Times article to toss into the Sugar debate....

GaleHawkins

https://youtube.com/watch?v=MepXBJjsNxs

This guy knows how to make sugar funny.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

yarwell

Mr_Knight wrote: »

There's something fundamentally wrong with a statement like "virtually no one hits the dietary recommendations" in a world where people keep living longer.

Perhaps there's something fundamentally wrong with the dietary recommendations ?

FatFreeFrolicking

Need2Exerc1se 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 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.

Just because you didn't experience any withdrawal symptoms doesn't mean tobacco isn't addictive. Tobacco is indeed addictive. It has been proven.

lemurcat12

squirrelzzrule22 wrote: »

tigersword wrote: »

squirrelzzrule22 wrote: »

tigersword wrote: »

msf74 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.

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.

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.

I think lots of processed foods have sugar as a cheap taste boost, especially after fat became verboten, but some of the claims are silly--IMO jarred pasta sauce is barbaric, but it's traditional to have some sugar in red sauce, and some of the sugar they count is from the tomatoes. Similarly, flavored yogurt typically has sugar from milk and fruit, big whoop, who is shocked? More significantly, I am highly skeptical that this has a thing to do with alleged addiction or obesity. Most of the "hidden" sugar doesn't lead to people "binging" on the products--who binges on, say, ketchup or even granola bars (which are sweet, so it's not really hidden)--or add many calories. What tends to lead to people eating more sugar--although I also take Mr Knight's point--is that sweets which used to be less available and more expensive and eaten at prescribed times are now limited by none of the above, and our human appreciation for them (especially with fat) remains as strong as ever. So moderation can be challenging.

As I've noted several times, I've analyzed my own cookie recipe, and FAR more of the calories are from butter than sugar. I'm making a pumpkin cheesecake at this very moment and again more calories are from fat--indeed, my Christmas dinner will owe far more to fat than sugar for its palatability. Yet for some reason sugar gets demonized.

I don't think there's any evidence that it's addictive. I think it's common for humans to find it tempting. For some odd reason some want to equate tempting with addictive.

tigersword

lemurcat12 wrote: »

squirrelzzrule22 wrote: »

tigersword wrote: »

squirrelzzrule22 wrote: »

tigersword wrote: »

msf74 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.

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.

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.

I think lots of processed foods have sugar as a cheap taste boost, especially after fat became verboten, but some of the claims are silly--IMO jarred pasta sauce is barbaric, but it's traditional to have some sugar in red sauce, and some of the sugar they count is from the tomatoes. Similarly, flavored yogurt typically has sugar from milk and fruit, big whoop, who is shocked? More significantly, I am highly skeptical that this has a thing to do with alleged addiction or obesity. Most of the "hidden" sugar doesn't lead to people "binging" on the products--who binges on, say, ketchup or even granola bars (which are sweet, so it's not really hidden)--or add many calories. What tends to lead to people eating more sugar--although I also take Mr Knight's point--is that sweets which used to be less available and more expensive and eaten at prescribed times are now limited by none of the above, and our human appreciation for them (especially with fat) remains as strong as ever. So moderation can be challenging.

As I've noted several times, I've analyzed my own cookie recipe, and FAR more of the calories are from butter than sugar. I'm making a pumpkin cheesecake at this very moment and again more calories are from fat--indeed, my Christmas dinner will owe far more to fat than sugar for its palatability. Yet for some reason sugar gets demonized.

I don't think there's any evidence that it's addictive. I think it's common for humans to find it tempting. For some odd reason some want to equate tempting with addictive.

I agree with this. Personally, I hate the "hidden sugar" concept in general. I see it as fear mongering and a cop out. I have yet to find a food with sugar in it that I didn't expect to have sugar. For example, the granola bar. Granola bars use brown sugar and honey as binders, it's what keeps the ingredients together as a bar, instead of just loose pieces. I can't see how that's hidden. Or a frozen tv dinner that includes a brownie as dessert, or a sweet sauce. I can't see how the sugar found in that could be considered "hidden," either.

Sugar tastes sweet, our body recognizes the taste of sugar, as our tongues have evolved receptors to detect it, unlike obligate carnivores, who can't detect sweet flavors at all. It's not really something you can hide.