Anybody a sugar addict? Want to give it up together?
Options
Replies
-
Some people feel like the use of the term "addict" [edit: to mean] "I like sweets" is unhelpful, so get persnickety about correcting it.
I happen to agree that it's not helpful if something more serious than "wow, those little Dolfin chocolates are so tasty they are turning me into a chocoholic!" is meant but I am trying to be more conversation-starting in my responses and to leave room for that being how it's intended.
For me, focusing on cutting foods isn't really useful, but focusing on not eating outside of meals is (you can plan as many meals as you like, of course). If not eating randomly throughout the day, it's hard to end up eating lots of cake or the like, IMO. (Also, hard to imagine where one gets cake on a regular basis without having to make a huge effort, but some people have different experiences, obviously.)
In any case, some people like to graze, I guess, so they need different strategies than I use.0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »Op and everyone else expressing a wish to cut/remove sugar....
Why?
Why reduce sugar???
Easy - quick and simple route to a calorie deficit!!
Question to you!!
OP has made (as an adult) a decisions (although poorly worded, in the original post, i would suggest) to reduce her sugar intake - what does it matter.
I'm sure most people aren't ignorant enough to believe the OP means to cut sugar to zero and have the ability to not read things so literally.
It doesn't matter to me in the slightest.
I was merely curious as to why the OP and others chose to cut/remove sugar, as it's something that has never given me any issues and something I am able to fit in to my balanced dietary intake.
I assumed the purpose of a discussion forum was to discuss things.
Most people who are new to this site are looking to get their eating under control and into a calorie deficit.
The simplest (not always the easiest) is to cut back on sugar (in particular things like cakes, sweets etc). As sugar is probably the least healthy of the foods we eat, and some of the things like sweets/cakes are possibly high in calories and low in micro nutrients, why not target those.
Lord knows the MFP general forums are never going to be a supportive place, but the idiocy and childishness of some of the posters is general unhelpful.
So sorry to hear you won't be eating any more fruits, vegetables, breads, etc. My condolences.
These forum are for the purpose of discussion, but this topic has been hijacked to death, it might be a novel approach to let one run it's proper course, with people not jumping in getting all butthurt that we don't all love sugar.
For clarification I'm not on the side of anti-sugar, but I'm not under the illusion it's that great either. It's pretty much a neutral food that serves its purpose in a healthy balanced diet and when that diet consists of too many calories, why shouldn't it be the first thing to be cut back on to get back into a deficit?
0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »Op and everyone else expressing a wish to cut/remove sugar....
Why?
Why reduce sugar???
Easy - quick and simple route to a calorie deficit!!
Question to you!!
OP has made (as an adult) a decisions (although poorly worded, in the original post, i would suggest) to reduce her sugar intake - what does it matter.
I'm sure most people aren't ignorant enough to believe the OP means to cut sugar to zero and have the ability to not read things so literally.
I think this poster hit the nail on the head. I, much like the OP, have decided to try and reduce added sugars. Mainly because I am a sugar addict and I know it will be healthier for me and well it will easily help reduce the calorie intake.
No need for anyone to get down on the OP for what they feel is best for them and are encouraging others to try and make a change too.0 -
Edit: breaking this into 2 pieces, since I'm too longwinded.I, much like the OP, have decided to try and reduce added sugars.
I think this is a reasonable strategy, and it is something I did too, but because I think scapegoating foods is not as useful as taking an honest look at one's overall diet, what I did in addition to cutting out my eating of random sugary snacks that showed up at my office (since no, that isn't a sign that God wants you to eat that donut) and adding a cookie to lunch any time I was having a bad day was look over my typical week and figure out where my extra calories were coming from. By the time I got around to losing I was adding in far more sugary things than I needed, but I also saw that the problem had started earlier and went way beyond sugar--indeed, for me the extra calories from going all out whenever I went out to dinner (which I did 1-2 times per week) and ordering Indian take out a couple more times was a bigger issue. And I figured that my desire to eat those donuts that would show up mid morning was probably related to the fact that I was buying a giant bagel (no cream cheese, though, so basically pure carbs) for breakfast.
Stupid, and probably stupidness that was specific to me and my diet.
Just saying "oh, no, I need to cut the sugar" without dealing with the rest of it wouldn't have been helpful, or not that helpful. Understanding the whole thing was important, and I think that's one thing that people are trying to communicate.
All that aside, I actually did cut out sugar (added sugar, not fruit, although I wasn't eating much fruit since I often don't in the winter and this was last January) for a few weeks, since I knew I had a bad habit of relying on it as a crutch--good old emotional or stress eating. I wanted to break that habit and break my habit of snacking in general. I didn't feel compelled to post about this on MFP at the time (I didn't actually start posting at MFP until somewhat later), but if I had I think I would have been interested in discussing my reasons (or why post?), and wouldn't have taken being questioned about them negatively.
I cut out added sugar again this January, in part because of a challenge I was doing, but I did the challenge because I thought I'd slipped into some bad habits again over Christmas, and I've posted about this on MFP and contrary to the claim that that will get you harassed on MFP, the fact is that no one seems bothered at all. I'm sure plenty of people think it was pointless or silly, but no one has been mean about it, and I don't really care what others think on this because I know it worked for me. On the other hand, my decision to go lower carb again in January didn't work for me, as mentioned above. I don't see that as a failure, though, as I think experimenting to see what does work for you is an important part of this. Everyone should understand how different foods or combinations affect them.
0 -
Mainly because I am a sugar addict and I know it will be healthier for me and well it will easily help reduce the calorie intake.
Well, this is what causes a lot of the comment, because "sugar addict" suggests that you are claiming that you overeat due to an addiction, when what people usually mean is "I like sweets." For me, I like plenty of sweet foods. I love really good homemade pie, and used to spend a decent amount of time trying to perfect my crust. I love a crisp or cobbler. I love really good cannoli (bad cannoli is a waste, though). I love a well-made coffee cake, and, of course, good ice cream and high-quality chocolate. Lucky for me, I guess, I'm a sweets snob, so most of what I like (other than the ice cream) is either rarely available, requires a trip to a good bakery (which I rarely did even when fat) or some time spent baking (or an event with home-baked goods). Just cutting out sweets I don't care much about--like the random donut at the office or lunchtime cookie--was an easy way to cut calories without it being some kind of major sacrifice.
Anyway, the point I was making before getting detoured by listing things I enjoy is that although I really love some of these foods and if I see them I will likely want to eat them (and even crave them), that's how I feel about good food in general (some good naan with a curry, mmm, or rack of lamb with roasted potatoes and some well-cooked veggies, same, or some good cheese). So it seems odd to me to claim a sweets addiction. (Also, I have an understanding of what addiction is, and to me it has nothing to do with enjoying something.)
Now, perhaps what you mean IS different than what I mean--and if so ndj's point about addiction being generally applicable, and there being no such thing as being addicted to pinot noir is correct.
However, if what you mean is you find sweets tempting and difficult to resist, there's a conversation to be had about whether the addiction model -- which suggests that you have no power over the food -- is really useful here.
If people don't want others to try to have that conversation, either not using the term addiction or making it clear they are doing so in a non-serious way is the easier way to go.
If the desire IS to make a case for the addiction model being a useful way of thinking of the attraction for sweet foods (but only a few sweet foods, the vast majority of which have fat too and may get the majority of their calories from fat), then you have to expect others to want to discuss that.0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »Op and everyone else expressing a wish to cut/remove sugar....
Why?
Why reduce sugar???
Easy - quick and simple route to a calorie deficit!!
Question to you!!
OP has made (as an adult) a decisions (although poorly worded, in the original post, i would suggest) to reduce her sugar intake - what does it matter.
I'm sure most people aren't ignorant enough to believe the OP means to cut sugar to zero and have the ability to not read things so literally.
It doesn't matter to me in the slightest.
I was merely curious as to why the OP and others chose to cut/remove sugar, as it's something that has never given me any issues and something I am able to fit in to my balanced dietary intake.
I assumed the purpose of a discussion forum was to discuss things.
Most people who are new to this site are looking to get their eating under control and into a calorie deficit.
The simplest (not always the easiest) is to cut back on sugar (in particular things like cakes, sweets etc). As sugar is probably the least healthy of the foods we eat, and some of the things like sweets/cakes are possibly high in calories and low in micro nutrients, why not target those.
Lord knows the MFP general forums are never going to be a supportive place, but the idiocy and childishness of some of the posters is general unhelpful.
So sorry to hear you won't be eating any more fruits, vegetables, breads, etc. My condolences.
These forum are for the purpose of discussion, but this topic has been hijacked to death, it might be a novel approach to let one run it's proper course, with people not jumping in getting all butthurt that we don't all love sugar.
For clarification I'm not on the side of anti-sugar, but I'm not under the illusion it's that great either. It's pretty much a neutral food that serves its purpose in a healthy balanced diet and when that diet consists of too many calories, why shouldn't it be the first thing to be cut back on to get back into a deficit?
How is the simplest way to cut back on sugars, wouldn't cutting the most caloric macro ie fat, be the easiest? Except sugars are all saccharides, not all would fit the description as least healthy.
Actually it's not people getting butthurt, it's pointing out the general ignorance of posters who want to make excuses and blame "sugar" for their inability to lose weight. If you're going to blame something for your inability to lose weight, you should probably know what that thing actually is0 -
I also cut out added sugars a while back. I feel so much better now...it was a decision that I am very happy with.
The first couple of weeks were very difficult, but after that I had fewer and fewer cravings for sweets. Now I just about never get them. I also never feel sluggish, or get those food comas I used to get. It is much easier not to overeat when I don't eat that kind of stuff. There are many other foods I would rather use those calories on that I enjoy more and get more nutritional value out of.
Good luck and stick with it. It will get easier very quickly.0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »Op and everyone else expressing a wish to cut/remove sugar....
Why?
Why reduce sugar???
Easy - quick and simple route to a calorie deficit!!
Question to you!!
OP has made (as an adult) a decisions (although poorly worded, in the original post, i would suggest) to reduce her sugar intake - what does it matter.
I'm sure most people aren't ignorant enough to believe the OP means to cut sugar to zero and have the ability to not read things so literally.
It doesn't matter to me in the slightest.
I was merely curious as to why the OP and others chose to cut/remove sugar, as it's something that has never given me any issues and something I am able to fit in to my balanced dietary intake.
I assumed the purpose of a discussion forum was to discuss things.
Most people who are new to this site are looking to get their eating under control and into a calorie deficit.
The simplest (not always the easiest) is to cut back on sugar (in particular things like cakes, sweets etc). As sugar is probably the least healthy of the foods we eat, and some of the things like sweets/cakes are possibly high in calories and low in micro nutrients, why not target those.
Lord knows the MFP general forums are never going to be a supportive place, but the idiocy and childishness of some of the posters is general unhelpful.
So sorry to hear you won't be eating any more fruits, vegetables, breads, etc. My condolences.
These forum are for the purpose of discussion, but this topic has been hijacked to death, it might be a novel approach to let one run it's proper course, with people not jumping in getting all butthurt that we don't all love sugar.
For clarification I'm not on the side of anti-sugar, but I'm not under the illusion it's that great either. It's pretty much a neutral food that serves its purpose in a healthy balanced diet and when that diet consists of too many calories, why shouldn't it be the first thing to be cut back on to get back into a deficit?
How is the simplest way to cut back on sugars, wouldn't cutting the most caloric macro ie fat, be the easiest? Except sugars are all saccharides, not all would fit the description as least healthy.
Actually it's not people getting butthurt, it's pointing out the general ignorance of posters who want to make excuses and blame "sugar" for their inability to lose weight. If you're going to blame something for your inability to lose weight, you should probably know what that thing actually is
The OP has decided cutting back on sugar is the simplest way for HER to cut calories. Why is there such a debate on it? She isn't telling everyone else to cut back, she was asking for others who were interested in cutting back as well. Yet so often, so many here feel the need to insist someone eat sugar. She DIDN'T say all sugar, she specifically mentioned cakes and sweets. I didn't hear the OP say sugar was her reason for not losing weight, I heard her say she has a sweet tooth she wants to get under control. And I'll be honest, the term "butthurt" (a term I actually detest) comes to my mind from the "pro sugar" camp every single time this topic comes up.0 -
Are you going to cut sugar forever? Never another cookie, ice cream or piece of cake? Because if not, this is a short term fix and won't teach you how to have proper eating habits.0
-
Now I'm really going to annoy some people, but too darn bad. I heard an interesting Dr. Lustig lecture on a theory of one reason we might have a tendency to overeat sugar. It's because at one time it was very beneficial for our bodies to store fat for lean times, and when fruit was available our bodies prompted us to overeat while it lasted.
He mentioned orangutans doing this.
Sugar is also addictive in rats. Now I'm not a rat and I assume no one else reading this is, either, but we use rats to learn something about human health all the time, so I'm not convinced sugar isn't addictive.0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »Op and everyone else expressing a wish to cut/remove sugar....
Why?
Why reduce sugar???
Easy - quick and simple route to a calorie deficit!!
Question to you!!
OP has made (as an adult) a decisions (although poorly worded, in the original post, i would suggest) to reduce her sugar intake - what does it matter.
I'm sure most people aren't ignorant enough to believe the OP means to cut sugar to zero and have the ability to not read things so literally.
It doesn't matter to me in the slightest.
I was merely curious as to why the OP and others chose to cut/remove sugar, as it's something that has never given me any issues and something I am able to fit in to my balanced dietary intake.
I assumed the purpose of a discussion forum was to discuss things.
Most people who are new to this site are looking to get their eating under control and into a calorie deficit.
The simplest (not always the easiest) is to cut back on sugar (in particular things like cakes, sweets etc). As sugar is probably the least healthy of the foods we eat, and some of the things like sweets/cakes are possibly high in calories and low in micro nutrients, why not target those.
Lord knows the MFP general forums are never going to be a supportive place, but the idiocy and childishness of some of the posters is general unhelpful.
So sorry to hear you won't be eating any more fruits, vegetables, breads, etc. My condolences.
These forum are for the purpose of discussion, but this topic has been hijacked to death, it might be a novel approach to let one run it's proper course, with people not jumping in getting all butthurt that we don't all love sugar.
For clarification I'm not on the side of anti-sugar, but I'm not under the illusion it's that great either. It's pretty much a neutral food that serves its purpose in a healthy balanced diet and when that diet consists of too many calories, why shouldn't it be the first thing to be cut back on to get back into a deficit?
How is the simplest way to cut back on sugars, wouldn't cutting the most caloric macro ie fat, be the easiest? Except sugars are all saccharides, not all would fit the description as least healthy.
Actually it's not people getting butthurt, it's pointing out the general ignorance of posters who want to make excuses and blame "sugar" for their inability to lose weight. If you're going to blame something for your inability to lose weight, you should probably know what that thing actually is
Nope it's the ignorance of poster (possibly like yourself - only you will know if you are not able to understand things without being literal or just being pedantic), for example I mentioned in particular cutting back on the sugars in things like sweets and cakes as being a simple route, as apposed to the broad brush you have just used of 'all sugars' to question my statement.
I don't see cutting back on sugar as peoples unaccountably - in fact they are holding themselves accountable and doing something positive by 1) joining a site like MFP and 2) posting a thread asking for help and advice.
Agreed people see high calorie, low micro nutrient food as 'sugar', as opposed to the mix of carbs, fat and protein that they are, but as a lot of sweets and cakes main ingredient are carbs/sugar it's understandable.
Also if you are restricting your calories simple sugars (through things like cakes and sweets) is the simplest option without unbalancing your micro nutrient intake.
0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »Op and everyone else expressing a wish to cut/remove sugar....
Why?
Why reduce sugar???
Easy - quick and simple route to a calorie deficit!!
Question to you!!
OP has made (as an adult) a decisions (although poorly worded, in the original post, i would suggest) to reduce her sugar intake - what does it matter.
I'm sure most people aren't ignorant enough to believe the OP means to cut sugar to zero and have the ability to not read things so literally.
It doesn't matter to me in the slightest.
I was merely curious as to why the OP and others chose to cut/remove sugar, as it's something that has never given me any issues and something I am able to fit in to my balanced dietary intake.
I assumed the purpose of a discussion forum was to discuss things.
Most people who are new to this site are looking to get their eating under control and into a calorie deficit.
The simplest (not always the easiest) is to cut back on sugar (in particular things like cakes, sweets etc). As sugar is probably the least healthy of the foods we eat, and some of the things like sweets/cakes are possibly high in calories and low in micro nutrients, why not target those.
Lord knows the MFP general forums are never going to be a supportive place, but the idiocy and childishness of some of the posters is general unhelpful.
So sorry to hear you won't be eating any more fruits, vegetables, breads, etc. My condolences.
These forum are for the purpose of discussion, but this topic has been hijacked to death, it might be a novel approach to let one run it's proper course, with people not jumping in getting all butthurt that we don't all love sugar.
For clarification I'm not on the side of anti-sugar, but I'm not under the illusion it's that great either. It's pretty much a neutral food that serves its purpose in a healthy balanced diet and when that diet consists of too many calories, why shouldn't it be the first thing to be cut back on to get back into a deficit?
How is the simplest way to cut back on sugars, wouldn't cutting the most caloric macro ie fat, be the easiest? Except sugars are all saccharides, not all would fit the description as least healthy.
Actually it's not people getting butthurt, it's pointing out the general ignorance of posters who want to make excuses and blame "sugar" for their inability to lose weight. If you're going to blame something for your inability to lose weight, you should probably know what that thing actually is
The OP has decided cutting back on sugar is the simplest way for HER to cut calories. Why is there such a debate on it? She isn't telling everyone else to cut back, she was asking for others who were interested in cutting back as well. Yet so often, so many here feel the need to insist someone eat sugar. She DIDN'T say all sugar, she specifically mentioned cakes and sweets. I didn't hear the OP say sugar was her reason for not losing weight, I heard her say she has a sweet tooth she wants to get under control. And I'll be honest, the term "butthurt" (a term I actually detest) comes to my mind from the "pro sugar" camp every single time this topic comes up.
Actually where does she mention cutting back on sugar is the simplest way for her to cut back on calories. Please be specific
She said "obvious sugar", which would include obvious sources like fruit, which could have been included in the etc.
Where did I say the OP say sugar was her reason for not losing weight, if you reread what I wrote it makes no mention of the OP.
Where does she say she has a sweet tooth she wants to get under control? Again be specific
0 -
Now I'm really going to annoy some people, but too darn bad. I heard an interesting Dr. Lustig lecture on a theory of one reason we might have a tendency to overeat sugar. It's because at one time it was very beneficial for our bodies to store fat for lean times, and when fruit was available our bodies prompted us to overeat while it lasted.
He mentioned orangutans doing this.
Sugar is also addictive in rats. Now I'm not a rat and I assume no one else reading this is, either, but we use rats to learn something about human health all the time, so I'm not convinced sugar isn't addictive.
And by chance what was the study design of the studies that showed sugar was addictive? 12 on 12 off?0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »Op and everyone else expressing a wish to cut/remove sugar....
Why?
Why reduce sugar???
Easy - quick and simple route to a calorie deficit!!
Question to you!!
OP has made (as an adult) a decisions (although poorly worded, in the original post, i would suggest) to reduce her sugar intake - what does it matter.
I'm sure most people aren't ignorant enough to believe the OP means to cut sugar to zero and have the ability to not read things so literally.
It doesn't matter to me in the slightest.
I was merely curious as to why the OP and others chose to cut/remove sugar, as it's something that has never given me any issues and something I am able to fit in to my balanced dietary intake.
I assumed the purpose of a discussion forum was to discuss things.
Most people who are new to this site are looking to get their eating under control and into a calorie deficit.
The simplest (not always the easiest) is to cut back on sugar (in particular things like cakes, sweets etc). As sugar is probably the least healthy of the foods we eat, and some of the things like sweets/cakes are possibly high in calories and low in micro nutrients, why not target those.
Lord knows the MFP general forums are never going to be a supportive place, but the idiocy and childishness of some of the posters is general unhelpful.
So sorry to hear you won't be eating any more fruits, vegetables, breads, etc. My condolences.
These forum are for the purpose of discussion, but this topic has been hijacked to death, it might be a novel approach to let one run it's proper course, with people not jumping in getting all butthurt that we don't all love sugar.
For clarification I'm not on the side of anti-sugar, but I'm not under the illusion it's that great either. It's pretty much a neutral food that serves its purpose in a healthy balanced diet and when that diet consists of too many calories, why shouldn't it be the first thing to be cut back on to get back into a deficit?
How is the simplest way to cut back on sugars, wouldn't cutting the most caloric macro ie fat, be the easiest? Except sugars are all saccharides, not all would fit the description as least healthy.
Actually it's not people getting butthurt, it's pointing out the general ignorance of posters who want to make excuses and blame "sugar" for their inability to lose weight. If you're going to blame something for your inability to lose weight, you should probably know what that thing actually is
The OP has decided cutting back on sugar is the simplest way for HER to cut calories. Why is there such a debate on it? She isn't telling everyone else to cut back, she was asking for others who were interested in cutting back as well. Yet so often, so many here feel the need to insist someone eat sugar. She DIDN'T say all sugar, she specifically mentioned cakes and sweets. I didn't hear the OP say sugar was her reason for not losing weight, I heard her say she has a sweet tooth she wants to get under control. And I'll be honest, the term "butthurt" (a term I actually detest) comes to my mind from the "pro sugar" camp every single time this topic comes up.
Actually where does she mention cutting back on sugar is the simplest way for her to cut back on calories. Please be specific
She said "obvious sugar", which would include obvious sources like fruit, which could have been included in the etc.
Where did I say the OP say sugar was her reason for not losing weight, if you reread what I wrote it makes no mention of the OP.
Where does she say she has a sweet tooth she wants to get under control? Again be specific
.
0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »Op and everyone else expressing a wish to cut/remove sugar....
Why?
Why reduce sugar???
Easy - quick and simple route to a calorie deficit!!
Question to you!!
OP has made (as an adult) a decisions (although poorly worded, in the original post, i would suggest) to reduce her sugar intake - what does it matter.
I'm sure most people aren't ignorant enough to believe the OP means to cut sugar to zero and have the ability to not read things so literally.
It doesn't matter to me in the slightest.
I was merely curious as to why the OP and others chose to cut/remove sugar, as it's something that has never given me any issues and something I am able to fit in to my balanced dietary intake.
I assumed the purpose of a discussion forum was to discuss things.
Most people who are new to this site are looking to get their eating under control and into a calorie deficit.
The simplest (not always the easiest) is to cut back on sugar (in particular things like cakes, sweets etc). As sugar is probably the least healthy of the foods we eat, and some of the things like sweets/cakes are possibly high in calories and low in micro nutrients, why not target those.
Lord knows the MFP general forums are never going to be a supportive place, but the idiocy and childishness of some of the posters is general unhelpful.
So sorry to hear you won't be eating any more fruits, vegetables, breads, etc. My condolences.
These forum are for the purpose of discussion, but this topic has been hijacked to death, it might be a novel approach to let one run it's proper course, with people not jumping in getting all butthurt that we don't all love sugar.
For clarification I'm not on the side of anti-sugar, but I'm not under the illusion it's that great either. It's pretty much a neutral food that serves its purpose in a healthy balanced diet and when that diet consists of too many calories, why shouldn't it be the first thing to be cut back on to get back into a deficit?
How is the simplest way to cut back on sugars, wouldn't cutting the most caloric macro ie fat, be the easiest? Except sugars are all saccharides, not all would fit the description as least healthy.
Actually it's not people getting butthurt, it's pointing out the general ignorance of posters who want to make excuses and blame "sugar" for their inability to lose weight. If you're going to blame something for your inability to lose weight, you should probably know what that thing actually is
The OP has decided cutting back on sugar is the simplest way for HER to cut calories. Why is there such a debate on it? She isn't telling everyone else to cut back, she was asking for others who were interested in cutting back as well. Yet so often, so many here feel the need to insist someone eat sugar. She DIDN'T say all sugar, she specifically mentioned cakes and sweets. I didn't hear the OP say sugar was her reason for not losing weight, I heard her say she has a sweet tooth she wants to get under control. And I'll be honest, the term "butthurt" (a term I actually detest) comes to my mind from the "pro sugar" camp every single time this topic comes up.
If you post in a public forum, you're going to get a lot of different answers. And as the guidelines state, topics in which you are only looking for responses from a limited pool of users are better in grouos, not the main forums.
And for ease of typing I'm with lemurcat...0 -
it would be nice if OP came back and clarified the "addicted" part of her title..
is she claiming..
1) lack of self control around sugar
or
2) addicted to sugar in the true sense, and the fore needs to go on a 12 step program because she binges on ALL forms of sugar, not just one maligned class of sugar, which in this case appears to be added sugar.0 -
it would be nice if OP came back and clarified the "addicted" part of her title..
is she claiming..
1) lack of self control around sugar
or
2) addicted to sugar in the true sense, and the fore needs to go on a 12 step program because she binges on ALL forms of sugar, not just one maligned class of sugar, which in this case appears to be added sugar.
Why would the OP want to come back?
0 -
Now I'm really going to annoy some people, but too darn bad. I heard an interesting Dr. Lustig lecture on a theory of one reason we might have a tendency to overeat sugar. It's because at one time it was very beneficial for our bodies to store fat for lean times, and when fruit was available our bodies prompted us to overeat while it lasted.
He mentioned orangutans doing this.
Sugar is also addictive in rats. Now I'm not a rat and I assume no one else reading this is, either, but we use rats to learn something about human health all the time, so I'm not convinced sugar isn't addictive.
And by chance what was the study design of the studies that showed sugar was addictive? 12 on 12 off?
Professor Bart Hoebel and his team in the Department of Psychology and the Princeton Neuroscience Institute have been studying signs of sugar addiction in rats for years. Until now, the rats under study have met two of the three elements of addiction. They have demonstrated a behavioral pattern of increased intake and then showed signs of withdrawal. His current experiments captured craving and relapse to complete the picture.
http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S22/88/56G31/index.xml?section=topstories
From an evolutionary perspective, it is in the best interest of humans to have an inherent desire for food for survival. However, this desire may go awry, and certain people, including some obese and bulimic patients in particular, may develop an unhealthy dependence on palatable food that interferes with well-being. The concept of “food addiction” materialized in the diet industry on the basis of subjective reports, clinical accounts and case studies described in self-help books. The rise in obesity, coupled with the emergence of scientific findings of parallels between drugs of abuse and palatable foods has given credibility to this idea. The reviewed evidence supports the theory that, in some circumstances, intermittent access to sugar can lead to behavior and neurochemical changes that resemble the effects of a substance of abuse. According to the evidence in rats, intermittent access to sugar and chow is capable of producing a “dependency”. This was operationally defined by tests for bingeing, withdrawal, craving and cross-sensitization to amphetamine and alcohol. The correspondence to some people with binge eating disorder or bulimia is striking, but whether or not it is a good idea to call this a “food addiction” in people is both a scientific and societal question that has yet to be answered. What this review demonstrates is that rats with intermittent access to food and a sugar solution can show both a constellation of behaviors and parallel brain changes that are characteristic of rats that voluntarily self-administer addictive drugs. In the aggregrate, this is evidence that sugar can be addictive.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2235907/0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »it would be nice if OP came back and clarified the "addicted" part of her title..
is she claiming..
1) lack of self control around sugar
or
2) addicted to sugar in the true sense, and the fore needs to go on a 12 step program because she binges on ALL forms of sugar, not just one maligned class of sugar, which in this case appears to be added sugar.
Why would the OP want to come back?
I would assume she means lack of self control - in fact I would think all rational thinking adults (and small children) would think that.
Entertainment value at this point...0 -
Also completely useless for research N of 1: I do not want a candybar right now. But if I went out and bought one and ate it, I would immediately want another one, some ice cream, some bread, and probably a cola to go with it.
It is true as tennisdude pointed out that a candybar is a mix of fat, sugar, and carbs, however. But I have been known *cough*last week*cough* to eat brown sugar straight out of the bag, too.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions