Sugar withdrawal
Replies
-
kshama2001 wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »It seems to me that people who insist sugar is an actual physical addiction, tend to do so because it removes them from taking any personal responsibility for their eating behavior, by allowing them to assume the helpless victim role, instead. I've also noticed that this "it's not my fault!" attitude prevails amongst those who are unsuccessful in achieving and maintaining weight loss.
Just my opinion and observations, to which I am entitled.
I don't see posters with a "sugar addiction > not my fault > helpless victim" attitude.
What I see is people asking for help. They unfortunately frame it in such a way that lead others to make them wrong rather than offering them help.
Sometimes the best help comes in the form of honesty. It can be very empowering for someone to realize that they are, indeed, in control of what they eat, including (but not limited to) sugar.0 -
Yes, most of us understand the looser layman terms. Some choose not to. lolol. Happens around here all the time.lindsey1979 wrote: »Is this really debate about the clinical definition of withdrawal? Surely, people understand the much looser layman terms -- this is fitness board, not a clinical psychology board.
I think quite a few people have noticed differences when they've significantly reduced sugar intake -- things like headaches, mood swings, irritability, intense cravings, etc.? Do people think that those physical manifestation don't occur for some people?
OP, as I said a few pages back, I totally understand. When I started giving up added sugar I definitely craved my Snickers bars or Nutella. lol. It's gotten better now though.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I am not the one that called it sugar withdrawal. I am not interested in trying to pick every word posters say apart. She made a post, and called it sugar withdrawal. I know what she means and I am going with it.
I do believe sugar is addictive though.
Sugar is not addictive.
OP did not say it was, so why bring that up?
Talk about derailing.
The OP called this thread "SUGAR WITHDRAWAL" thus indicating that she thought sugar was addictive. If she didnt mean it, that's fine. But that's why addiction came up.
Didn't a bunch of people post and say the term withdrawal is often used casually and does not mean that you are really claiming addiction?
That's what I choose to believe unless OP says otherwise.
You are the one who brought up addiction.
I cut out added sugar and had zero symptoms, and I don't think there's any scientific reason for symptoms from that. Might you miss it? Sure.
No you're wrong. Sllrunner brought the word "addiction" first. I did not think that was what the OP meant. However I do believe sugar is addictive. So I did not detail the post. Go back and re-read. He was the first one to mention the word addiction. Initially I was just speaking in loose terms about her "withdrawal" symptoms.0 -
SLLRunner is a woman.
But as you admit you are the one who tried to argue that sugar is addictive, so you are the one derailing.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I am not the one that called it sugar withdrawal. I am not interested in trying to pick every word posters say apart. She made a post, and called it sugar withdrawal. I know what she means and I am going with it.
I do believe sugar is addictive though.
Sugar is not addictive.
OP did not say it was, so why bring that up?
Talk about derailing.
The OP called this thread "SUGAR WITHDRAWAL" thus indicating that she thought sugar was addictive. If she didnt mean it, that's fine. But that's why addiction came up.
Didn't a bunch of people post and say the term withdrawal is often used casually and does not mean that you are really claiming addiction?
That's what I choose to believe unless OP says otherwise.
You are the one who brought up addiction.
I cut out added sugar and had zero symptoms, and I don't think there's any scientific reason for symptoms from that. Might you miss it? Sure.
No you're wrong. Sllrunner brought the word "addiction" first. I did not think that was what the OP meant. However I do believe sugar is addictive. So I did not detail the post. Go back and re-read. He was the first one to mention the word addiction. Initially I was just speaking in loose terms about her "withdrawal" symptoms.
For someone who does not want to argue. you sure do a lot of arguing.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »SLLRunner is a woman.
But as you admit you are the one who tried to argue that sugar is addictive, so you are the one derailing.
I did not bring up addiction. I was fine with going along happily with the post. But when someone said to me it's not addictive (out of no where) then I responded. If I brought something to you that you disagree with you would respond as you have been doing. I am not arguing anything. I've not asked to argue. I stated what I believe and did not ask anyone to feel the same. So no that's not me getting us off course. It is the person that brought it up when NO ONE was talking about addiction.
0 -
queenliz99 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I am not the one that called it sugar withdrawal. I am not interested in trying to pick every word posters say apart. She made a post, and called it sugar withdrawal. I know what she means and I am going with it.
I do believe sugar is addictive though.
Sugar is not addictive.
OP did not say it was, so why bring that up?
Talk about derailing.
The OP called this thread "SUGAR WITHDRAWAL" thus indicating that she thought sugar was addictive. If she didnt mean it, that's fine. But that's why addiction came up.
Didn't a bunch of people post and say the term withdrawal is often used casually and does not mean that you are really claiming addiction?
That's what I choose to believe unless OP says otherwise.
You are the one who brought up addiction.
I cut out added sugar and had zero symptoms, and I don't think there's any scientific reason for symptoms from that. Might you miss it? Sure.
No you're wrong. Sllrunner brought the word "addiction" first. I did not think that was what the OP meant. However I do believe sugar is addictive. So I did not detail the post. Go back and re-read. He was the first one to mention the word addiction. Initially I was just speaking in loose terms about her "withdrawal" symptoms.
For someone who does not want to argue. you sure do a lot of arguing.
I don't like to argue and I ignore a large part of it. However when there are multiple people attacking what I say, I feel the need to respond sometimes. You speak your mind. So why shouldn't i? This debate did not start with me. I was laughing at a post!0 -
queenliz99 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I am not the one that called it sugar withdrawal. I am not interested in trying to pick every word posters say apart. She made a post, and called it sugar withdrawal. I know what she means and I am going with it.
I do believe sugar is addictive though.
Sugar is not addictive.
OP did not say it was, so why bring that up?
Talk about derailing.
The OP called this thread "SUGAR WITHDRAWAL" thus indicating that she thought sugar was addictive. If she didnt mean it, that's fine. But that's why addiction came up.
Didn't a bunch of people post and say the term withdrawal is often used casually and does not mean that you are really claiming addiction?
That's what I choose to believe unless OP says otherwise.
You are the one who brought up addiction.
I cut out added sugar and had zero symptoms, and I don't think there's any scientific reason for symptoms from that. Might you miss it? Sure.
No you're wrong. Sllrunner brought the word "addiction" first. I did not think that was what the OP meant. However I do believe sugar is addictive. So I did not detail the post. Go back and re-read. He was the first one to mention the word addiction. Initially I was just speaking in loose terms about her "withdrawal" symptoms.
For someone who does not want to argue. you sure do a lot of arguing.
I don't like to argue and I ignore a large part of it. However when there are multiple people attacking what I say, I feel the need to respond sometimes. You speak your mind. So why shouldn't i? This debate did not start with me. I was laughing at a post!
No one is saying you shouldn't speak your mind but every third post or so, you claim to not want to argue or debate. That is all that was said.
0 -
queenliz99 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I am not the one that called it sugar withdrawal. I am not interested in trying to pick every word posters say apart. She made a post, and called it sugar withdrawal. I know what she means and I am going with it.
I do believe sugar is addictive though.
Sugar is not addictive.
OP did not say it was, so why bring that up?
Talk about derailing.
The OP called this thread "SUGAR WITHDRAWAL" thus indicating that she thought sugar was addictive. If she didnt mean it, that's fine. But that's why addiction came up.
Didn't a bunch of people post and say the term withdrawal is often used casually and does not mean that you are really claiming addiction?
That's what I choose to believe unless OP says otherwise.
You are the one who brought up addiction.
I cut out added sugar and had zero symptoms, and I don't think there's any scientific reason for symptoms from that. Might you miss it? Sure.
No you're wrong. Sllrunner brought the word "addiction" first. I did not think that was what the OP meant. However I do believe sugar is addictive. So I did not detail the post. Go back and re-read. He was the first one to mention the word addiction. Initially I was just speaking in loose terms about her "withdrawal" symptoms.
For someone who does not want to argue. you sure do a lot of arguing.
I don't like to argue and I ignore a large part of it. However when there are multiple people attacking what I say, I feel the need to respond sometimes. You speak your mind. So why shouldn't i? This debate did not start with me. I was laughing at a post!
No one is saying you shouldn't speak your mind but every third post or so, you claim to not want to argue or debate. That is all that was said.
I don't like to debate. But if someone attacks what I say, then I will usually respond. Doesn't mean I like it. I don't even go looking for it. In fact, I try to respond to posts that I think certain posters won't be on. I'd rather not have contact with them because I don't want to debate.0 -
-2 -
-
This content has been removed.
-
SohypocriticalOfYou wrote: »
lindsey1979 wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »It seems to me that people who insist sugar is an actual physical addiction, tend to do so because it removes them from taking any personal responsibility for their eating behavior, by allowing them to assume the helpless victim role, instead. I've also noticed that this "it's not my fault!" attitude prevails amongst those who are unsuccessful in achieving and maintaining weight loss.
Just my opinion and observations, to which I am entitled.
Wow. That seems like a huge assumption and sweeping generalization. I find such assumptions and sweeping generalizations, especially about people's character, to be really unhelpful. In fact, I find them to be the start of many unnecessary fights here on MFP as many can take offense at such characterization.
Why do you feel the need to characterize people in such a negative light?
I have to agree with you, why do people have to characterize others in such a negative light?
Priceless.0 -
Time to bring this out again.
0 -
SohypocriticalOfYou wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »It seems to me that people who insist sugar is an actual physical addiction, tend to do so because it removes them from taking any personal responsibility for their eating behavior, by allowing them to assume the helpless victim role, instead. I've also noticed that this "it's not my fault!" attitude prevails amongst those who are unsuccessful in achieving and maintaining weight loss.
Just my opinion and observations, to which I am entitled.
Wow. That seems like a huge assumption and sweeping generalization. I find such assumptions and sweeping generalizations, especially about people's character, to be really unhelpful. In fact, I find them to be the start of many unnecessary fights here on MFP as many can take offense at such characterization.
Why do you feel the need to characterize people in such a negative light?
@lindsey1979
I have to agree with you, why do people have to characterize others in such a negative light?
Picture worth a thousand words.
0 -
Nah, that's not quite how it happened:
On page one, you said:If you remove sugar you will start to have withdrawal symptoms.
With the statement, you imply that sugar is addictive. Otherwise, no withdrawal symptoms would be mentioned.
On page 2, was this interaction:lemurcat12 wrote: »
» show previous quotes
I don't believe it happens to anyone. There's no scientific reason why it would.
Keto flu is real. But it's not withdrawal.
Me: This, because sugar is not an addictive substance.
Which was a direct response to you after you said not that everyone has withdrawal symptoms.
And, it's true, I'm all female.
0 -
.0
-
Nah, that's not quite how it happened:
On page one, you said:If you remove sugar you will start to have withdrawal symptoms.
With the statement, you imply that sugar is addictive. Otherwise, no withdrawal symptoms would be mentioned.
On page 2, was this interaction:lemurcat12 wrote: »
» show previous quotes
I don't believe it happens to anyone. There's no scientific reason why it would.
Keto flu is real. But it's not withdrawal.
Me: This, because sugar is not an addictive substance.
Which was a direct response to you after you said not that everyone has withdrawal symptoms.
And, it's true, I'm all female.
I have clarified many times I was using withdrawal in the loose sense poster was using. And also that I did not mean it happens to everyone. Yet you went the addiction word. That was not what this post was about. I was simply laughing and saying I can relate to the symptoms.
0 -
-
-
PeachyCarol wrote: »SohypocriticalOfYou wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »It seems to me that people who insist sugar is an actual physical addiction, tend to do so because it removes them from taking any personal responsibility for their eating behavior, by allowing them to assume the helpless victim role, instead. I've also noticed that this "it's not my fault!" attitude prevails amongst those who are unsuccessful in achieving and maintaining weight loss.
Just my opinion and observations, to which I am entitled.
Wow. That seems like a huge assumption and sweeping generalization. I find such assumptions and sweeping generalizations, especially about people's character, to be really unhelpful. In fact, I find them to be the start of many unnecessary fights here on MFP as many can take offense at such characterization.
Why do you feel the need to characterize people in such a negative light?
@lindsey1979
I have to agree with you, why do people have to characterize others in such a negative light?
Picture worth a thousand words.
Yep. It all comes back full circle. Karma0 -
SohypocriticalOfYou wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »It seems to me that people who insist sugar is an actual physical addiction, tend to do so because it removes them from taking any personal responsibility for their eating behavior, by allowing them to assume the helpless victim role, instead. I've also noticed that this "it's not my fault!" attitude prevails amongst those who are unsuccessful in achieving and maintaining weight loss.
Just my opinion and observations, to which I am entitled.
Wow. That seems like a huge assumption and sweeping generalization. I find such assumptions and sweeping generalizations, especially about people's character, to be really unhelpful. In fact, I find them to be the start of many unnecessary fights here on MFP as many can take offense at such characterization.
Why do you feel the need to characterize people in such a negative light?
@lindsey1979
I have to agree with you, why do people have to characterize others in such a negative light?
Please don't attack me and bring up things from other posts, especially when you're doing it so unfairly out of context. I could argue with you about how big of a misrepresentations is, but then this ugly cycle will never end. I'm not attacking you, please don't do it to me.
Why do you feel the need to start fights over and over again? Please stop this.
0 -
lindsey1979 wrote: »SohypocriticalOfYou wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »It seems to me that people who insist sugar is an actual physical addiction, tend to do so because it removes them from taking any personal responsibility for their eating behavior, by allowing them to assume the helpless victim role, instead. I've also noticed that this "it's not my fault!" attitude prevails amongst those who are unsuccessful in achieving and maintaining weight loss.
Just my opinion and observations, to which I am entitled.
Wow. That seems like a huge assumption and sweeping generalization. I find such assumptions and sweeping generalizations, especially about people's character, to be really unhelpful. In fact, I find them to be the start of many unnecessary fights here on MFP as many can take offense at such characterization.
Why do you feel the need to characterize people in such a negative light?
@lindsey1979
I have to agree with you, why do people have to characterize others in such a negative light?
Please don't attack me and bring up things from other posts, especially when you're doing it so unfairly out of context. I could argue with you about how big of a misrepresentations is, but then this ugly cycle will never end. I'm not attacking you, please don't do it to me.
Why do you feel the need to start fights over and over again? Please stop this.
So you're saying you're the victim, here?0 -
I just can't even today...LmaoPeachyCarol wrote: »SohypocriticalOfYou wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »It seems to me that people who insist sugar is an actual physical addiction, tend to do so because it removes them from taking any personal responsibility for their eating behavior, by allowing them to assume the helpless victim role, instead. I've also noticed that this "it's not my fault!" attitude prevails amongst those who are unsuccessful in achieving and maintaining weight loss.
Just my opinion and observations, to which I am entitled.
Wow. That seems like a huge assumption and sweeping generalization. I find such assumptions and sweeping generalizations, especially about people's character, to be really unhelpful. In fact, I find them to be the start of many unnecessary fights here on MFP as many can take offense at such characterization.
Why do you feel the need to characterize people in such a negative light?
@lindsey1979
I have to agree with you, why do people have to characterize others in such a negative light?
Picture worth a thousand words.
Too many special snowflakes on this one...
0 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »SohypocriticalOfYou wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »It seems to me that people who insist sugar is an actual physical addiction, tend to do so because it removes them from taking any personal responsibility for their eating behavior, by allowing them to assume the helpless victim role, instead. I've also noticed that this "it's not my fault!" attitude prevails amongst those who are unsuccessful in achieving and maintaining weight loss.
Just my opinion and observations, to which I am entitled.
Wow. That seems like a huge assumption and sweeping generalization. I find such assumptions and sweeping generalizations, especially about people's character, to be really unhelpful. In fact, I find them to be the start of many unnecessary fights here on MFP as many can take offense at such characterization.
Why do you feel the need to characterize people in such a negative light?
@lindsey1979
I have to agree with you, why do people have to characterize others in such a negative light?
Please don't attack me and bring up things from other posts, especially when you're doing it so unfairly out of context. I could argue with you about how big of a misrepresentations is, but then this ugly cycle will never end. I'm not attacking you, please don't do it to me.
Why do you feel the need to start fights over and over again? Please stop this.
So you're saying you're the victim, here?
How are things ever going to change if this behavior continues?
I haven't attacked any of you -- and yet 6 (Sohypocritical, snickerscharlie, SLRunner, queenliz99, PeachyCarol and Thorsmom01) of you piled on me from things in an old post, which is taken grossly out of context (as you all well know). The original poster (Sohypocritical) has done it under a brand new name, probably so he/she can avoid censure by the moderators under his/her original name. I could attack you back and get into a big fight about how unfair and cruel of this is of you all, but I don't want to continue the ugly, dysfunctional cycle, so I'm asking you all to please stop needlessly attacking me.
-1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.4K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 435 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.9K MyFitnessPal Information
- 15 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.7K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions