Sugar withdrawal
Options
Replies
-
0
-
I didn't use an oxford comma. The statement is "switch ketone production and use". They're one clause, so whether the person has ketones already produced doesn't matter.tennisdude2004 wrote: »Withdrawal would generally involve removing the withdrawal substance completely from your body. If you manage to completely remove sugar from your body, you don't have withdrawal, you die.
When you cut out carbohydrates, you'll have keto flu, which is mostly the effect of having the body switch to ketone production and use as fuel in the brain.
Also, not switch to. Anybody losing weight will already be using a reasonable amount of ketones as fuel.
I suppose the correct terminology would be: to become efficient and reliant on the use of ketone for fuel in the body and glucose, ketones and lactose for the brain.
And if withdrawal is simply any abrupt change in intake, we have withdrawal to everything. We're in constant allostatic flux. Your body does not make substances that you withdrawal from. Your body will contendly make glucose to keep blood sugar levels in line and because the human brain is so important and so energy intensive, it can't work without it. And your brain can't use lactose. As far as I'm aware, none of the human body can directly use lactose, it cleaves it into the constituent monosaccharides. Maybe you meant lactic acid?
Sorry, yes lactate.
0 -
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.0 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »
or Jordan almonds0 -
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?
0 -
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.
0 -
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.
Again my original post said nothing about sugar being addictive but when people jumped down her back about why sugar isn't bad and that it's not addictive, I responded that I think it is. Read the entire thread. I did not start a debate. You all did.0 -
@WhoWhoWho23 what are you noping at? If you remove sugar you will start to have withdrawal symptoms.
You can't completely remove sugar. I've never had withdrawal symptoms when I cut back on added sugars.
I did not say completely. But when there is a drastic reduction. I stayed under 30g. Some people's bodies have those withdrawal symptoms. Why do you assume that everyone's journey is the same as yours?
The OP is not asking for permission. The OP was posting a funny pic about their mood. Why do you have to try to insert a debate? It's unnecessary.
The OP never said that was her mood. You are reading into it. Maybe she just wanted to share a pic that she thought was funny? Maybe she thought others could relate to the pic?
Whatever. Looking for a debate. Disinterested.
Lol! If I knew how to post one back I would
0 -
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.0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »Withdrawal would generally involve removing the withdrawal substance completely from your body. If you manage to completely remove sugar from your body, you don't have withdrawal, you die.
When you cut out carbohydrates, you'll have keto flu, which is mostly the effect of having the body switch to ketone production and use as fuel in the brain.
Drug withdrawal is the group of symptoms that occur upon the abrupt discontinuation or decrease in intake of medications or recreational drugs.
Difference being that your body doesn't create more of a drug or medication by itself if you discontinue it.0 -
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 -
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 -
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
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 392 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 926 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions