A Question About Sugar
Replies
-
....lower on the glycemic index (less sugar)....
I see others have effectively demolished the post that contained this tidbit of misinformation. A low GI food and a high GI food may have the same amount of sugar, but the low GI food will be absorbed more slowly because of the addition of fiber.
For the most part GI is foolish because its index is done in isolation and no one eats that way. And even if someone has diabetes, their overall carb intake is more important that the GI rating.
0 -
....lower on the glycemic index (less sugar)....
I see others have effectively demolished the post that contained this tidbit of misinformation. A low GI food and a high GI food may have the same amount of sugar, but the low GI food will be absorbed more slowly because of the addition of fiber.
But what if you eat a separate food with fiber at the same time as a higher gi food?0 -
Why is it when I have a low carb day I'm totally ravenous the next day?? And I undo all my hard work!0
-
How people react to different macro mixes seems to vary. I think it is probably quite common to find protein and fat more satiating than carbs and higher fiber carbs more satiating than refined or lower fiber carbs, even when the refined carbs have far more calories, but it's hardly universal. I personally tend to find volume and protein/fat more satiating but even for me there are exceptions not explained by these rules or the GI/GL stuff--for example, I find potatoes quite satiating, even when compared with higher fiber green veggies.
That's the problem when people insist upon rules (like sugar will make you crave or be starving later or won't be satiating) that simply don't apply for everyone. Along the same lines I probably would find sugar or refined carbs to be likely to lead to a blood sugar spike and crash if I ate them in isolation, but so long as I eat them with plenty of fat and protein too there's no issue (same as if I eat fruit that also has fiber). I wish people wouldn't insist that everyone must have the same experiences they do.0 -
4bettermenow wrote: »Its all personal preference. For me personally, I watch my sugar because if I eat a lot of it, I get horrible aches and pains in my joints. This is from trial and errors on my part. After three months of really limiting it, I don't crave candy or desserts that much. But if I do,I have a small amount and I just watch my sugar intake more closely the next couple of days and drink more water than normal. Seems to help me flush the system faster. Again, its all personal.
I found that I no longer get nighttime leg cramps since I reduced my carbs (per doctor's orders). I am eating reduced carb, not low carb (35% of my total), and the couple of times I really loaded up on carbs I have had the cramps in the middle of the night. This is me and how they affect my body. I would never try to tell someone that they need to reduce carbs. I leave that to their doctor if the MD feels it is necessary.
My husband works long hard days and suffers badly from leg cramps and I used to get them back in the days when I was working long hours.
A friend told us about salt tablets and in desperation we tried them. Why they work for both of us is a mystery to me. My husband loves salt and uses it often but I am low salt. They work within minutes for both of us. So we keep them handy and gobble them down as soon as possible. Works every time no matter how severe the cramp is
0 -
christinev297 wrote: »Why is it when I have a low carb day I'm totally ravenous the next day?? And I undo all my hard work!
Because it takes about a month to break a sugar addiction perhaps?
Well that was in my case. The funny part if one can go 30 days without sugar/carbs and not have cravings then they did not have a sugar addiction to begin with I expect.
Seriously christinev297 you should be very hungry the next day after a low carb day. It really took me a month (at least two weeks were really bad) to break my sugar addiction.
I filled the missing carbs with Fats.
0 -
4bettermenow wrote: »Its all personal preference. For me personally, I watch my sugar because if I eat a lot of it, I get horrible aches and pains in my joints. This is from trial and errors on my part. After three months of really limiting it, I don't crave candy or desserts that much. But if I do,I have a small amount and I just watch my sugar intake more closely the next couple of days and drink more water than normal. Seems to help me flush the system faster. Again, its all personal.
I found that I no longer get nighttime leg cramps since I reduced my carbs (per doctor's orders). I am eating reduced carb, not low carb (35% of my total), and the couple of times I really loaded up on carbs I have had the cramps in the middle of the night. This is me and how they affect my body. I would never try to tell someone that they need to reduce carbs. I leave that to their doctor if the MD feels it is necessary.
My husband works long hard days and suffers badly from leg cramps and I used to get them back in the days when I was working long hours.
A friend told us about salt tablets and in desperation we tried them. Why they work for both of us is a mystery to me. My husband loves salt and uses it often but I am low salt. They work within minutes for both of us. So we keep them handy and gobble them down as soon as possible. Works every time no matter how severe the cramp is
I had to add salt because of leg cramps when I went very low carb. All the junk food in our break room is loaded with salt for example. Now I eat my boiled egg each morning coated with salt and my legs are fine.
0 -
tigersword wrote: »Patttience wrote: »this is a very good question. First off, my advice is don't bother using the sugar counter at all unless you are a diagnosed diabetic. Nobody else needs to know their sugar count.
What we all need to do is know our carb count. You should aim to keep your carb count low.
The reason why i say the sugar counter is a waste of your interest is a) because there are more important factors and b), unless diabetic the body manages blood sugar levels naturally. If you just eat with your macros in an appropriate balance, you do not need to be concered about the sugar counter.
the sugar counter makes no distinction between refined sugars and natural sugars and it is hte refined sugars only that you need to reduce. You can do this without any sort of counter at all. You need to put significant effort into reducing processed foods because these are the foods that have high levels of added/refined sugar.
Why is refined sugar a problem? Because it intensifies the flavours of foods so that you ar enot happy with normal healthy food and prefer processed foods. Because it causes some people to over eat. And when you over eat refined sugar, it start the ball rolling and keep it rolling endlessly towards weight gain and ill health. Overeating causes imbalances in the hormones signalling systems in teh body. For instance leptin. People who eat a lot tend to develop leptin resistance which means your body can't help you restrict your eating at all because you are always hungry.
Just reducing yoru calories will result in correcting of this problem however, so long as you eat a lot of refined sugar, you will struggle to reduce your calorie intake and maitain it long enough to lose the weight and reprogram yourself into better eating habits.
The other things that you need to be eating more and don't when you eat too much refined/added sguars are vegetables and fruit and high fibre foods. Because meat is a strong flavoured food, people tend not to have any difficult eating eating enough meat and protein when they are also eating a lot of very unhealthy foods but fruit and vegetables tend to be less exciting to the palate becuase they have plainer flavours. To enjoy them, they would need to be eaten with other highly flavoursome foods.
So when you cut out all the procesed foods, you can start to enjoy less intensely flavoured foods, though they still do need ot be prepared in such a way as to be tasty. Hence to be honest, steamed vegies and skinless chicken breast was never going to satisfy anyone in the long term.
There are ways you can cook vegetables and other foods that are tasty adn interesting. Its important the food you eat to replace all the processed foods you may have eaten in teh past is tasty. So that suggests that people need to apply themselves to their cooking. Thsi is probalby one of hte hardest things for most dieters to do in this day and age when a) many can't cook b) most people are very busy and too tired too cook.
But i promise you if you make the effort to prepare your own meals, avoid processed fodos as much as possible and increase your vegetables and fruit you will find losing weight easier. You will also find keeping hte weigh off long term more sustainable.
People need to make a life long commitment to eating better. Its not enough just to do it for long enough to get hte weight off. If you don't commit to ongoing change, you will get fat again.
No. Just...no.
this gets a hell no..
and to the bolded part - overeating calories results in weight gain, "refined sugar" (whatever that means) has nothing to do with it...
That. And I'm pretty sure it's possible to enjoy intensely flavored food at home. Processed or not.
Might be a follower of Reverand Sylvester Graham, inventor of the Graham cracker, who believed bland food was the way to health and salvation.
I though grahm crackers were a way to prevent sex drives? they were part of the abstinence plan or something?
Yup, because no one has gotten wily after a stellar slice of the cheesecake.0 -
herrspoons wrote: »4bettermenow wrote: »Its all personal preference. For me personally, I watch my sugar because if I eat a lot of it, I get horrible aches and pains in my joints. This is from trial and errors on my part. After three months of really limiting it, I don't crave candy or desserts that much. But if I do,I have a small amount and I just watch my sugar intake more closely the next couple of days and drink more water than normal. Seems to help me flush the system faster. Again, its all personal.
I found that I no longer get nighttime leg cramps since I reduced my carbs (per doctor's orders). I am eating reduced carb, not low carb (35% of my total), and the couple of times I really loaded up on carbs I have had the cramps in the middle of the night. This is me and how they affect my body. I would never try to tell someone that they need to reduce carbs. I leave that to their doctor if the MD feels it is necessary.
My husband works long hard days and suffers badly from leg cramps and I used to get them back in the days when I was working long hours.
A friend told us about salt tablets and in desperation we tried them. Why they work for both of us is a mystery to me. My husband loves salt and uses it often but I am low salt. They work within minutes for both of us. So we keep them handy and gobble them down as soon as possible. Works every time no matter how severe the cramp is
It's because you don't get enough sodium, plus you're probably dehydrated.
^ This.
If you don't have the ol salt tabs... quinine does well. What is quinine in? Gin and Tonic. Granted, it's just in the tonic, but the gin is a synergist, and blocks the standard quinine receptors, so the quinine is free to bind to our potassium receptors resulting in immediate cessation of cramping.
Only in instances of legitimate cramping though.0 -
To be fair, the modern graham cracker only shares the name with Graham's original recipe. I believe it was originally just Graham flour and water. No honey or sugar or any kind of sweetener or seasoning.tigersword wrote: »
Might be a follower of Reverand Sylvester Graham, inventor of the Graham cracker, who believed bland food was the way to health and salvation.
That sounds so horrible.
At least some good things came out of it . . . graham cracker crust for pies and S'mores!
Graham crackers are delicious, indeed.tigersword wrote: »Patttience wrote: »this is a very good question. First off, my advice is don't bother using the sugar counter at all unless you are a diagnosed diabetic. Nobody else needs to know their sugar count.
What we all need to do is know our carb count. You should aim to keep your carb count low.
The reason why i say the sugar counter is a waste of your interest is a) because there are more important factors and b), unless diabetic the body manages blood sugar levels naturally. If you just eat with your macros in an appropriate balance, you do not need to be concered about the sugar counter.
the sugar counter makes no distinction between refined sugars and natural sugars and it is hte refined sugars only that you need to reduce. You can do this without any sort of counter at all. You need to put significant effort into reducing processed foods because these are the foods that have high levels of added/refined sugar.
Why is refined sugar a problem? Because it intensifies the flavours of foods so that you ar enot happy with normal healthy food and prefer processed foods. Because it causes some people to over eat. And when you over eat refined sugar, it start the ball rolling and keep it rolling endlessly towards weight gain and ill health. Overeating causes imbalances in the hormones signalling systems in teh body. For instance leptin. People who eat a lot tend to develop leptin resistance which means your body can't help you restrict your eating at all because you are always hungry.
Just reducing yoru calories will result in correcting of this problem however, so long as you eat a lot of refined sugar, you will struggle to reduce your calorie intake and maitain it long enough to lose the weight and reprogram yourself into better eating habits.
The other things that you need to be eating more and don't when you eat too much refined/added sguars are vegetables and fruit and high fibre foods. Because meat is a strong flavoured food, people tend not to have any difficult eating eating enough meat and protein when they are also eating a lot of very unhealthy foods but fruit and vegetables tend to be less exciting to the palate becuase they have plainer flavours. To enjoy them, they would need to be eaten with other highly flavoursome foods.
So when you cut out all the procesed foods, you can start to enjoy less intensely flavoured foods, though they still do need ot be prepared in such a way as to be tasty. Hence to be honest, steamed vegies and skinless chicken breast was never going to satisfy anyone in the long term.
There are ways you can cook vegetables and other foods that are tasty adn interesting. Its important the food you eat to replace all the processed foods you may have eaten in teh past is tasty. So that suggests that people need to apply themselves to their cooking. Thsi is probalby one of hte hardest things for most dieters to do in this day and age when a) many can't cook b) most people are very busy and too tired too cook.
But i promise you if you make the effort to prepare your own meals, avoid processed fodos as much as possible and increase your vegetables and fruit you will find losing weight easier. You will also find keeping hte weigh off long term more sustainable.
People need to make a life long commitment to eating better. Its not enough just to do it for long enough to get hte weight off. If you don't commit to ongoing change, you will get fat again.
No. Just...no.
this gets a hell no..
and to the bolded part - overeating calories results in weight gain, "refined sugar" (whatever that means) has nothing to do with it...
That. And I'm pretty sure it's possible to enjoy intensely flavored food at home. Processed or not.
Might be a follower of Reverand Sylvester Graham, inventor of the Graham cracker, who believed bland food was the way to health and salvation.
I though grahm crackers were a way to prevent sex drives? they were part of the abstinence plan or something?
Graham crackers were just one part of Graham's diet. It was a diet of bland food (no seasoning, spices, or condiments) intended to "calm" people down, to prevent lust, sin, and disease.0 -
For the record, I have an excellent diet - plenty of fish, meat, chicken, eggs, fruit, lots of different vegetables as we have our own garden. I just don't eat wheat. However, I do feel my salt intake is too low. My husband also eats the same as me but he eats a lot of salt.
He eats bread and grains and is a Type 1 diabetic.
So two people, one person high salt, diabetic who eats grains and one person low salt who doesn't eat grains. Both get cramps. We take magnesium and eat bananas. At times my water intake could be better.
dbmata said If you don't have the ol salt tabs... quinine does well. What is quinine in? Gin and Tonic. Granted, it's just in the tonic, but the gin is a synergist, and blocks the standard quinine receptors, so the quinine is free to bind to our potassium receptors resulting in immediate cessation of cramping.
Only in instances of legitimate cramping though.
What is a "legitimate cramp"? Both have cramps that are extremely painful to the extent you feel you are going to past out. The pain in the muscle can still be felt for a couple of days later. Is that legitimate enough for you?0 -
Everyone play nice or strikes will be handed out for violating rule 1.
0 -
Leena, generally cramping is a good indication or dehydration and/or an electrolyte issue. If common, i would get a blood test to see where your blood work comes out.0
-
Thank you Psulemon, I will certainly look into the electrolyte issue and try and drink a lot more water and see if that helps.
Merry Christmas to you and I promise to be good. 0 -
This content has been removed.
-
tigersword wrote: »I'm one of those "sugar is the devil" people! I've really cut back on my sugar intake and always try to balance it with better options. There was an interesting article about sugar addiction in the nytimes today:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/23/opinion/sugar-season-its-everywhere-and-addictive.html?ref=opinion
Opinion piece. Factually, sugar is not addictive, so we can just ignore that blog altogether.
These recent empirical articles suggest that sugar is indeed addictive.
Ahmed, S. H., Guillem, K., & Vandaele, Y. (2013). Sugar addiction: pushing the drug-sugar analogy to the limit. Current Opinion in Clinical Nutrition & Metabolic Care, 16(4), 434-439.
Colantuoni, C., Rada, P., McCarthy, J., Patten, C., Avena, N. M., Chadeayne, A., & Hoebel, B. G. (2002). Evidence that intermittent, excessive sugar intake causes endogenous opioid dependence. Obesity Research, 10(6), 478-488.
Fortuna, J. L. (2010). Sweet preference, sugar addiction and the familial history of alcohol dependence: shared neural pathways and genes. Journal of psychoactive drugs, 42(2), 147-151.
Several years ago, the only evidence of sugar addiction was shown within rats; however, more and more empirical evidence is coming to the forefront over the past several months that suggest that sugar addiction is in fact existent. Much like alcohol and drug addictions, it will vary from person to person; however, especially in that first article, much of the neurological research is hard to argue against.
Think about it like alcohol. Just because you personally are able to have a beer or two without having a dependence on it doesn't mean it's not an addictive substance. Other people can be addicted depending on their hardwiring and use of said substance.-1 -
ryanhorn thanks for the links. My research of articles like these and others about what happens at the cellular level drives home how much we have to learn about the ways the human body works.
I had to cold turkey sugar in Oct to break free from it. All of my uncles on my dad's side suffered at one level or another from alcohol abuse which helped me escape that trap but I ended up abusing carbs for 40 years that was bad for me.
Growing up we did not keep sodas, candy and ice cream in the house due to $$$ issues. We grew our own food and killed our own hogs and beef. Jello was our go to desert.
I think our hardwiring is a fact that is real and should be factored into all health concerns like diet.0 -
herrspoons wrote: »tigersword wrote: »I'm one of those "sugar is the devil" people! I've really cut back on my sugar intake and always try to balance it with better options. There was an interesting article about sugar addiction in the nytimes today:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/23/opinion/sugar-season-its-everywhere-and-addictive.html?ref=opinion
Opinion piece. Factually, sugar is not addictive, so we can just ignore that blog altogether.
These recent empirical articles suggest that sugar is indeed addictive.
Ahmed, S. H., Guillem, K., & Vandaele, Y. (2013). Sugar addiction: pushing the drug-sugar analogy to the limit. Current Opinion in Clinical Nutrition & Metabolic Care, 16(4), 434-439.
Colantuoni, C., Rada, P., McCarthy, J., Patten, C., Avena, N. M., Chadeayne, A., & Hoebel, B. G. (2002). Evidence that intermittent, excessive sugar intake causes endogenous opioid dependence. Obesity Research, 10(6), 478-488.
Fortuna, J. L. (2010). Sweet preference, sugar addiction and the familial history of alcohol dependence: shared neural pathways and genes. Journal of psychoactive drugs, 42(2), 147-151.
Several years ago, the only evidence of sugar addiction was shown within rats; however, more and more empirical evidence is coming to the forefront over the past several months that suggest that sugar addiction is in fact existent. Much like alcohol and drug addictions, it will vary from person to person; however, especially in that first article, much of the neurological research is hard to argue against.
Think about it like alcohol. Just because you personally are able to have a beer or two without having a dependence on it doesn't mean it's not an addictive substance. Other people can be addicted depending on their hardwiring and use of said substance.
No it isn't. The latest large scale studies showed that there was no evidence of physiological or psychological addiction to sugar or any other food stuff, and that the issue is behavioural.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763414002140
This is a very interesting literature review.
I think the main point to be taken from their interpretation of past literature (I wouldn't necessarily call this article a study though. Maybe more of a meta analysis without the data?) is the fact that yes indeed the brain does indeed responds to sugar in the same way that the brain responds to many other addictive substances; HOWEVER, their argument which I believe is consistent with your argument is the idea that there are other external stimuli (such as memory, boredom, shame, guilt, habit, impulsivity, restraint, depression and anxiety) that may activate these neurological responses, not necessarily just the sugar itself.
Did I summarize your thoughts correctly?0 -
herrspoons wrote: »tigersword wrote: »I'm one of those "sugar is the devil" people! I've really cut back on my sugar intake and always try to balance it with better options. There was an interesting article about sugar addiction in the nytimes today:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/23/opinion/sugar-season-its-everywhere-and-addictive.html?ref=opinion
Opinion piece. Factually, sugar is not addictive, so we can just ignore that blog altogether.
These recent empirical articles suggest that sugar is indeed addictive.
Ahmed, S. H., Guillem, K., & Vandaele, Y. (2013). Sugar addiction: pushing the drug-sugar analogy to the limit. Current Opinion in Clinical Nutrition & Metabolic Care, 16(4), 434-439.
Colantuoni, C., Rada, P., McCarthy, J., Patten, C., Avena, N. M., Chadeayne, A., & Hoebel, B. G. (2002). Evidence that intermittent, excessive sugar intake causes endogenous opioid dependence. Obesity Research, 10(6), 478-488.
Fortuna, J. L. (2010). Sweet preference, sugar addiction and the familial history of alcohol dependence: shared neural pathways and genes. Journal of psychoactive drugs, 42(2), 147-151.
Several years ago, the only evidence of sugar addiction was shown within rats; however, more and more empirical evidence is coming to the forefront over the past several months that suggest that sugar addiction is in fact existent. Much like alcohol and drug addictions, it will vary from person to person; however, especially in that first article, much of the neurological research is hard to argue against.
Think about it like alcohol. Just because you personally are able to have a beer or two without having a dependence on it doesn't mean it's not an addictive substance. Other people can be addicted depending on their hardwiring and use of said substance.
No it isn't. The latest large scale studies showed that there was no evidence of physiological or psychological addiction to sugar or any other food stuff, and that the issue is behavioural.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763414002140
This is a very interesting literature review.
I think the main point to be taken from their interpretation of past literature (I wouldn't necessarily call this article a study though. Maybe more of a meta analysis without the data?) is the fact that yes indeed the brain does indeed responds to sugar in the same way that the brain responds to many other addictive substances; HOWEVER, their argument which I believe is consistent with your argument is the idea that there are other external stimuli (such as memory, boredom, shame, guilt, habit, impulsivity, restraint, depression and anxiety) that may activate these neurological responses, not necessarily just the sugar itself.
Did I summarize your thoughts correctly?
The brain responds to sugar in the exact same way it responds to every other food or pleasurable activity. Sex, exercise, sports, painting, listening to music, playing music, playing with a pet, all lead to a blast of endorphins by the brain, including dopamine. Sugar is really no different from anything else.0 -
tigersword wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »tigersword wrote: »I'm one of those "sugar is the devil" people! I've really cut back on my sugar intake and always try to balance it with better options. There was an interesting article about sugar addiction in the nytimes today:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/23/opinion/sugar-season-its-everywhere-and-addictive.html?ref=opinion
Opinion piece. Factually, sugar is not addictive, so we can just ignore that blog altogether.
These recent empirical articles suggest that sugar is indeed addictive.
Ahmed, S. H., Guillem, K., & Vandaele, Y. (2013). Sugar addiction: pushing the drug-sugar analogy to the limit. Current Opinion in Clinical Nutrition & Metabolic Care, 16(4), 434-439.
Colantuoni, C., Rada, P., McCarthy, J., Patten, C., Avena, N. M., Chadeayne, A., & Hoebel, B. G. (2002). Evidence that intermittent, excessive sugar intake causes endogenous opioid dependence. Obesity Research, 10(6), 478-488.
Fortuna, J. L. (2010). Sweet preference, sugar addiction and the familial history of alcohol dependence: shared neural pathways and genes. Journal of psychoactive drugs, 42(2), 147-151.
Several years ago, the only evidence of sugar addiction was shown within rats; however, more and more empirical evidence is coming to the forefront over the past several months that suggest that sugar addiction is in fact existent. Much like alcohol and drug addictions, it will vary from person to person; however, especially in that first article, much of the neurological research is hard to argue against.
Think about it like alcohol. Just because you personally are able to have a beer or two without having a dependence on it doesn't mean it's not an addictive substance. Other people can be addicted depending on their hardwiring and use of said substance.
No it isn't. The latest large scale studies showed that there was no evidence of physiological or psychological addiction to sugar or any other food stuff, and that the issue is behavioural.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763414002140
This is a very interesting literature review.
I think the main point to be taken from their interpretation of past literature (I wouldn't necessarily call this article a study though. Maybe more of a meta analysis without the data?) is the fact that yes indeed the brain does indeed responds to sugar in the same way that the brain responds to many other addictive substances; HOWEVER, their argument which I believe is consistent with your argument is the idea that there are other external stimuli (such as memory, boredom, shame, guilt, habit, impulsivity, restraint, depression and anxiety) that may activate these neurological responses, not necessarily just the sugar itself.
Did I summarize your thoughts correctly?
The brain responds to sugar in the exact same way it responds to every other food or pleasurable activity. Sex, exercise, sports, painting, listening to music, playing music, playing with a pet, all lead to a blast of endorphins by the brain, including dopamine. Sugar is really no different from anything else.
I know not all agree with you but I too think sugar can be addicting if sex can be addicting as many claim.
0 -
Isn't one of the rules something about making accounts to impersonate others, like Gale?
I think if someone's threatening to hand out strikes, that should be included in said threat.
0 -
From a nutrition aspect, I try to limit my intake of added sugars from processed foods and such. I don't count sugars from fruits and other natural sources. I watched a really interesting documentary yeaterday though called Fed Up. According to that, sugar calories (all sugars, natural or processed) aren't treated by your body the same way and are more readily stored as fat instead of used as energy. It is worth watching if you would like to learn more about sugar in your diet.0
-
This content has been removed.
-
herrspoons wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »tigersword wrote: »I'm one of those "sugar is the devil" people! I've really cut back on my sugar intake and always try to balance it with better options. There was an interesting article about sugar addiction in the nytimes today:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/23/opinion/sugar-season-its-everywhere-and-addictive.html?ref=opinion
Opinion piece. Factually, sugar is not addictive, so we can just ignore that blog altogether.
These recent empirical articles suggest that sugar is indeed addictive.
Ahmed, S. H., Guillem, K., & Vandaele, Y. (2013). Sugar addiction: pushing the drug-sugar analogy to the limit. Current Opinion in Clinical Nutrition & Metabolic Care, 16(4), 434-439.
Colantuoni, C., Rada, P., McCarthy, J., Patten, C., Avena, N. M., Chadeayne, A., & Hoebel, B. G. (2002). Evidence that intermittent, excessive sugar intake causes endogenous opioid dependence. Obesity Research, 10(6), 478-488.
Fortuna, J. L. (2010). Sweet preference, sugar addiction and the familial history of alcohol dependence: shared neural pathways and genes. Journal of psychoactive drugs, 42(2), 147-151.
Several years ago, the only evidence of sugar addiction was shown within rats; however, more and more empirical evidence is coming to the forefront over the past several months that suggest that sugar addiction is in fact existent. Much like alcohol and drug addictions, it will vary from person to person; however, especially in that first article, much of the neurological research is hard to argue against.
Think about it like alcohol. Just because you personally are able to have a beer or two without having a dependence on it doesn't mean it's not an addictive substance. Other people can be addicted depending on their hardwiring and use of said substance.
No it isn't. The latest large scale studies showed that there was no evidence of physiological or psychological addiction to sugar or any other food stuff, and that the issue is behavioural.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763414002140
This is a very interesting literature review.
I think the main point to be taken from their interpretation of past literature (I wouldn't necessarily call this article a study though. Maybe more of a meta analysis without the data?) is the fact that yes indeed the brain does indeed responds to sugar in the same way that the brain responds to many other addictive substances; HOWEVER, their argument which I believe is consistent with your argument is the idea that there are other external stimuli (such as memory, boredom, shame, guilt, habit, impulsivity, restraint, depression and anxiety) that may activate these neurological responses, not necessarily just the sugar itself.
Did I summarize your thoughts correctly?
The main point is that while sugar's effect on some aspects of neurological function is similar - but not the same - as that of substances which are known to be addictive, there is no evidence to suggest that it or any other food substance is addictive in humans.
There is, however, strong evidence that overeating, whether sugar based or not, is driven by behavioural factors.
Or, in other words, if we somehow banned sugar tomorrow, it would make little if any difference to the current obesity rates, as people would merely substitute other foods for the sugary ones they eat now.
This is an interesting way of looking at it. Thank you for sharing 0 -
While there seems to be much debate here about whether or not sugar is addictive or not, I think we can all agree that too much of anything isn't a good thing whether that be sugar, protein, alcohol, or anything else.
A former nutritionist shared an awesome quote with me (which I don't agree entirely with, but I think it makes a good point): "There's no such things as unhealthy foods, just unhealthy quantities."
0 -
Wrong. Sorry.From a nutrition aspect, I try to limit my intake of added sugars from processed foods and such. I don't count sugars from fruits and other natural sources. I watched a really interesting documentary yeaterday though called Fed Up. According to that, sugar calories (all sugars, natural or processed) aren't treated by your body the same way and are more readily stored as fat instead of used as energy. It is worth watching if you would like to learn more about sugar in your diet.
That's vague.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-dieting-not-all-calo/
0 -
I am not sure if sugar is clinically or chemically addicting, but I do know that once I stopped eating simple carbs (and therefore sugar) for a few weeks, my cravings for and evening binge-like behavior on carby snacks (crackers, tortilla chips, Goldfish crackers) completed disappeared. I feel more even-keeled during the day and am not always thinking about my next meal.
It has changed my behavior in a major way. And I've lost 20# because I feel more satiated on protein and fats, so it's easier to sustain a caloric deficit.
Just my personal experience. YMMV.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Wrong. Sorry.From a nutrition aspect, I try to limit my intake of added sugars from processed foods and such. I don't count sugars from fruits and other natural sources. I watched a really interesting documentary yeaterday though called Fed Up. According to that, sugar calories (all sugars, natural or processed) aren't treated by your body the same way and are more readily stored as fat instead of used as energy. It is worth watching if you would like to learn more about sugar in your diet.
That's vague.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-dieting-not-all-calo/
Thank you for sharing this article! Christopher Wanjek, the author, has had some very interesting stuff since graduating from Harvard.0 -
What he's done is promote a lot of woo woo woo fakey fake shizz.
Just like the mockumentary, Fed Up. I just wish Christopher Guest had directed it.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions