but on the work of respected professors and scientists, which makes it fact not opinion.

I don't think you know what the word fact actually means in the context of this discussion. As for the medical profession accepting it as proof, you'll have to enlighten me why things like sugar addiction are not being included in the new DSM V, if it was a "fact" you'd think it would be included, if not there, you'd think there'd be some mention of it while searching the NIH website or other similar websites. At the very least if it was a fact, you'd think there'd be some universally accepted diagnostic criteria for such an ailment.

If i've never claimed anything in this debate, I fail to see what you want me to substantiate. You are the one making claims left and right, but fail to substantiate any of them.

Is it your opinion "sugar addicts" cannot have sugar in moderation and if so what amount quantifies as moderation?

Of course I know what context it's being used. And I think you know exactly what I want you to substantiate but you can't so you keep trying to throw it back to me. We've had this conversation before and I've given you the studies and you refuse to accept them because of the rats. Once again, rats have been used and will continue to be used in studies in relation to humans. Do you know better than the scientists? Still waiting on your degrees too, btw.

Rat studies are useful only insofar as they are hypothesis-generating. No scientist worth his/her salt would make claims about humans based solely on animal models.

There were brain scans on humans too but of course those aren't good enough either........pffft

Oh the ones you've yet to produce?

Find them yourself, they're out there. I'm not your gopher. I read three the other day. If you can't find them, then maybe it's because you don't want to??

Burden of proof is on the claim maker...

FunkyTobias

In for answers on the diagnostic criteria for "sugar addiction" and proof that doesn't involve rats

I don't understand what this comment means?

It means someone likes to argue......and YES, sugar addiction is real.......says about 98% of humans, not rats......seems you are once again outnumbered :laugh: :laugh:

So approx 7 billion people agree that sugar addiction is real? You'd think if that was the case there would be pretty clear and uniform diagnostic criteria for it. Does health insurance typically cover sugar addiction treatment or is there a premier rehab clinic for sugar addiction?

I realize you want to throw the burden of proof on others......but again I ask you, where's your proof? Since you are so opinionated on the subject......got anything to back it up other than your opinion? And the health insurance thing......there is a lot they don't cover, doesn't mean the person's health issue isn't real.

The burden of proof is on the claim maker, so still awaiting you to present your evidence of it's existence. So far we've gotten anecdotal evidence and studies on rats.

waiting.....................zzzzzzzzzzzzzz........that's what I thought. :noway:

You'll have to please quote what claim you want substantiated.

As I said, so far I've only seen you post your opinion about sugar addiction but nothing to back it up. Just proof, plain and simple.......and per your self-imposed rules; no rats, please.

You'll have to please quote what claim you want substantiated. And to quote you "I realize you want to throw the burden of proof on others"

I don't necessarily want to throw the burden of proof on others,.........I'm just tired of hearing others opinions vs what scientists have shown to be true. You may not accept it as proof but the medical community does and in MY OPINION that is more than good enough for me. As far as quoting what I want substantiated, it's more your opinion......that's the point. You've never, to my knowledge offered a 'REAL" claim based on anything other than your opinion. And while I'm asking, I would love to know what degrees you hold that back up your opinion. My opinion is not based on me but on the work of respected professors and scientists, which makes it fact not opinion.

I don't think you know what the word fact actually means in the context of this discussion. As for the medical profession accepting it as proof, you'll have to enlighten me why things like sugar addiction are not being included in the new DSM V, if it was a "fact" you'd think it would be included, if not there, you'd think there'd be some mention of it while searching the NIH website or other similar websites. At the very least if it was a fact, you'd think there'd be some universally accepted diagnostic criteria for such an ailment.

If i've never claimed anything in this debate, I fail to see what you want me to substantiate. You are the one making claims left and right, but fail to substantiate any of them.

Is it your opinion "sugar addicts" cannot have sugar in moderation and if so what amount quantifies as moderation?

Of course I know what context it's being used. And I think you know exactly what I want you to substantiate but you can't so you keep trying to throw it back to me. We've had this conversation before and I've given you the studies and you refuse to accept them because of the rats. Once again, rats have been used and will continue to be used in studies in relation to humans. Do you know better than the scientists? Still waiting on your degrees too, btw.

Rat studies are useful only insofar as they are hypothesis-generating. No scientist worth his/her salt would make claims about humans based solely on animal models.

There were brain scans on humans too but of course those aren't good enough either........pffft

Oh the ones you've yet to produce?

Find them yourself, they're out there. I'm not your gopher. I read three the other day. If you can't find them, then maybe it's because you don't want to??

You really don't understand burden of proof at all, do you?

mycupyourcake

Yes ! As bad an addiction as crack cocaine! Speaking from experience :sad:

Please tell me more about the last time your children went hungry because you spent all your money on cupcake frosting.

^ This. It's about time people stop using terms like "addicted" because they have self control issues.

This is kind of an idiotic statement. It takes self control to beat any addiction.

tsh0ck

dr oz is a cardiologist, too.

Are you implying that cardiologists (in general) are wrong...bad...irresponsible? Because that's too much of a generalization for me. If you haven't read the book, don't imply anything about the author. Thanks.

I'm implying that just because he's an expert in one area doesn't mean he's an expert in another -- as dr oz proves time and time again.

I'm a damn good sports reporter/writer/editor/journalist. for this reason, I should be able to write a trustworthy book on, say, war-time correspondence. right?

If you do your research, sure, why not?

of course. but to just accept it blindly -- because he's a doctor! -- isn't good enough.

(and even if research is done, that doesn't necessarily make one an expert in a field.)

GlassslippersAndFairyDust

In for answers on the diagnostic criteria for "sugar addiction" and proof that doesn't involve rats

I don't understand what this comment means?

It means someone likes to argue......and YES, sugar addiction is real.......says about 98% of humans, not rats......seems you are once again outnumbered :laugh: :laugh:

So approx 7 billion people agree that sugar addiction is real? You'd think if that was the case there would be pretty clear and uniform diagnostic criteria for it. Does health insurance typically cover sugar addiction treatment or is there a premier rehab clinic for sugar addiction?

I realize you want to throw the burden of proof on others......but again I ask you, where's your proof? Since you are so opinionated on the subject......got anything to back it up other than your opinion? And the health insurance thing......there is a lot they don't cover, doesn't mean the person's health issue isn't real.

The burden of proof is on the claim maker, so still awaiting you to present your evidence of it's existence. So far we've gotten anecdotal evidence and studies on rats.

waiting.....................zzzzzzzzzzzzzz........that's what I thought. :noway:

You'll have to please quote what claim you want substantiated.

As I said, so far I've only seen you post your opinion about sugar addiction but nothing to back it up. Just proof, plain and simple.......and per your self-imposed rules; no rats, please.

You'll have to please quote what claim you want substantiated. And to quote you "I realize you want to throw the burden of proof on others"

I don't necessarily want to throw the burden of proof on others,.........I'm just tired of hearing others opinions vs what scientists have shown to be true. You may not accept it as proof but the medical community does and in MY OPINION that is more than good enough for me. As far as quoting what I want substantiated, it's more your opinion......that's the point. You've never, to my knowledge offered a 'REAL" claim based on anything other than your opinion. And while I'm asking, I would love to know what degrees you hold that back up your opinion. My opinion is not based on me but on the work of respected professors and scientists, which makes it fact not opinion.

I don't think you know what the word fact actually means in the context of this discussion. As for the medical profession accepting it as proof, you'll have to enlighten me why things like sugar addiction are not being included in the new DSM V, if it was a "fact" you'd think it would be included, if not there, you'd think there'd be some mention of it while searching the NIH website or other similar websites. At the very least if it was a fact, you'd think there'd be some universally accepted diagnostic criteria for such an ailment.

If i've never claimed anything in this debate, I fail to see what you want me to substantiate. You are the one making claims left and right, but fail to substantiate any of them.

Is it your opinion "sugar addicts" cannot have sugar in moderation and if so what amount quantifies as moderation?

Of course I know what context it's being used. And I think you know exactly what I want you to substantiate but you can't so you keep trying to throw it back to me. We've had this conversation before and I've given you the studies and you refuse to accept them because of the rats. Once again, rats have been used and will continue to be used in studies in relation to humans. Do you know better than the scientists? Still waiting on your degrees too, btw.

Rat studies are useful only insofar as they are hypothesis-generating. No scientist worth his/her salt would make claims about humans based solely on animal models.

There were brain scans on humans too but of course those aren't good enough either........pffft

Oh the ones you've yet to produce?

Find them yourself, they're out there. I'm not your gopher. I read three the other day. If you can't find them, then maybe it's because you don't want to??

You really don't understand burden of proof at all, do you?

Actually, I do. You really don't understand I'm not your gopher either do you?

gkstrss007

Yes ! As bad an addiction as crack cocaine! Speaking from experience :sad:

Please tell me more about the last time your children went hungry because you spent all your money on cupcake frosting.

The problem with sugar addiction-or any other type of food addiction-is that it can be totally shared WITH your children, and will teach them horrible habits. As a food addict myself, let me tell you, it's really not easy to deal with...at all. The kids won't go hungry, but it's really easy to use kids as the reason to get food, to go out to eat, to buy and eat an entire tub of ice cream in a night (or cupcake frosting). You show your kids that it's okay to eat that way, and the cycle repeats itself. So honestly, I'd say it's worse than a crack addiction because you're actually doing it in front of your kids and showing them that this is the way to be. It's a struggle...and not a joke.

No one is arguing whether people have horrible eating habits, struggle or binge with food, or emotionally eat, and that these behaviors can be very damaging. The argument has to do with whether the bad habit rises to the level of addiction. As for your assertion that your food issues are "worse than a crack addiction" I have to tell you that this is exactly why several of us, myself included, are so heavily against these ridiculous claims. Crack, or for that matter, cocaine in general, is no joke and it destroys addicts' families and children as well as the addict. I mean this with all compassion, but grow up.

Edit: typo

Unless you've had to deal with it yourself, or had to go through treatment for it, then you have no idea what you're talking about. I have my opinion, and you have yours. Deal with it, and grow up yourself, darlin'.