We are pleased to announce that as of March 4, 2025, an updated Rich Text Editor has been introduced in the MyFitnessPal Community. To learn more about the changes, please click here. We look forward to sharing this new feature with you!

EXCESS SUGAR CAUSES OBESITY-MUST READ!

12345679»

Replies

  • Posts: 1,490 Member
    Fruit has fructose. You defended his stance of treating fructose as a poison.
  • Posts: 8,029 Member
    edited August 2015
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »

    Some scientists disagree. Others agree. That's the point...there is no definitive "proof" one way or the other...just evidence that suggests one thing or the other. I have seen contradictory studies. I tend to agree with those that find it it is addictive because what they describe happening makes sense to me in terms of logic and it fits extremely well with my personal experience. BTW, they aren't all rat studies. There have been various studies on humans on the various effects of ingesting sugar. No one study is perfect or conclusive...but I have read enough that I am convinced for now.

    That being said...I haven't read this specific study, but I will give it a read soon. My mind is open, so if new research starts to contradict my opinion I am open to it.

    In terms of health organizations, they are very very slow to react and very hesitant to change their stance on long held beliefs. Many of them also face a lot of political pressure. So...just because they haven't called for an outright ban on something that even I will admit the evidence is inconclusive on, doesn't mean that there isn't something there. More work needs to be done, I have said that many times. But it doesn't make sense to categorically dismiss the hypothesis.

    Please, post the human studies since these authors were obviously remiss in their review. In your opinion.

    Even the authors of the Yale Food Addiction Scale won't go so far as to say that they've proven food addiction exists yet, but since you're sure, I'd like to see the research you've seen that they've missed.

  • Posts: 1,948 Member

    I posted a study to support my position though. Can you support one study on humans to support your stance on sugar addiction?

    Your position flies in the face of the scientists who say there is no addiction to a food substance who have combed through research, you know. They bring more to the table when making that judgement than you do.

    You can think all you want, but the current stance of the scientific community does not support your position. The research review I posted above shows that.
    You provided one study I haven't read yet so can't critique.

    There have been human studies posted in various threads...many of which I have seen you participate in. They are out there. There are many scientists who say believe sugar is addictive, or may be addictive. If you don't believe that, that's your right. There's not much I can do about that. Nor do I want to...we all need to make our own evaluations.



  • Posts: 1,948 Member

    I have four doctors. Well five, I need to visit my gyn soon, but I digress. Every last one of them? All about the calories. Including the endocrinologist.

    Then our doctors, including our endocrinologists, disagree. Shocking.
  • Posts: 12,142 Member
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    I don't keep all these things in a file ready to go to "win" the Internet. There have been human studies done. If you don't believe it, okay then. That doesn't harm me in any way. I still am not eating sugar.

    Must be hard to eat zero carb
  • Posts: 1,948 Member

    Please, post the human studies since these authors were obviously remiss in their review. In your opinion.

    Even the authors of the Yale Food Addiction Scale won't go so far as to say that they've proven food addiction exists yet, but since you're sure, I'd like to see the research you've seen that they've missed.

    Again, I don't keep a file to publish on demand. "Winning" internet arguments is not important enough to me to make that effort. And even I have never claimed it's been 100% proven. But there is evidence that is compelling.
  • Posts: 1,948 Member
    Acg67 wrote: »

    Must be hard to eat zero carb

    Here we go again with someone pretending to confuse avoiding added sugar with being zero carb. Great! One Internet point for you!!!!!
  • Posts: 4,252 Member
    edited August 2015
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »

    Here we go again with someone pretending to confuse avoiding added sugar with being zero carb. Great! One Internet point for you!!!!!

    PSA: added fructose is no different than natural fructose.
  • This content has been removed.
  • Posts: 16,049 Member
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »

    Some scientists disagree. Others agree. That's the point...there is no definitive "proof" one way or the other...just evidence that suggests one thing or the other. I have seen contradictory studies. I tend to agree with those that find it it is addictive because what they describe happening makes sense to me in terms of logic and it fits extremely well with my personal experience. BTW, they aren't all rat studies. There have been various studies on humans on the various effects of ingesting sugar. No one study is perfect or conclusive...but I have read enough that I am convinced for now.

    That being said...I haven't read this specific study, but I will give it a read soon. My mind is open, so if new research starts to contradict my opinion I am open to it.

    In terms of health organizations, they are very very slow to react and very hesitant to change their stance on long held beliefs. Many of them also face a lot of political pressure. So...just because they haven't called for an outright ban on something that even I will admit the evidence is inconclusive on, doesn't mean that there isn't something there. More work needs to be done, I have said that many times. But it doesn't make sense to categorically dismiss the hypothesis.

    If everyone had the attitude I bolded, these debates would be much more pleasant and informative. People are digging their heels and point blank refusing to have an open mind.

  • Posts: 1,948 Member
    shell1005 wrote: »
    The constant resistance to help those with a differing opinion with the information you say you know and have, but will not share is mind boggling. Of course that is assuming that information actually exists.
    Think whatever you like. What you believe doesn't really impact me one way or the other.
  • Posts: 8,029 Member
    edited August 2015
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »

    Again, I don't keep a file to publish on demand. "Winning" internet arguments is not important enough to me to make that effort. And even I have never claimed it's been 100% proven. But there is evidence that is compelling.

    Are you the same person who wanted someone else to prove their opinion?

    If you're not going to back yours, what's your point at this juncture?

    Also, if you're not going to bother reading what I posted, a research review which refutes your position, how do you even know it didn't include reviews of the research you read and that they drew a different conclusion than you did?

    I'm going to go to sleep right now, this is fruitless, obviously.

    No pun intended.

  • Posts: 5,481 Member
    thorsmom01 wrote: »

    Yep...there's always a few that wreck it for everyone.... They come into every thread , argue their woo and the sad part is that they actually believe the woo..

    Scary isn't it.
  • This content has been removed.
  • Posts: 12,142 Member
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »

    Here we go again with someone pretending to confuse avoiding added sugar with being zero carb. Great! One Internet point for you!!!!!

    Actual quote from you, " I still am not eating sugar"

    So who is confused?

    Also adding any carb to an recipe or dish would be adding sugar. Sugar encompasses much more than sucrose, fructose, glucose etc.
  • Posts: 1,948 Member

    Are you the same person who wanted someone else to prove their opinion?

    If you're not going to back yours, what's your point at this juncture?

    Also, if you're not going to bother reading what I posted, a research review which refutes your position, how do you even know it didn't include reviews of the research you read and that they drew a different conclusion than you did?

    I'm going to go to sleep right now, this is fruitless, obviously.

    No pun intended.

    I have said several times that the studies contradict and there is evidence on both sides of the issue. This can't be "proven" at this point. I said I believe one side, find one side more convincing than the other. What exactly is there to prove?

    And I'm sorry I don't drop everything to read your link. I'm doing other things while I post here. Actually reading something carefully requires attention I don't have to give right now. I was straight forward and told you I hadn't read it but would sometime soon. It's a bit unfair to say I am not going to bother.

    Have a good night.
  • Posts: 1,948 Member

    If everyone had the attitude I bolded, these debates would be much more pleasant and informative. People are digging their heels and point blank refusing to have an open mind.

    It's always the same story. LOL!
  • Posts: 4,252 Member
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »

    It's always the same story. LOL!

    Yes, it's always the same story with you.

    This is generally how it goes in every single thread you post in:

    1) You make a statement that has yet to be proven by science
    2) EVERYONE tells you you are misinformed
    3) You say numerous times that there's studies/evidence that claims otherwise
    4) People ask for the studies/evidence
    5) You refuse to post the studies/evidence because you "don't keep them on hand"


  • This content has been removed.
  • Posts: 603 Member

    Do you have a non rat study proving this?


    Don't keep it on Hand...........
    (couldn't resist)lol
  • Posts: 3,077 Member
    Read the whole thing...and all it did was make me want to do a human study: you avoid sugar and I'll go eat some ice cream and well see who dies first. Clearly no one is giving in, so

    /endthread
  • Posts: 4,252 Member

    Do you have a non rat study proving this?

    Your body cannot tell the difference between natural sugar and added sugar. Both are chemically identical. It's basic science.
  • Posts: 7,001 Member

    Do you have a non rat study proving this?

    Says the person who posted a rat study.
  • Posts: 7,001 Member
    It is baffling, Moiaussi, that you continue to argue and battle in this thread to try and 'win' your side of the argument, while accusing everyone else of wanting to win the argument. Not one of us has claimed to 'win' anything, but asked you to simply read our links to evidence contrary to your claims, which you then refuse to read on the basis that you refute the scientific merit of the authors. When we ask you for links to any evidence to support your claims, so we can read it (as we are all trying to have an open mind and wanting to read this evidence you say you've read multiple times over the years), you keep saying you don't keep a file of it. That's fine, if you don't have it on file, Google it up and link it for us. You've read it, it can't be that hard to find. I (and I know many of my compatriots here) will be happy to read it. Don't you see the problem here?
This discussion has been closed.