Times article to toss into the Sugar debate....
Replies
-
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.
Because fat's can be a good source of micro nutrients - where as sugar can't boost that!
disclaimer - sugar's not 'bad' for you in moderation!
0 -
tigersword wrote: »See? Calorie for calorie, sugar and fat are generally matched or a little heavier on the fat side.
IIRC a 50 / 50 ratio of sugar and fat is supposedly nirvana - which I have no doubt food manufacturers exploit when trying to maximise sales.
0 -
tigersword wrote: »
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.
No I GET that that is what YOU are talking about, but what I am trying to say is that I think there tends to be MORE "hidden" sugar, and I thought that this article was primarily addressing that particular issue. I completely believe that delicious things combine fat and sugar. No argument there. But For example I just googled your basic quaker chewy bar, and it has 3.5g fat and 7grams sugar. Not a ton, but for the sake of argument my point is that it would be a lot easier to "hide" sugar in those types of packaged foods. And my understanding of this article is that it takes issue with processed foods that are loaded with sugar, no so much to "obvious" sugary treats that as you said, often have sugar and fat.0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »Sugar may not be addictive, but it's definitely advisable to moderate your Christmas crack!!
So true.
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
Thanks for the link.
I am one that find Sunlight stored as Sugar to be addicting.
0 -
tennisdude2004 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.
Because fat's can be a good source of micro nutrients - where as sugar can't boost that!
disclaimer - sugar's not 'bad' for you in moderation!
There are plenty of micronutrients in sugar. Different types of sugar have differing levels of nutrients.0 -
There is sugar (and sodium and other things) added to processed foods. It makes things taste good to many of us. I don't actually think it is hidden from the consumer, but most people don't bother to read labels. I know I never did pre-MFP. Now I always read labels, and 99% of the time put items back on the shelf. I just don't buy it anymore. My treats now consist of a small piece of dark chocolate daily.
I know that I DID eat too much sugar. I can not speak for anyone except myself. My problem, pre MFP 3/12/12, was OVEREATING.................everything. If I have learned one thing here, it is all things in moderation, including sugar. I do not exclude any foods. I do make better choices, and eat foods (in moderation) that supply me with better nutrition. I have been on maintenance for over a year now, and so far, it works for me.
We each have to find what works best for each of us. Becoming a healthy weight is only a part of the battle. The statistics, for keeping the weight off, long term, are staggeringly against us all.0 -
There is sugar (and sodium and other things) added to processed foods. It makes things taste good to many of us. I don't actually think it is hidden from the consumer, but most people don't bother to read labels. I know I never did pre-MFP. Now I always read labels, and 99% of the time put items back on the shelf. I just don't buy it anymore. My treats now consist of a small piece of dark chocolate daily.
Which makes me question that there has been a decline in sugar consumption. I also read labels and and try to choose products that have no added sugars or the sugar that has been added isn't in the top ingredients. I am quite baffled at what foods have added sugar. For example why do roasted peanuts have sugar yet the container of mixed nuts that I bought (that don't contain peanuts) have no sugar?0 -
Just some food for thought since I'm a fan of empirical research. Here's an abstract from a study published by the Journal of Psychoactive Drugs:
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.
"Contemporary research has shown that a high number of alcohol-dependent and other drug-dependent individuals have a sweet preference, specifically for foods with a high sucrose concentration. Moreover, both human and animal studies have demonstrated that in some brains the consumption of sugar-rich foods or drinks primes the release of euphoric endorphins and dopamine within the nucleus accumbens, in a manner similar to some drugs of abuse. The neurobiological pathways of drug and “sugar addiction” involve similar neural receptors. neurotransmitters, and hedonic regions in the brain. Craving, tolerance, withdrawal and sensitization have been documented in both human and animal studies. In addition, there appears to be cross sensitization between sugar addiction and narcotic dependence in some individuals. It has also been observed that the biological children of alcoholic parents, particularly alcoholic fathers, are at greater risk to have a strong sweet preference. and this may manifest in some with an eating disorder. In the last two decades research has noted that specific genes may underlie the sweet preference in alcohol- and drug-dependent individuals, as well as in biological children of paternal alcoholics. There also appears to be some common genetic markers between alcohol dependence, bulimia, and obesity, such as the A1 allele gene and the dopamine 2 receptor gene."0 -
tigersword wrote: »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.
Article?
0 -
tigersword wrote: »tennisdude2004 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.
Because fat's can be a good source of micro nutrients - where as sugar can't boost that!
disclaimer - sugar's not 'bad' for you in moderation!
There are plenty of micronutrients in sugar. Different types of sugar have differing levels of nutrients.
Okay what are the micro nutrients in 'simple' sugar? And what levels are they?
I have a feeling you're over egging the micro nutrient benefits0 -
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 smoked for about 7 years and then just gave it up without a single withdrawal symptom. If smoking were addictive surely I would have had symptoms.0 -
I think it's a good article, especially the last two paragraphs.0
-
I could ask the same question, name a single micronutrient in fat. Something being fat soluble doesn't mean that it's inside fatty acids.tennisdude2004 wrote: »tigersword wrote: »tennisdude2004 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.
Because fat's can be a good source of micro nutrients - where as sugar can't boost that!
disclaimer - sugar's not 'bad' for you in moderation!
There are plenty of micronutrients in sugar. Different types of sugar have differing levels of nutrients.
Okay what are the micro nutrients in 'simple' sugar? And what levels are they?
I have a feeling you're over egging the micro nutrient benefits
As for sugar, trace amounts of calcium, magnesium, potassium, iron, and phosphorus. Depending on the source, you may get other nutrients as well. Honey has antibacterial properties, as well as potassium, plus antioxidants.0 -
tigersword wrote: »
I could ask the same question, name a single micronutrient in fat. Something being fat soluble doesn't mean that it's inside fatty acids.tennisdude2004 wrote: »tigersword wrote: »tennisdude2004 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.
Because fat's can be a good source of micro nutrients - where as sugar can't boost that!
disclaimer - sugar's not 'bad' for you in moderation!
There are plenty of micronutrients in sugar. Different types of sugar have differing levels of nutrients.
Okay what are the micro nutrients in 'simple' sugar? And what levels are they?
I have a feeling you're over egging the micro nutrient benefits
As for sugar, trace amounts of calcium, magnesium, potassium, iron, and phosphorus. Depending on the source, you may get other nutrients as well. Honey has antibacterial properties, as well as potassium, plus antioxidants.
Well fat is one of the better sources of Vit K2, richest source of Vit E, and choline. Not to mention one of the best dietary sources of Vit D.
Plus when cooking with fat it improves the bio-availability of fat soluble Vits (A, D, E. K and K2) in the foods being cooked.
Oh, did I mention Omega 3, 6 & 9?
Still the trace amounts of minerals from sugar is quite impressive.0 -
Omega 3s aren't micronutrients. They're fatty acids. And as I asked, which fatty acids contain those vitamins? I'm not asking for foods that are fatty and good sources of vitamins, I'm asking for specific fatty acids that are sources of vitamins. You know, the same way you are asking for nutrients in actual sugar, rather than in foods that contain sugar. If you're going to compare, you need to compare like with like.0
-
tigersword wrote: »Omega 3s aren't micronutrients. They're fatty acids. And as I asked, which fatty acids contain those vitamins? I'm not asking for foods that are fatty and good sources of vitamins, I'm asking for specific fatty acids that are sources of vitamins. You know, the same way you are asking for nutrients in actual sugar, rather than in foods that contain sugar. If you're going to compare, you need to compare like with like.
Well Vit K2 can naturally occur in SFA!
However you cannot get away from the fact that fatty acids absorb these vitamins and are therefore a very effective delivery system into our diets.
Does sugar naturally do that - if they do then we can compare like for like? If they don't then IMO fats trump simple sugars.
Unless of course there is something you know about sugar that has yet to be public knowledge?
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!
US sugar consumption is only about 10-15% higher than it was in 1930. The real spike in sugar consumption in the US came in the 1800s, when it increased more than ten-fold.0 -
There is a good table in here.tigersword wrote: »Omega 3s aren't micronutrients. They're fatty acids. And as I asked, which fatty acids contain those vitamins? I'm not asking for foods that are fatty and good sources of vitamins, I'm asking for specific fatty acids that are sources of vitamins. You know, the same way you are asking for nutrients in actual sugar, rather than in foods that contain sugar. If you're going to compare, you need to compare like with like.
http://nutrevolve.blogspot.com/2014/11/war-of-worlds-butter-vs-oil.html
0 -
There's something fundamentally wrong with a statement like "virtually no one hits the dietary recommendations" in a world where people keep living longer.0
-
There is a good table in here.tigersword wrote: »Omega 3s aren't micronutrients. They're fatty acids. And as I asked, which fatty acids contain those vitamins? I'm not asking for foods that are fatty and good sources of vitamins, I'm asking for specific fatty acids that are sources of vitamins. You know, the same way you are asking for nutrients in actual sugar, rather than in foods that contain sugar. If you're going to compare, you need to compare like with like.
http://nutrevolve.blogspot.com/2014/11/war-of-worlds-butter-vs-oil.html
Interesting article, but it kinda missed Vit D (thats quite an important one)!
It would be interesting to see the same graph based on what simple sugars add?0 -
-
A Debbie-downer of an article. I bet the writers of that alarmist drivel are a lot of fun at holiday parties. If they get invited to any, that is.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.
Alcohol withdrawal can be significant, and withdrawal is a huge component of "addiction". Are you asserting the neurotransmitter effect of "sugar" is the same as alcohol? pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh21-2/144.pdfWhen alcohol consumption is abruptly reduced or discontinued, a withdrawal syndrome may follow, characterized by seizures, tremor, hallucinations, insomnia, agitation, and confusion (Metten and Crabbe 1995). Scientists postulate that this syndrome represents the hyperactivity of neural adaptive mechanisms no longer balanced by the inhibitory effects of alcohol (see figure).For example, alcohol has been shown to activate dopamine systems in certain areas of the brain (i.e., the limbic system) through an interaction with glutamate receptors (Koob 1996). Moreover, dopamine systems appear to be inhibited after alcohol withdrawal, and this inhibition can be reversed by alcohol consumption (Koob 1996).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
There is a strange premise to this article, as sugar seems to have an ambiguous meaning.Up until just a few hundred years ago, concentrated sugars were essentially absent from the human diet — besides, perhaps, the fortuitous find of small quantities of wild honey. Sugar would have been a rare source of energy in the environment, and strong cravings for it would have benefited human survival. Sugar cravings would have prompted searches for sweet foods, the kind that help us layer on fat and store energy for times of scarcity.
Humans are mammals, which means sugar was a part of the diet in the form of lactose. Sugar would not have been rare, because in your infancy you would have eaten lactose at every meal.0 -
squirrelzzrule22 wrote: »@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.
Since when has the NYT been a reputable source?0 -
0
-
This content has been removed.
-
0
-
This content has been removed.
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.8K Introduce Yourself
- 44K Getting Started
- 260.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.2K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.7K Fitness and Exercise
- 444 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.2K Motivation and Support
- 8.2K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4.1K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 1.3K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.8K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions