Times article to toss into the Sugar debate....
squirrelzzrule22
Posts: 640 Member
I definitely believe the part about it being addictive 
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/23/opinion/sugar-season-its-everywhere-and-addictive.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=geo&bicmp=AD&bicmlukp=WT.mc_id&bicmst=1409232722000&bic
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/23/opinion/sugar-season-its-everywhere-and-addictive.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=geo&bicmp=AD&bicmlukp=WT.mc_id&bicmst=1409232722000&bic
0
Replies
-
This is a better one
https://gokaleo.com/2014/12/12/5thingsaboutsugar/0 -
Don't even have to click the link. The word OPINION is clearly in the hyperlink.
Sugar isn't addictive. It's been proven in humans time and time again. Opinions don't trump facts.0 -
I'm really skeptical about this. When I first started losing weight, I was drinking about 6 Dr. Peppers a day. I had no issue quitting. If sugar were an addictive substance, wouldn't I have had withdrawal symptoms?
I think maybe in *some* people it impacts them differently, and maybe makes it harder to quit. But I don't think it's analogous to drugs.
Just my opinion, of course.0 -
@eric...Did you read the new york times article? It is a reputable source. It doesn't mean its 100% correct, but it does cite some specific studies. It seems like you may not have read it. The article you posted doesn't seem to address the same claims.
Personally I don't feel strongly on either side of the sugar debate, although I definitely think I personally need to ingest less of it, and I do get powerful cravings for it, the type where I feel like have to leave the house and buy something sweet RIGHT NOW.0 -
Highly palatable and habit forming I agree. Addictive..........nah. The body RUNS on glucose (which is converted from sugar) so cutting sugar out completely wouldn't stop the body from making it. Addiction is usually related to things NOT needed in one's life.
I will say that REDUCING one's sugar intake is a good idea since many people eat a lot of excess sugar and don't account for the calories.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
TheVirgoddess wrote: »I'm really skeptical about this. When I first started losing weight, I was drinking about 6 Dr. Peppers a day. I had no issue quitting. If sugar were an addictive substance, wouldn't I have had withdrawal symptoms?
I think maybe in *some* people it impacts them differently, and maybe makes it harder to quit. But I don't think it's analogous to drugs.
Just my opinion, of course.
Well to be fair, certain people are far more susceptible to addiction. For example, no one disputes that alcohol can be addictive, but not everyone becomes an alcoholic. It has a lot to do with how the individual is wired.
Good for you for quitting that big of a soda habit!! I bet that made a huge difference in weight loss.0 -
squirrelzzrule22 wrote: »I definitely believe the part about it being addictive
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/23/opinion/sugar-season-its-everywhere-and-addictive.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=geo&bicmp=AD&bicmlukp=WT.mc_id&bicmst=1409232722000&bic
Which says:But as we suggested in two academic papers, one on salt and sugar in the journal Open Heart and the other on sugar and calories in Public Health Nutrition, focusing narrowly on added sugar could have unintended consequences. It could prompt the food industry to inject something equally or more harmful into processed foods, as an alternative.
A better approach to sugar rehab is to promote the consumption of whole, natural foods.This is a better one
https://gokaleo.com/2014/12/12/5thingsaboutsugar/
Which says:No, I will reiterate the American Heart Association‘s conclusion:
“To improve the overall nutrient density of the diet and to help reduce the intake of excess calories, individuals should be sure foods high in added sugar are not displacing foods with essential nutrients or increasing calorie intake.”
In other words, make sure you’re not eating so much sugar that you’re missing out on important nutrients or consuming excess calories.That sounds an awful lot like moderation to me, no?
Is it me or are most people saying the same thing, just in different ways?0 -
Highly palatable and habit forming I agree. Addictive..........nah. The body RUNS on glucose (which is converted from sugar) so cutting sugar out completely wouldn't stop the body from making it. Addiction is usually related to things NOT needed in one's life.
I will say that REDUCING one's sugar intake is a good idea since many people eat a lot of excess sugar and don't account for the calories.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Well it doesn't say to cut it out, it advocates getting it from fruit sources and other whole foods (if I'm understanding it correctly). Seems sensible to me. Not that I'm ever going to completely give up cake, but I digress.
I don't agree with your characterization of what the definition of addiction is. If something creates a particular neurological response in an individual it can become addictive. I don't think it has much to do with what is already in your body. We already make endorphins, but when a substance causes an increase in them, you end up with addiction problems and so on and so forth.0 -
squirrelzzrule22 wrote: »I definitely believe the part about it being addictive
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/23/opinion/sugar-season-its-everywhere-and-addictive.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=geo&bicmp=AD&bicmlukp=WT.mc_id&bicmst=1409232722000&bic
Which says:But as we suggested in two academic papers, one on salt and sugar in the journal Open Heart and the other on sugar and calories in Public Health Nutrition, focusing narrowly on added sugar could have unintended consequences. It could prompt the food industry to inject something equally or more harmful into processed foods, as an alternative.
A better approach to sugar rehab is to promote the consumption of whole, natural foods.This is a better one
https://gokaleo.com/2014/12/12/5thingsaboutsugar/
Which says:No, I will reiterate the American Heart Association‘s conclusion:
“To improve the overall nutrient density of the diet and to help reduce the intake of excess calories, individuals should be sure foods high in added sugar are not displacing foods with essential nutrients or increasing calorie intake.”
In other words, make sure you’re not eating so much sugar that you’re missing out on important nutrients or consuming excess calories.That sounds an awful lot like moderation to me, no?
Is it me or are most people saying the same thing, just in different ways?
That could be. I mean moderation certainly makes sense. I guess I don't feel strongly anti-sugar, but I don't understand the super pro-sugar response that usually comes when this is discussed. I mean, we can all agree that a lot of sugar is not particularly healthy, can't we?0 -
squirrelzzrule22 wrote: »TheVirgoddess wrote: »I'm really skeptical about this. When I first started losing weight, I was drinking about 6 Dr. Peppers a day. I had no issue quitting. If sugar were an addictive substance, wouldn't I have had withdrawal symptoms?
I think maybe in *some* people it impacts them differently, and maybe makes it harder to quit. But I don't think it's analogous to drugs.
Just my opinion, of course.
Well to be fair, certain people are far more susceptible to addiction. For example, no one disputes that alcohol can be addictive, but not everyone becomes an alcoholic. It has a lot to do with how the individual is wired.
Good for you for quitting that big of a soda habit!! I bet that made a huge difference in weight loss.
I'm a former smoker. I'm perfectly susceptible to addiction, I think.0 -
TheVirgoddess wrote: »squirrelzzrule22 wrote: »TheVirgoddess wrote: »I'm really skeptical about this. When I first started losing weight, I was drinking about 6 Dr. Peppers a day. I had no issue quitting. If sugar were an addictive substance, wouldn't I have had withdrawal symptoms?
I think maybe in *some* people it impacts them differently, and maybe makes it harder to quit. But I don't think it's analogous to drugs.
Just my opinion, of course.
Well to be fair, certain people are far more susceptible to addiction. For example, no one disputes that alcohol can be addictive, but not everyone becomes an alcoholic. It has a lot to do with how the individual is wired.
Good for you for quitting that big of a soda habit!! I bet that made a huge difference in weight loss.
I'm a former smoker. I'm perfectly susceptible to addiction, I think.
I'm not sure you can compare substances that way. I think it is very individualized.
Honest question: Are there people who smoke regularly and don't become addicted? I was under the impression that nicotine didn't leave you with much of an option in that regard.0 -
I don't think there is a convincing case that added sugar is physically addictive. I doubt there ever will be.
That said it it undoubtedly true in my mind that people struggle with addiction like behaviour (compulsive behaviour) due to hyperpalatable food items (where sugar and fat play large parts) and that struggle is very real.0 -
squirrelzzrule22 wrote: »TheVirgoddess wrote: »squirrelzzrule22 wrote: »TheVirgoddess wrote: »I'm really skeptical about this. When I first started losing weight, I was drinking about 6 Dr. Peppers a day. I had no issue quitting. If sugar were an addictive substance, wouldn't I have had withdrawal symptoms?
I think maybe in *some* people it impacts them differently, and maybe makes it harder to quit. But I don't think it's analogous to drugs.
Just my opinion, of course.
Well to be fair, certain people are far more susceptible to addiction. For example, no one disputes that alcohol can be addictive, but not everyone becomes an alcoholic. It has a lot to do with how the individual is wired.
Good for you for quitting that big of a soda habit!! I bet that made a huge difference in weight loss.
I'm a former smoker. I'm perfectly susceptible to addiction, I think.
I'm not sure you can compare substances that way. I think it is very individualized.
Honest question: Are there people who smoke regularly and don't become addicted? I was under the impression that nicotine didn't leave you with much of an option in that regard.
Sure there are. I have friends who only smoke socially, or only when they drink.
You said:
Well to be fair, certain people are far more susceptible to addiction.
So I was replying to that.
I'm curious though - do you believe that sex or porn addiction is a real addiction?0 -
Nobody says eating too much sugar is healthy. The issue is the people making the claim that sugar is "toxic" and "addictive," regardless of dosage or context. Sugar is perfectly fine when consumed in moderation with a balanced diet, and in fact is actually good for people, especially people who have physically demanding jobs and/or moderate to heavy athletic performances.squirrelzzrule22 wrote: »squirrelzzrule22 wrote: »I definitely believe the part about it being addictive
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/23/opinion/sugar-season-its-everywhere-and-addictive.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=geo&bicmp=AD&bicmlukp=WT.mc_id&bicmst=1409232722000&bic
Which says:But as we suggested in two academic papers, one on salt and sugar in the journal Open Heart and the other on sugar and calories in Public Health Nutrition, focusing narrowly on added sugar could have unintended consequences. It could prompt the food industry to inject something equally or more harmful into processed foods, as an alternative.
A better approach to sugar rehab is to promote the consumption of whole, natural foods.This is a better one
https://gokaleo.com/2014/12/12/5thingsaboutsugar/
Which says:No, I will reiterate the American Heart Association‘s conclusion:
“To improve the overall nutrient density of the diet and to help reduce the intake of excess calories, individuals should be sure foods high in added sugar are not displacing foods with essential nutrients or increasing calorie intake.”
In other words, make sure you’re not eating so much sugar that you’re missing out on important nutrients or consuming excess calories.That sounds an awful lot like moderation to me, no?
Is it me or are most people saying the same thing, just in different ways?
That could be. I mean moderation certainly makes sense. I guess I don't feel strongly anti-sugar, but I don't understand the super pro-sugar response that usually comes when this is discussed. I mean, we can all agree that a lot of sugar is not particularly healthy, can't we?0 -
TheVirgoddess wrote: »squirrelzzrule22 wrote: »TheVirgoddess wrote: »squirrelzzrule22 wrote: »TheVirgoddess wrote: »I'm really skeptical about this. When I first started losing weight, I was drinking about 6 Dr. Peppers a day. I had no issue quitting. If sugar were an addictive substance, wouldn't I have had withdrawal symptoms?
I think maybe in *some* people it impacts them differently, and maybe makes it harder to quit. But I don't think it's analogous to drugs.
Just my opinion, of course.
Well to be fair, certain people are far more susceptible to addiction. For example, no one disputes that alcohol can be addictive, but not everyone becomes an alcoholic. It has a lot to do with how the individual is wired.
Good for you for quitting that big of a soda habit!! I bet that made a huge difference in weight loss.
I'm a former smoker. I'm perfectly susceptible to addiction, I think.
I'm not sure you can compare substances that way. I think it is very individualized.
Honest question: Are there people who smoke regularly and don't become addicted? I was under the impression that nicotine didn't leave you with much of an option in that regard.
Sure there are. I have friends who only smoke socially, or only when they drink.
You said:
Well to be fair, certain people are far more susceptible to addiction.
So I was replying to that.
I'm curious though - do you believe that sex or porn addiction is a real addiction?
I'm not sure what that has to do with anything, but yeah I think it is probably a real thing. I don't have any particular knowledge about it though. I think addiction comes from your brain chemicals getting out of whack because of your particular response to a substance or stimulus. So I think it could stem from a wide variety of things depending on the individual.
Yeah, I understand folks who only smoke when drunk. I meant that I don't know any regular smokers- several cigarettes a day, for example, who can just up and quit without feeling any addiction-like symptoms. And that has more to do with nicotine than with the individual's brain chemicals, in my understanding.0 -
tigersword wrote: »
Nobody says eating too much sugar is healthy. The issue is the people making the claim that sugar is "toxic" and "addictive," regardless of dosage or context. Sugar is perfectly fine when consumed in moderation with a balanced diet, and in fact is actually good for people, especially people who have physically demanding jobs and/or moderate to heavy athletic performances.squirrelzzrule22 wrote: »squirrelzzrule22 wrote: »I definitely believe the part about it being addictive
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/23/opinion/sugar-season-its-everywhere-and-addictive.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=geo&bicmp=AD&bicmlukp=WT.mc_id&bicmst=1409232722000&bic
Which says:But as we suggested in two academic papers, one on salt and sugar in the journal Open Heart and the other on sugar and calories in Public Health Nutrition, focusing narrowly on added sugar could have unintended consequences. It could prompt the food industry to inject something equally or more harmful into processed foods, as an alternative.
A better approach to sugar rehab is to promote the consumption of whole, natural foods.This is a better one
https://gokaleo.com/2014/12/12/5thingsaboutsugar/
Which says:No, I will reiterate the American Heart Association‘s conclusion:
“To improve the overall nutrient density of the diet and to help reduce the intake of excess calories, individuals should be sure foods high in added sugar are not displacing foods with essential nutrients or increasing calorie intake.”
In other words, make sure you’re not eating so much sugar that you’re missing out on important nutrients or consuming excess calories.That sounds an awful lot like moderation to me, no?
Is it me or are most people saying the same thing, just in different ways?
That could be. I mean moderation certainly makes sense. I guess I don't feel strongly anti-sugar, but I don't understand the super pro-sugar response that usually comes when this is discussed. I mean, we can all agree that a lot of sugar is not particularly healthy, can't we?
Right, but what this particular article is discussing (at least as I understand it) is the huge amount of added sugars in our diet nowadays. I would never think that a person can't have fruit, or that an occasional treat is such a bad thing, but the idea that it is added into things we don't really think of as "sugary" is a bit concerning health wise. It certainly makes me want to eat more whole foods. I have the same logic about sodium.0 -
I don't think there is a convincing case that added sugar is physically addictive. I doubt there ever will be.
That said it it undoubtedly true in my mind that people struggle with addiction like behaviour (compulsive behaviour) due to hyperpalatable food items (where sugar and fat play large parts) and that struggle is very real.
And there's the issue. Sugar is singled out, yet fat is given a free pass. It's not the nutrient, it's the combination. Fat+sugar = mother lode as far as the human body is concerned. Sugar to power it now, fat to store for later. Eat as much as possible in case it runs out.
Survival instinct isn't an easy thing to just ignore, unless you're conscious of it. Notice when most people give examples of food that causes their "sugar craving," it's invariably a food that has just as much, if not more fat than sugar.0 -
squirrelzzrule22 wrote: »TheVirgoddess wrote: »squirrelzzrule22 wrote: »TheVirgoddess wrote: »squirrelzzrule22 wrote: »TheVirgoddess wrote: »I'm really skeptical about this. When I first started losing weight, I was drinking about 6 Dr. Peppers a day. I had no issue quitting. If sugar were an addictive substance, wouldn't I have had withdrawal symptoms?
I think maybe in *some* people it impacts them differently, and maybe makes it harder to quit. But I don't think it's analogous to drugs.
Just my opinion, of course.
Well to be fair, certain people are far more susceptible to addiction. For example, no one disputes that alcohol can be addictive, but not everyone becomes an alcoholic. It has a lot to do with how the individual is wired.
Good for you for quitting that big of a soda habit!! I bet that made a huge difference in weight loss.
I'm a former smoker. I'm perfectly susceptible to addiction, I think.
I'm not sure you can compare substances that way. I think it is very individualized.
Honest question: Are there people who smoke regularly and don't become addicted? I was under the impression that nicotine didn't leave you with much of an option in that regard.
Sure there are. I have friends who only smoke socially, or only when they drink.
You said:
Well to be fair, certain people are far more susceptible to addiction.
So I was replying to that.
I'm curious though - do you believe that sex or porn addiction is a real addiction?
I'm not sure what that has to do with anything, but yeah I think it is probably a real thing. I don't have any particular knowledge about it though. I think addiction comes from your brain chemicals getting out of whack because of your particular response to a substance or stimulus. So I think it could stem from a wide variety of things depending on the individual.
Yeah, I understand folks who only smoke when drunk. I meant that I don't know any regular smokers- several cigarettes a day, for example, who can just up and quit without feeling any addiction-like symptoms. And that has more to do with nicotine than with the individual's brain chemicals, in my understanding.
Ohhh, I see what you're saying. I didn't quite understand before.
0 -
squirrelzzrule22 wrote: »tigersword wrote: »
Nobody says eating too much sugar is healthy. The issue is the people making the claim that sugar is "toxic" and "addictive," regardless of dosage or context. Sugar is perfectly fine when consumed in moderation with a balanced diet, and in fact is actually good for people, especially people who have physically demanding jobs and/or moderate to heavy athletic performances.squirrelzzrule22 wrote: »squirrelzzrule22 wrote: »I definitely believe the part about it being addictive
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/23/opinion/sugar-season-its-everywhere-and-addictive.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=geo&bicmp=AD&bicmlukp=WT.mc_id&bicmst=1409232722000&bic
Which says:But as we suggested in two academic papers, one on salt and sugar in the journal Open Heart and the other on sugar and calories in Public Health Nutrition, focusing narrowly on added sugar could have unintended consequences. It could prompt the food industry to inject something equally or more harmful into processed foods, as an alternative.
A better approach to sugar rehab is to promote the consumption of whole, natural foods.This is a better one
https://gokaleo.com/2014/12/12/5thingsaboutsugar/
Which says:No, I will reiterate the American Heart Association‘s conclusion:
“To improve the overall nutrient density of the diet and to help reduce the intake of excess calories, individuals should be sure foods high in added sugar are not displacing foods with essential nutrients or increasing calorie intake.”
In other words, make sure you’re not eating so much sugar that you’re missing out on important nutrients or consuming excess calories.That sounds an awful lot like moderation to me, no?
Is it me or are most people saying the same thing, just in different ways?
That could be. I mean moderation certainly makes sense. I guess I don't feel strongly anti-sugar, but I don't understand the super pro-sugar response that usually comes when this is discussed. I mean, we can all agree that a lot of sugar is not particularly healthy, can't we?
Right, but what this particular article is discussing (at least as I understand it) is the huge amount of added sugars in our diet nowadays. I would never think that a person can't have fruit, or that an occasional treat is such a bad thing, but the idea that it is added into things we don't really think of as "sugary" is a bit concerning health wise. It certainly makes me want to eat more whole foods. I have the same logic about sodium.
Except sugar consumption has been declining for over 15 years now. So where is this, "huge amount of added sugars?"0 -
tigersword wrote: »I don't think there is a convincing case that added sugar is physically addictive. I doubt there ever will be.
That said it it undoubtedly true in my mind that people struggle with addiction like behaviour (compulsive behaviour) due to hyperpalatable food items (where sugar and fat play large parts) and that struggle is very real.
And there's the issue. Sugar is singled out, yet fat is given a free pass. It's not the nutrient, it's the combination. Fat+sugar = mother lode as far as the human body is concerned. Sugar to power it now, fat to store for later. Eat as much as possible in case it runs out.
Survival instinct isn't an easy thing to just ignore, unless you're conscious of it. Notice when most people give examples of food that causes their "sugar craving," it's invariably a food that has just as much, if not more fat than sugar.
Hm. I'm more a cupcake girl than ice cream, but I see your point, there is certainly fat in that as well.
But I guess my response would be that fat isn't typically an additive the way sugar is? I mean if something is high fat we typically know that based on what it is- creamy, oily, etc. That is just my initial impression however. A simplified example might be a granola bar- I look at that and I'm thinking carbs, not fat. There could be a lot of "hidden" sugar in there (meaning more than one might expect) but how would you "hide" the fat? Nuts I suppose? Certain cooking oils probably...I don't know it seems different to me.0 -
Yup. I don't see anyone going to the store and buying a 5lb bag of sugar and just eating that by the cup. It is always cakes, pastries, cookies etc.tigersword wrote: »I don't think there is a convincing case that added sugar is physically addictive. I doubt there ever will be.
That said it it undoubtedly true in my mind that people struggle with addiction like behaviour (compulsive behaviour) due to hyperpalatable food items (where sugar and fat play large parts) and that struggle is very real.
And there's the issue. Sugar is singled out, yet fat is given a free pass. It's not the nutrient, it's the combination. Fat+sugar = mother lode as far as the human body is concerned. Sugar to power it now, fat to store for later. Eat as much as possible in case it runs out.
Survival instinct isn't an easy thing to just ignore, unless you're conscious of it. Notice when most people give examples of food that causes their "sugar craving," it's invariably a food that has just as much, if not more fat than sugar.
Things that have a high caloric load and low volume.
0 -
tigersword wrote: »squirrelzzrule22 wrote: »tigersword wrote: »
Nobody says eating too much sugar is healthy. The issue is the people making the claim that sugar is "toxic" and "addictive," regardless of dosage or context. Sugar is perfectly fine when consumed in moderation with a balanced diet, and in fact is actually good for people, especially people who have physically demanding jobs and/or moderate to heavy athletic performances.squirrelzzrule22 wrote: »squirrelzzrule22 wrote: »I definitely believe the part about it being addictive
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/23/opinion/sugar-season-its-everywhere-and-addictive.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=geo&bicmp=AD&bicmlukp=WT.mc_id&bicmst=1409232722000&bic
Which says:But as we suggested in two academic papers, one on salt and sugar in the journal Open Heart and the other on sugar and calories in Public Health Nutrition, focusing narrowly on added sugar could have unintended consequences. It could prompt the food industry to inject something equally or more harmful into processed foods, as an alternative.
A better approach to sugar rehab is to promote the consumption of whole, natural foods.This is a better one
https://gokaleo.com/2014/12/12/5thingsaboutsugar/
Which says:No, I will reiterate the American Heart Association‘s conclusion:
“To improve the overall nutrient density of the diet and to help reduce the intake of excess calories, individuals should be sure foods high in added sugar are not displacing foods with essential nutrients or increasing calorie intake.”
In other words, make sure you’re not eating so much sugar that you’re missing out on important nutrients or consuming excess calories.That sounds an awful lot like moderation to me, no?
Is it me or are most people saying the same thing, just in different ways?
That could be. I mean moderation certainly makes sense. I guess I don't feel strongly anti-sugar, but I don't understand the super pro-sugar response that usually comes when this is discussed. I mean, we can all agree that a lot of sugar is not particularly healthy, can't we?
Right, but what this particular article is discussing (at least as I understand it) is the huge amount of added sugars in our diet nowadays. I would never think that a person can't have fruit, or that an occasional treat is such a bad thing, but the idea that it is added into things we don't really think of as "sugary" is a bit concerning health wise. It certainly makes me want to eat more whole foods. I have the same logic about sodium.
Except sugar consumption has been declining for over 15 years now. So where is this, "huge amount of added sugars?"
Declined from what to what? And how is this even measured? And what communities in particular are they looking at?
I'm genuinely curious so if you have the answer please link!
0 -
Yup. I don't see anyone going to the store and buying a 5lb bag of sugar and just eating that by the cup. It is always cakes, pastries, cookies etc.tigersword wrote: »I don't think there is a convincing case that added sugar is physically addictive. I doubt there ever will be.
That said it it undoubtedly true in my mind that people struggle with addiction like behaviour (compulsive behaviour) due to hyperpalatable food items (where sugar and fat play large parts) and that struggle is very real.
And there's the issue. Sugar is singled out, yet fat is given a free pass. It's not the nutrient, it's the combination. Fat+sugar = mother lode as far as the human body is concerned. Sugar to power it now, fat to store for later. Eat as much as possible in case it runs out.
Survival instinct isn't an easy thing to just ignore, unless you're conscious of it. Notice when most people give examples of food that causes their "sugar craving," it's invariably a food that has just as much, if not more fat than sugar.
Things that have a high caloric load and low volume.
Soda would be my primary response to this.0 -
tigersword wrote: »I don't think there is a convincing case that added sugar is physically addictive. I doubt there ever will be.
That said it it undoubtedly true in my mind that people struggle with addiction like behaviour (compulsive behaviour) due to hyperpalatable food items (where sugar and fat play large parts) and that struggle is very real.
And there's the issue. Sugar is singled out, yet fat is given a free pass. It's not the nutrient, it's the combination. Fat+sugar = mother lode as far as the human body is concerned. Sugar to power it now, fat to store for later. Eat as much as possible in case it runs out.
Survival instinct isn't an easy thing to just ignore, unless you're conscious of it. Notice when most people give examples of food that causes their "sugar craving," it's invariably a food that has just as much, if not more fat than sugar.
Right and we look at this in the context of how things have played out re: fat and sugar.
There was a war on dietary fat. This got replaced by artificial sugar. Times changed. Now we think "hey, fat isn't so bad. It must have been the sugar all along!" This is given weight by how prevalent sugar is nowadays in processed foods. In reality it is how they got combined, how cheap, convenient and freely available these items are and perhaps most importantly how tasty they are leading to massive over consumption.
This is the sins of the fathers visiting the children.
0 -
squirrelzzrule22 wrote: »tigersword wrote: »squirrelzzrule22 wrote: »tigersword wrote: »
Nobody says eating too much sugar is healthy. The issue is the people making the claim that sugar is "toxic" and "addictive," regardless of dosage or context. Sugar is perfectly fine when consumed in moderation with a balanced diet, and in fact is actually good for people, especially people who have physically demanding jobs and/or moderate to heavy athletic performances.squirrelzzrule22 wrote: »squirrelzzrule22 wrote: »I definitely believe the part about it being addictive
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/23/opinion/sugar-season-its-everywhere-and-addictive.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=geo&bicmp=AD&bicmlukp=WT.mc_id&bicmst=1409232722000&bic
Which says:But as we suggested in two academic papers, one on salt and sugar in the journal Open Heart and the other on sugar and calories in Public Health Nutrition, focusing narrowly on added sugar could have unintended consequences. It could prompt the food industry to inject something equally or more harmful into processed foods, as an alternative.
A better approach to sugar rehab is to promote the consumption of whole, natural foods.This is a better one
https://gokaleo.com/2014/12/12/5thingsaboutsugar/
Which says:No, I will reiterate the American Heart Association‘s conclusion:
“To improve the overall nutrient density of the diet and to help reduce the intake of excess calories, individuals should be sure foods high in added sugar are not displacing foods with essential nutrients or increasing calorie intake.”
In other words, make sure you’re not eating so much sugar that you’re missing out on important nutrients or consuming excess calories.That sounds an awful lot like moderation to me, no?
Is it me or are most people saying the same thing, just in different ways?
That could be. I mean moderation certainly makes sense. I guess I don't feel strongly anti-sugar, but I don't understand the super pro-sugar response that usually comes when this is discussed. I mean, we can all agree that a lot of sugar is not particularly healthy, can't we?
Right, but what this particular article is discussing (at least as I understand it) is the huge amount of added sugars in our diet nowadays. I would never think that a person can't have fruit, or that an occasional treat is such a bad thing, but the idea that it is added into things we don't really think of as "sugary" is a bit concerning health wise. It certainly makes me want to eat more whole foods. I have the same logic about sodium.
Except sugar consumption has been declining for over 15 years now. So where is this, "huge amount of added sugars?"
Declined from what to what? And how is this even measured? And what communities in particular are they looking at?
I'm genuinely curious so if you have the answer please link!
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/94/3/726.full0 -
tigersword wrote: »I don't think there is a convincing case that added sugar is physically addictive. I doubt there ever will be.
That said it it undoubtedly true in my mind that people struggle with addiction like behaviour (compulsive behaviour) due to hyperpalatable food items (where sugar and fat play large parts) and that struggle is very real.
And there's the issue. Sugar is singled out, yet fat is given a free pass. It's not the nutrient, it's the combination. Fat+sugar = mother lode as far as the human body is concerned. Sugar to power it now, fat to store for later. Eat as much as possible in case it runs out.
Survival instinct isn't an easy thing to just ignore, unless you're conscious of it. Notice when most people give examples of food that causes their "sugar craving," it's invariably a food that has just as much, if not more fat than sugar.
Right and we look at this in the context of how things have played out re: fat and sugar.
There was a war on dietary fat. This got replaced by artificial sugar. Times changed. Now we think "hey, fat isn't so bad. It must have been the sugar all along!" This is given weight by how prevalent sugar is nowadays in processed foods. *In reality it is how they got combined, how cheap, convenient and freely available these items are and perhaps most importantly how tasty they are leading to massive over consumption.*
This is the sins of the fathers visiting the children.
I actually really agree with the bolded. I'm in a profession where I work exclusively with very low income communities, and the lack of access to healthy food is something I feel strongly about. I often hear ignorant people make comments like "how can that homeless person be obese? clearly they have money for food" and I just....can't...blah.
HAH WOOPS I didn't even bold anything apparently. Your point about the cheap combination of these factors being freely available...0 -
squirrelzzrule22 wrote: »tigersword wrote: »squirrelzzrule22 wrote: »tigersword wrote: »
Nobody says eating too much sugar is healthy. The issue is the people making the claim that sugar is "toxic" and "addictive," regardless of dosage or context. Sugar is perfectly fine when consumed in moderation with a balanced diet, and in fact is actually good for people, especially people who have physically demanding jobs and/or moderate to heavy athletic performances.squirrelzzrule22 wrote: »squirrelzzrule22 wrote: »I definitely believe the part about it being addictive
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/23/opinion/sugar-season-its-everywhere-and-addictive.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=geo&bicmp=AD&bicmlukp=WT.mc_id&bicmst=1409232722000&bic
Which says:But as we suggested in two academic papers, one on salt and sugar in the journal Open Heart and the other on sugar and calories in Public Health Nutrition, focusing narrowly on added sugar could have unintended consequences. It could prompt the food industry to inject something equally or more harmful into processed foods, as an alternative.
A better approach to sugar rehab is to promote the consumption of whole, natural foods.This is a better one
https://gokaleo.com/2014/12/12/5thingsaboutsugar/
Which says:No, I will reiterate the American Heart Association‘s conclusion:
“To improve the overall nutrient density of the diet and to help reduce the intake of excess calories, individuals should be sure foods high in added sugar are not displacing foods with essential nutrients or increasing calorie intake.”
In other words, make sure you’re not eating so much sugar that you’re missing out on important nutrients or consuming excess calories.That sounds an awful lot like moderation to me, no?
Is it me or are most people saying the same thing, just in different ways?
That could be. I mean moderation certainly makes sense. I guess I don't feel strongly anti-sugar, but I don't understand the super pro-sugar response that usually comes when this is discussed. I mean, we can all agree that a lot of sugar is not particularly healthy, can't we?
Right, but what this particular article is discussing (at least as I understand it) is the huge amount of added sugars in our diet nowadays. I would never think that a person can't have fruit, or that an occasional treat is such a bad thing, but the idea that it is added into things we don't really think of as "sugary" is a bit concerning health wise. It certainly makes me want to eat more whole foods. I have the same logic about sodium.
Except sugar consumption has been declining for over 15 years now. So where is this, "huge amount of added sugars?"
Declined from what to what? And how is this even measured? And what communities in particular are they looking at?
I'm genuinely curious so if you have the answer please link!
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/94/3/726.full
A couple things: I'm still unclear on how they are actual harvesting this nutritional data. If it is self reporting, that is kind of unfortunate. Second, 42,000....I get that sample sizes are crazy low so maybe that is sound data but it seems hard to believe it represents the entire population. I also really do want to know if those people were from middle or low income backgrounds, etc.
BUT, most importantly, the thesis: "Conclusion: Although the consumption of added sugars in the United States decreased between 1999–2000 and 2007–2008, primarily because of a reduction in soda consumption, mean intakes continue to exceed recommended limits."
So even if I accept this as 100% accurate, I'm not sure it really changes my general concern at all.0 -
squirrelzzrule22 wrote: »tigersword wrote: »I don't think there is a convincing case that added sugar is physically addictive. I doubt there ever will be.
That said it it undoubtedly true in my mind that people struggle with addiction like behaviour (compulsive behaviour) due to hyperpalatable food items (where sugar and fat play large parts) and that struggle is very real.
And there's the issue. Sugar is singled out, yet fat is given a free pass. It's not the nutrient, it's the combination. Fat+sugar = mother lode as far as the human body is concerned. Sugar to power it now, fat to store for later. Eat as much as possible in case it runs out.
Survival instinct isn't an easy thing to just ignore, unless you're conscious of it. Notice when most people give examples of food that causes their "sugar craving," it's invariably a food that has just as much, if not more fat than sugar.
Right and we look at this in the context of how things have played out re: fat and sugar.
There was a war on dietary fat. This got replaced by artificial sugar. Times changed. Now we think "hey, fat isn't so bad. It must have been the sugar all along!" This is given weight by how prevalent sugar is nowadays in processed foods. *In reality it is how they got combined, how cheap, convenient and freely available these items are and perhaps most importantly how tasty they are leading to massive over consumption.*
This is the sins of the fathers visiting the children.
I actually really agree with the bolded. I'm in a profession where I work exclusively with very low income communities, and the lack of access to healthy food is something I feel strongly about. I often hear ignorant people make comments like "how can that homeless person be obese? clearly they have money for food" and I just....can't...blah.
Right and then you get the asinine argument "well they can't be that poor - look how fat they are..."
Good lord.
0 -
A granola bar has plenty of fat and carbs, due to the combinations of honey and nuts and seeds. I'm talking more like a Snickers bar (108 calories from sugar and 108 calories from fat) or a chocolate chip cookie (40 calories from sugar, 63 calories from fat in a 1 ounce cookie.) See? Calorie for calorie, sugar and fat are generally matched or a little heavier on the fat side.squirrelzzrule22 wrote: »tigersword wrote: »I don't think there is a convincing case that added sugar is physically addictive. I doubt there ever will be.
That said it it undoubtedly true in my mind that people struggle with addiction like behaviour (compulsive behaviour) due to hyperpalatable food items (where sugar and fat play large parts) and that struggle is very real.
And there's the issue. Sugar is singled out, yet fat is given a free pass. It's not the nutrient, it's the combination. Fat+sugar = mother lode as far as the human body is concerned. Sugar to power it now, fat to store for later. Eat as much as possible in case it runs out.
Survival instinct isn't an easy thing to just ignore, unless you're conscious of it. Notice when most people give examples of food that causes their "sugar craving," it's invariably a food that has just as much, if not more fat than sugar.
Hm. I'm more a cupcake girl than ice cream, but I see your point, there is certainly fat in that as well.
But I guess my response would be that fat isn't typically an additive the way sugar is? I mean if something is high fat we typically know that based on what it is- creamy, oily, etc. That is just my initial impression however. A simplified example might be a granola bar- I look at that and I'm thinking carbs, not fat. There could be a lot of "hidden" sugar in there (meaning more than one might expect) but how would you "hide" the fat? Nuts I suppose? Certain cooking oils probably...I don't know it seems different to me.0 -
Sugar may not be addictive, but it's definitely advisable to moderate your Christmas crack!!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
- 427 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