Maybe Sugar IS the Devil - US Goverment Diet Recommendations
Options
Replies
-
midwesterner85 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
While #1 is true, #2 isn't very accurate. A link was already posted earlier in this thread that showed the BG spike is a good bit lower from protein. Also, most people do not eat equal amounts of protein and carbs in a day, so that's an irrelevant point. The average person is not going to be chowing down on so much protein in a day that there BG would rise from that as much as from carbs.WinoGelato wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »Couldn't be bothered to read everything so don't know if this has been mentioned. A big part of how unhealthy sugar can be is how your body deals with it. I am diabetic and regulary monitor my blood sugar levels so I have a good idea what is going on. When I was at my worst a bowl of oatmeal with milk would send my bloodsugar into the unhealthy range. Now I have improved my health by losing weight, cardio and weight training. I also only eat sugar from natural sources like fruit and milk. By doing all of this I can enjoy eating double the recommended sugar intake and still stay healthy. I did it for three months and had a blood test. My bloodsugar levels were still in the healthy range although slightly increaded. They rose from 30 to 35. The healthy range is 20 to 42 I think. I'm not saying try and eat loads of sugary things and stay healthy anyway as it is not wise to stress your body with excess sugar intake. It's just interesting to have this information. You can get far ahead of any health risks with the correct lifestyle and occasionaly enjoy treats and stay perfectly healthy. One day I at two whole pizzas to myself so I still indulge. Being fitter and stronger helps you out in everyday life too.
No one disputes that sugar needs to be watched by diabetics. That doesn't not apply to all.
Yeah but it's just you can be even further away from any health risks by at least not eating added sugar. It's not black and white, these things sneak up on people. Once something happens that you can't change you wish so bad that you lived differently.Added sugar has no benefits at all. It's a pure addiction.
Absolutely false.
Ok what are the benefits of adding sugar to food?
Energy. Calories (not EVERYONE is trying to lose weight). Taste. Carbs. Fuel for workouts.
All this is available without added sugar. You are conditioned to be this way. I don't need a sugar high to hit a deadlift PR.
So, your contention is that the availablility of alternatives means that each individual alternative has zero benefits?
Adding sugar to food is not an alternative. It's a food industry strategy and it works big time. The cost? Well I'm sure they don' t lose any sleep after they get tired counting their millions of dollars. Who cares if people get sick and die? What's a limb or two here and there? Where do you draw the line?
Yes, I'm sure the food industry's strategy is to kill or injure as many of their consumers as possible.
#WinningStrategy
But your post didn't answer the question I asked.
You simply do not need to add extra sugar to food. There is enough in it already. The food industry encourages over consumption of their products to maximize profits.
How are you defining extra sugar? Are you talking about adding sugar to something that's already sweet? I agree that would be overkill. Are you talking about the dreaded HFCS? Because when your body breaks it down, it treats it the same as any other sugar.
Now, I do think that processed foods have more sugar then they need in them, but it's for the same reason they use MSG: cheap way to add flavor. Which, incidentally, means I can't eat a lot of processed foods anymore since they're putting MSG back into them and my digestive system breaks out the pitchforks and torches when I get a little in my system. ><
But sugar itself? Sugar is not evil. It does not come from the Dark Side, it does not target your body and decay it from the inside, nor does it travel directly to your fat cells and build expansions. Sugar itself is a necessary nutrient you need. Just make sure you're getting a reasonable amount, and if you eat a lot of processed meals, make sure you keep track of it so you don't get too much.
Ok the point I'm making is that extracting sugar from food to use on other food is the problem. Stopping doing that is like a "dumb solution" if you like as people seem to be unable to control their eating. Everyone here is probably used to tracking what they eat so it's easy for us. Some people just cannot control themselves and just end up dying from it. All the information is out there on how to be healthy so why are there so many obese people? They just can't do it. Stopping adding sugar to foods would prevent a lot of this from happening. I know it's just a dream really because of all the money involved and corporate power blah blah
So I really am trying to understand your point here. Are you saying that no one should consume sugar in any form, regardless of whether or not they have a medical reason to restrict it, because someday we MIGHT have medical issues - IR, etc?...
I think his point is more leaning towards "if you consume any sugar in any form, even one grain of it, you'll get da diabeetus and die. 100% of the people, 100% of the time."
The points being conveniently omitted/ignored are:
1) All carbohydrates are metabolized into sugars. No matter how "clean" or "healthy" or "organic" or "complex" they are.
2) Protein causes a BG spike nearly identical to carbs. So if sugarz iz da debil, proteinz must be da debilz too.
did you even read the link that we posted? The spike is about the same. So if you eat protein you are creating the same insulin spike that you somehow think is bad.
I didn't read the article, but I already know plenty about this topic. The answer is that #1 is mostly true - Fiber is a carb that does not convert to glucose. Sugar alcohols do not convert to glucose at 100%.
As for #2, no... not even close. After the amino acids are separated out from the protein itself, some of those amino acids can be converted to glucose. It doesn't happen even close to the same speed as net carbs converting to glucose and some amino acids can't be converted to glucose at all (at least not in humans).
These are the reasons why people like me, who monitor our blood glucose (BG) constantly and manually calculate and cause introduction of insulin into our bodies, do not calculate insulin the same way when eating protein as we do when eating net carbs. I've seen the effects of carbs and proteins on BG every day for decades.
I am assuming you have a medical condition that requires you to monitor your blood glucose, yes?
for the rest of us with no medical condition it does not really matter.
Why doesn't it matter?
because people without a medical condition don't need to monitor blood glucose...
Please read my clarification above. I'm not suggesting people monitor blood glucose when there is no medical need to do so. I'm simply pointing out that my experience on the topic of how various macros affect BG is quite extensive. I'll add at this point that my education on such matters is more thorough than a typical MD. None of that is my point, but rather an explanation of how I know my point is correct.
I was responding to the other poster who asked why it matters.
0 -
ReeseG4350 wrote: »ReeseG4350 wrote: »"It's not the sugar, it's the company it keeps."
And that's pretty true, actually. Most of the time, you find your added sugars in products full of fats. So, limiting one may help you limit the other. But, a little added sugar is not, as many have already noted, a bad thing.
This is absolutely correct. But there is also a proviso as to what kinds of fats are better or worse for your body.Neither is a little fat. In fact, it's necessary.
Bottom line, of course, is - all things in moderation.
Exactly. That's the one thing 'diet gurus' overlook, either deliberately or accidentally: People aren't fat because of the foods they eat, they're fat because of the AMOUNT of foods they eat. I don't know that there's really one entity that's responsible for the amount a lot of us consider normal to eat, but at this point it doesn't really matter. Instead of going around blaming companies or advertising or certain food types, people would be better off learning how to eat properly and balance high calorie/low nutrient foods with lower calorie/high nutrient foods.queenliz99 wrote: »Its really SAD to see (with all the information available today just a few clicks away) that some people still try to convince themselves that sugar can be good for you. There is absolutely nothing good about sugar in any form, we can tolerate loads of sugar yes, glucose is after all "biological fuel" but we should not be eating anything at all with sugar on the ingredients list.
This is the food industry that has been cleverly programming society for years and has got us all hooked on the stuff, all they need to do is keep adding sugar to all their new products and keep us addicted so we can keep buying more of their crap products, happy to say I'm 5 years clean, Had a few relapses perhaps every now and then (cough cough Christmas cough cough) but I know I'm never gonna be a full on addict ever again. Good luck to all of you.
I Vote for Banning Sugar!
http://www.naturalnews.com/047495_sugar_saccharin_addiction.html
According to Merriam Webster, addiction is a "compulsive need for and use of a habit-forming substance (as heroin, nicotine, or alcohol) characterized by tolerance and by well-defined physiological symptoms upon withdrawal; broadly : persistent compulsive use of a substance known by the user to be harmful"
People don't become 'addicted' to sugar any more than they do honey. People do crave sugar if they're used to it, yes. I'm not arguing that. But I've noticed that every single time I've seen a post about someone saying they're 'addicted' to sugar, after a few weeks or even a couple of months, they're fine. When you're used to eating something you like and suddenly cut it out, you're going to crave it. Happened to me when I switched out soda at lunch for tea. But after a month or so, I got used to it and was fine. I wasn't addicted, I was changing a habit. Changing an established habit is HARD, espically when it's one that gives you pleasure. That doesn't mean you're addicted to it. Real addiction isn't cured in a week or a month. In fact, for most addicts, it's a life-long struggle. That's why so many people go through cycles of trying to quit drugs, smoking, or alcohol. Rehab centers have lots of repeat customers for that reason. And in my opinion, saying you're addicted to sugar trivializes real addictions.
Sugar itself is a necessary nutrient your body needs. How you get that sugar can be horribly unhealthy and you can get way too much, but it's something you actually need. That's not true of real addictive substances. Your body doesn't NEED alcohol or crack to survive normally. If I never drink alcohol again, my body will survive just fine. If I cut out ALL sugar, my body will shut down before too long.
Awesome post!!
Thanks. ^_^ I tend to ramble so I wasn't sure I was making myself clear with it, but it's something that's bugged me for a while so I wanted to get it down.0 -
Its really SAD to see (with all the information available today just a few clicks away) that some people still try to convince themselves that sugar can be good for you. There is absolutely nothing good about sugar in any form, we can tolerate loads of sugar yes, glucose is after all "biological fuel" but we should not be eating anything at all with sugar on the ingredients list.
This is the food industry that has been cleverly programming society for years and has got us all hooked on the stuff, all they need to do is keep adding sugar to all their new products and keep us addicted so we can keep buying more of their crap products, happy to say I'm 5 years clean, Had a few relapses perhaps every now and then (cough cough Christmas cough cough) but I know I'm never gonna be a full on addict ever again. Good luck to all of you.
I Vote for Banning Sugar!
http://www.naturalnews.com/047495_sugar_saccharin_addiction.html
According to Merriam Webster, addiction is a "compulsive need for and use of a habit-forming substance (as heroin, nicotine, or alcohol) characterized by tolerance and by well-defined physiological symptoms upon withdrawal; broadly : persistent compulsive use of a substance known by the user to be harmful"
People don't become 'addicted' to sugar any more than they do honey. People do crave sugar if they're used to it, yes. I'm not arguing that. But I've noticed that every single time I've seen a post about someone saying they're 'addicted' to sugar, after a few weeks or even a couple of months, they're fine. When you're used to eating something you like and suddenly cut it out, you're going to crave it. Happened to me when I switched out soda at lunch for tea. But after a month or so, I got used to it and was fine. I wasn't addicted, I was changing a habit. Changing an established habit is HARD, espically when it's one that gives you pleasure. That doesn't mean you're addicted to it. Real addiction isn't cured in a week or a month. In fact, for most addicts, it's a life-long struggle. That's why so many people go through cycles of trying to quit drugs, smoking, or alcohol. Rehab centers have lots of repeat customers for that reason. And in my opinion, saying you're addicted to sugar trivializes real addictions.
Sugar itself is a necessary nutrient your body needs. How you get that sugar can be horribly unhealthy and you can get way too much, but it's something you actually need. That's not true of real addictive substances. Your body doesn't NEED alcohol or crack to survive normally. If I never drink alcohol again, my body will survive just fine. If I cut out ALL sugar, my body will shut down before too long.
Out of curiosity, why did you skip over the first definition presented by Merriam Webster for "addiction"? Because that definition which links to "addicted" (or rather addict as a transitive verb) states:
transitive verb
1: to devote or surrender (oneself) to something habitually or obsessively <addicted to gambling>
2: to cause addiction to a substance in (a person or animal)
It seems likes the anecdote you presented coincides with proper usage of "addiction" in the first definition. It seems like the word is acceptable in both habit/obsession and substance usage.0 -
Its really SAD to see (with all the information available today just a few clicks away) that some people still try to convince themselves that sugar can be good for you. There is absolutely nothing good about sugar in any form, we can tolerate loads of sugar yes, glucose is after all "biological fuel" but we should not be eating anything at all with sugar on the ingredients list.
This is the food industry that has been cleverly programming society for years and has got us all hooked on the stuff, all they need to do is keep adding sugar to all their new products and keep us addicted so we can keep buying more of their crap products, happy to say I'm 5 years clean, Had a few relapses perhaps every now and then (cough cough Christmas cough cough) but I know I'm never gonna be a full on addict ever again. Good luck to all of you.
I Vote for Banning Sugar!
http://www.naturalnews.com/047495_sugar_saccharin_addiction.html
According to Merriam Webster, addiction is a "compulsive need for and use of a habit-forming substance (as heroin, nicotine, or alcohol) characterized by tolerance and by well-defined physiological symptoms upon withdrawal; broadly : persistent compulsive use of a substance known by the user to be harmful"
People don't become 'addicted' to sugar any more than they do honey. People do crave sugar if they're used to it, yes. I'm not arguing that. But I've noticed that every single time I've seen a post about someone saying they're 'addicted' to sugar, after a few weeks or even a couple of months, they're fine. When you're used to eating something you like and suddenly cut it out, you're going to crave it. Happened to me when I switched out soda at lunch for tea. But after a month or so, I got used to it and was fine. I wasn't addicted, I was changing a habit. Changing an established habit is HARD, espically when it's one that gives you pleasure. That doesn't mean you're addicted to it. Real addiction isn't cured in a week or a month. In fact, for most addicts, it's a life-long struggle. That's why so many people go through cycles of trying to quit drugs, smoking, or alcohol. Rehab centers have lots of repeat customers for that reason. And in my opinion, saying you're addicted to sugar trivializes real addictions.
Sugar itself is a necessary nutrient your body needs. How you get that sugar can be horribly unhealthy and you can get way too much, but it's something you actually need. That's not true of real addictive substances. Your body doesn't NEED alcohol or crack to survive normally. If I never drink alcohol again, my body will survive just fine. If I cut out ALL sugar, my body will shut down before too long.
Out of curiosity, why did you skip over the first definition presented by Merriam Webster for "addiction"? Because that definition which links to "addicted" (or rather addict as a transitive verb) states:
transitive verb
1: to devote or surrender (oneself) to something habitually or obsessively <addicted to gambling>
2: to cause addiction to a substance in (a person or animal)
It seems likes the anecdote you presented coincides with proper usage of "addiction" in the first definition. It seems like the word is acceptable in both habit/obsession and substance usage.
Ok, just for completeness sake, the full definition from their website:
"Simple Definition of addiction
: a strong and harmful need to regularly have something (such as a drug) or do something (such as gamble)
: an unusually great interest in something or a need to do or have something
Full Definition of addiction
1
: the quality or state of being addicted <addiction to reading>
2
: compulsive need for and use of a habit-forming substance (as heroin, nicotine, or alcohol) characterized by tolerance and by well-defined physiological symptoms upon withdrawal; broadly : persistent compulsive use of a substance known by the user to be harmful"
From what I know, addiction is a condition of physically and psychologically craving something that is harmful to the body, to the point of interfering with a normal life. While I'm not arguing that excess sugar isn't harmful to the body, sugar itself is not harmful and is actually necessary for your body to function. You can certainly crave and want sugar because you've grown used to eating a certain amount, but that's not an addiction. I have yet to see anyone become so addicted to sugar that they simply CAN'T stop eating massive amounts and need psychological help in stopping. If you know of a proper scientific study that shows that, I'd love to see it.0 -
Its really SAD to see (with all the information available today just a few clicks away) that some people still try to convince themselves that sugar can be good for you. There is absolutely nothing good about sugar in any form, we can tolerate loads of sugar yes, glucose is after all "biological fuel" but we should not be eating anything at all with sugar on the ingredients list.
This is the food industry that has been cleverly programming society for years and has got us all hooked on the stuff, all they need to do is keep adding sugar to all their new products and keep us addicted so we can keep buying more of their crap products, happy to say I'm 5 years clean, Had a few relapses perhaps every now and then (cough cough Christmas cough cough) but I know I'm never gonna be a full on addict ever again. Good luck to all of you.
I Vote for Banning Sugar!
http://www.naturalnews.com/047495_sugar_saccharin_addiction.html
According to Merriam Webster, addiction is a "compulsive need for and use of a habit-forming substance (as heroin, nicotine, or alcohol) characterized by tolerance and by well-defined physiological symptoms upon withdrawal; broadly : persistent compulsive use of a substance known by the user to be harmful"
People don't become 'addicted' to sugar any more than they do honey. People do crave sugar if they're used to it, yes. I'm not arguing that. But I've noticed that every single time I've seen a post about someone saying they're 'addicted' to sugar, after a few weeks or even a couple of months, they're fine. When you're used to eating something you like and suddenly cut it out, you're going to crave it. Happened to me when I switched out soda at lunch for tea. But after a month or so, I got used to it and was fine. I wasn't addicted, I was changing a habit. Changing an established habit is HARD, espically when it's one that gives you pleasure. That doesn't mean you're addicted to it. Real addiction isn't cured in a week or a month. In fact, for most addicts, it's a life-long struggle. That's why so many people go through cycles of trying to quit drugs, smoking, or alcohol. Rehab centers have lots of repeat customers for that reason. And in my opinion, saying you're addicted to sugar trivializes real addictions.
Sugar itself is a necessary nutrient your body needs. How you get that sugar can be horribly unhealthy and you can get way too much, but it's something you actually need. That's not true of real addictive substances. Your body doesn't NEED alcohol or crack to survive normally. If I never drink alcohol again, my body will survive just fine. If I cut out ALL sugar, my body will shut down before too long.
Out of curiosity, why did you skip over the first definition presented by Merriam Webster for "addiction"? Because that definition which links to "addicted" (or rather addict as a transitive verb) states:
transitive verb
1: to devote or surrender (oneself) to something habitually or obsessively <addicted to gambling>
2: to cause addiction to a substance in (a person or animal)
It seems likes the anecdote you presented coincides with proper usage of "addiction" in the first definition. It seems like the word is acceptable in both habit/obsession and substance usage.
Ok, just for completeness sake, the full definition from their website:
"Simple Definition of addiction
: a strong and harmful need to regularly have something (such as a drug) or do something (such as gamble)
: an unusually great interest in something or a need to do or have something
Full Definition of addiction
1
: the quality or state of being addicted <addiction to reading>
2
: compulsive need for and use of a habit-forming substance (as heroin, nicotine, or alcohol) characterized by tolerance and by well-defined physiological symptoms upon withdrawal; broadly : persistent compulsive use of a substance known by the user to be harmful"
From what I know, addiction is a condition of physically and psychologically craving something that is harmful to the body, to the point of interfering with a normal life. While I'm not arguing that excess sugar isn't harmful to the body, sugar itself is not harmful and is actually necessary for your body to function. You can certainly crave and want sugar because you've grown used to eating a certain amount, but that's not an addiction. I have yet to see anyone become so addicted to sugar that they simply CAN'T stop eating massive amounts and need psychological help in stopping. If you know of a proper scientific study that shows that, I'd love to see it.
i would add to make sure that said study is human trials and not rats.0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
The part I bolded is what I'm referring to. That's closer to the ratio of carbs to protein that the average person eats, and that's what was shown to cause a higher surge in glucose.
@ForecasterJason for your reading pleasure:ForecasterJason wrote: »
While #1 is true, #2 isn't very accurate. A link was already posted earlier in this thread that showed the BG spike is a good bit lower from protein. Also, most people do not eat equal amounts of protein and carbs in a day, so that's an irrelevant point. The average person is not going to be chowing down on so much protein in a day that there BG would rise from that as much as from carbs.WinoGelato wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »Couldn't be bothered to read everything so don't know if this has been mentioned. A big part of how unhealthy sugar can be is how your body deals with it. I am diabetic and regulary monitor my blood sugar levels so I have a good idea what is going on. When I was at my worst a bowl of oatmeal with milk would send my bloodsugar into the unhealthy range. Now I have improved my health by losing weight, cardio and weight training. I also only eat sugar from natural sources like fruit and milk. By doing all of this I can enjoy eating double the recommended sugar intake and still stay healthy. I did it for three months and had a blood test. My bloodsugar levels were still in the healthy range although slightly increaded. They rose from 30 to 35. The healthy range is 20 to 42 I think. I'm not saying try and eat loads of sugary things and stay healthy anyway as it is not wise to stress your body with excess sugar intake. It's just interesting to have this information. You can get far ahead of any health risks with the correct lifestyle and occasionaly enjoy treats and stay perfectly healthy. One day I at two whole pizzas to myself so I still indulge. Being fitter and stronger helps you out in everyday life too.
No one disputes that sugar needs to be watched by diabetics. That doesn't not apply to all.
Yeah but it's just you can be even further away from any health risks by at least not eating added sugar. It's not black and white, these things sneak up on people. Once something happens that you can't change you wish so bad that you lived differently.Added sugar has no benefits at all. It's a pure addiction.
Absolutely false.
Ok what are the benefits of adding sugar to food?
Energy. Calories (not EVERYONE is trying to lose weight). Taste. Carbs. Fuel for workouts.
All this is available without added sugar. You are conditioned to be this way. I don't need a sugar high to hit a deadlift PR.
So, your contention is that the availablility of alternatives means that each individual alternative has zero benefits?
Adding sugar to food is not an alternative. It's a food industry strategy and it works big time. The cost? Well I'm sure they don' t lose any sleep after they get tired counting their millions of dollars. Who cares if people get sick and die? What's a limb or two here and there? Where do you draw the line?
Yes, I'm sure the food industry's strategy is to kill or injure as many of their consumers as possible.
#WinningStrategy
But your post didn't answer the question I asked.
You simply do not need to add extra sugar to food. There is enough in it already. The food industry encourages over consumption of their products to maximize profits.
How are you defining extra sugar? Are you talking about adding sugar to something that's already sweet? I agree that would be overkill. Are you talking about the dreaded HFCS? Because when your body breaks it down, it treats it the same as any other sugar.
Now, I do think that processed foods have more sugar then they need in them, but it's for the same reason they use MSG: cheap way to add flavor. Which, incidentally, means I can't eat a lot of processed foods anymore since they're putting MSG back into them and my digestive system breaks out the pitchforks and torches when I get a little in my system. ><
But sugar itself? Sugar is not evil. It does not come from the Dark Side, it does not target your body and decay it from the inside, nor does it travel directly to your fat cells and build expansions. Sugar itself is a necessary nutrient you need. Just make sure you're getting a reasonable amount, and if you eat a lot of processed meals, make sure you keep track of it so you don't get too much.
Ok the point I'm making is that extracting sugar from food to use on other food is the problem. Stopping doing that is like a "dumb solution" if you like as people seem to be unable to control their eating. Everyone here is probably used to tracking what they eat so it's easy for us. Some people just cannot control themselves and just end up dying from it. All the information is out there on how to be healthy so why are there so many obese people? They just can't do it. Stopping adding sugar to foods would prevent a lot of this from happening. I know it's just a dream really because of all the money involved and corporate power blah blah
So I really am trying to understand your point here. Are you saying that no one should consume sugar in any form, regardless of whether or not they have a medical reason to restrict it, because someday we MIGHT have medical issues - IR, etc?...
I think his point is more leaning towards "if you consume any sugar in any form, even one grain of it, you'll get da diabeetus and die. 100% of the people, 100% of the time."
The points being conveniently omitted/ignored are:
1) All carbohydrates are metabolized into sugars. No matter how "clean" or "healthy" or "organic" or "complex" they are.
2) Protein causes a BG spike nearly identical to carbs. So if sugarz iz da debil, proteinz must be da debilz too.
MYTH: Carbohydrate Is Singularly Responsible for Driving Insulin
FACT: Protein Is a Potent Stimulator of Insulin Too
This is probably the biggest misconception that is out there. Carbohydrates get a bad rap because of their effect on insulin, but protein stimulates insulin secretion as well. In fact, it can be just as potent of a stimulus for insulin as carbohydrate. One recent study compared the effects of two different meals on insulin. One meal contained 21 grams of protein and 125 grams of carbohydrate. The other meal contained 75 grams of protein and 75 grams of carbohydrate. Both meals contained 675 calories. Here is a chart of the insulin response:
You can see that, despite the fact that the blood sugar response was much higher in the meal with more carbohydrate, the insulin response wasn't higher. In fact, the insulin response was somewhat higher after the high protein meal, although this wasn't statistically significant.
Some people might argue that the "low-carb" condition wasn't really low carb because it had 75 grams of carbohydrate. But that's not the point. The point is that the high-carb condition had nearly TWICE as much carbohydrate, along with a HIGHER glucose response, yet insulin secretion was slightly LOWER. The protein was just as powerful at stimulating insulin as the carbohydrate.
* I did not include the graphs...
Even if this is so (I don't really care if it is or not), I'm not seeing how this is relevant to anything being debated. Care to explain?0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
The part I bolded is what I'm referring to. That's closer to the ratio of carbs to protein that the average person eats, and that's what was shown to cause a higher surge in glucose.
@ForecasterJason for your reading pleasure:ForecasterJason wrote: »
While #1 is true, #2 isn't very accurate. A link was already posted earlier in this thread that showed the BG spike is a good bit lower from protein. Also, most people do not eat equal amounts of protein and carbs in a day, so that's an irrelevant point. The average person is not going to be chowing down on so much protein in a day that there BG would rise from that as much as from carbs.WinoGelato wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »Couldn't be bothered to read everything so don't know if this has been mentioned. A big part of how unhealthy sugar can be is how your body deals with it. I am diabetic and regulary monitor my blood sugar levels so I have a good idea what is going on. When I was at my worst a bowl of oatmeal with milk would send my bloodsugar into the unhealthy range. Now I have improved my health by losing weight, cardio and weight training. I also only eat sugar from natural sources like fruit and milk. By doing all of this I can enjoy eating double the recommended sugar intake and still stay healthy. I did it for three months and had a blood test. My bloodsugar levels were still in the healthy range although slightly increaded. They rose from 30 to 35. The healthy range is 20 to 42 I think. I'm not saying try and eat loads of sugary things and stay healthy anyway as it is not wise to stress your body with excess sugar intake. It's just interesting to have this information. You can get far ahead of any health risks with the correct lifestyle and occasionaly enjoy treats and stay perfectly healthy. One day I at two whole pizzas to myself so I still indulge. Being fitter and stronger helps you out in everyday life too.
No one disputes that sugar needs to be watched by diabetics. That doesn't not apply to all.
Yeah but it's just you can be even further away from any health risks by at least not eating added sugar. It's not black and white, these things sneak up on people. Once something happens that you can't change you wish so bad that you lived differently.Added sugar has no benefits at all. It's a pure addiction.
Absolutely false.
Ok what are the benefits of adding sugar to food?
Energy. Calories (not EVERYONE is trying to lose weight). Taste. Carbs. Fuel for workouts.
All this is available without added sugar. You are conditioned to be this way. I don't need a sugar high to hit a deadlift PR.
So, your contention is that the availablility of alternatives means that each individual alternative has zero benefits?
Adding sugar to food is not an alternative. It's a food industry strategy and it works big time. The cost? Well I'm sure they don' t lose any sleep after they get tired counting their millions of dollars. Who cares if people get sick and die? What's a limb or two here and there? Where do you draw the line?
Yes, I'm sure the food industry's strategy is to kill or injure as many of their consumers as possible.
#WinningStrategy
But your post didn't answer the question I asked.
You simply do not need to add extra sugar to food. There is enough in it already. The food industry encourages over consumption of their products to maximize profits.
How are you defining extra sugar? Are you talking about adding sugar to something that's already sweet? I agree that would be overkill. Are you talking about the dreaded HFCS? Because when your body breaks it down, it treats it the same as any other sugar.
Now, I do think that processed foods have more sugar then they need in them, but it's for the same reason they use MSG: cheap way to add flavor. Which, incidentally, means I can't eat a lot of processed foods anymore since they're putting MSG back into them and my digestive system breaks out the pitchforks and torches when I get a little in my system. ><
But sugar itself? Sugar is not evil. It does not come from the Dark Side, it does not target your body and decay it from the inside, nor does it travel directly to your fat cells and build expansions. Sugar itself is a necessary nutrient you need. Just make sure you're getting a reasonable amount, and if you eat a lot of processed meals, make sure you keep track of it so you don't get too much.
Ok the point I'm making is that extracting sugar from food to use on other food is the problem. Stopping doing that is like a "dumb solution" if you like as people seem to be unable to control their eating. Everyone here is probably used to tracking what they eat so it's easy for us. Some people just cannot control themselves and just end up dying from it. All the information is out there on how to be healthy so why are there so many obese people? They just can't do it. Stopping adding sugar to foods would prevent a lot of this from happening. I know it's just a dream really because of all the money involved and corporate power blah blah
So I really am trying to understand your point here. Are you saying that no one should consume sugar in any form, regardless of whether or not they have a medical reason to restrict it, because someday we MIGHT have medical issues - IR, etc?...
I think his point is more leaning towards "if you consume any sugar in any form, even one grain of it, you'll get da diabeetus and die. 100% of the people, 100% of the time."
The points being conveniently omitted/ignored are:
1) All carbohydrates are metabolized into sugars. No matter how "clean" or "healthy" or "organic" or "complex" they are.
2) Protein causes a BG spike nearly identical to carbs. So if sugarz iz da debil, proteinz must be da debilz too.
MYTH: Carbohydrate Is Singularly Responsible for Driving Insulin
FACT: Protein Is a Potent Stimulator of Insulin Too
This is probably the biggest misconception that is out there. Carbohydrates get a bad rap because of their effect on insulin, but protein stimulates insulin secretion as well. In fact, it can be just as potent of a stimulus for insulin as carbohydrate. One recent study compared the effects of two different meals on insulin. One meal contained 21 grams of protein and 125 grams of carbohydrate. The other meal contained 75 grams of protein and 75 grams of carbohydrate. Both meals contained 675 calories. Here is a chart of the insulin response:
You can see that, despite the fact that the blood sugar response was much higher in the meal with more carbohydrate, the insulin response wasn't higher. In fact, the insulin response was somewhat higher after the high protein meal, although this wasn't statistically significant.
Some people might argue that the "low-carb" condition wasn't really low carb because it had 75 grams of carbohydrate. But that's not the point. The point is that the high-carb condition had nearly TWICE as much carbohydrate, along with a HIGHER glucose response, yet insulin secretion was slightly LOWER. The protein was just as powerful at stimulating insulin as the carbohydrate.
* I did not include the graphs...
Even if this is so (I don't really care if it is or not), I'm not seeing how this is relevant to anything being debated. Care to explain?
I believe it started with this comment:
2) Protein causes a BG spike nearly identical to carbs. So if sugarz iz da debil, proteinz must be da debilz too.0 -
Also out of curiosity, how is the addiction stuff, beginning with the assertions that sugar IS addictive (for the record, I think that's an obvious misuse of the term addiction) relevant to this thread. It's seeming to me like an effort to derail an interesting discussion about the US dietary guidelines, how much sugar is in the SAD and various foods, and how difficult it is to limit sugar to the levels suggested as healthy by the US gov't by making certain dietary changes.
There's an excellent thread on food addiction here: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10226257/food-addiction-a-different-perspective/p10 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
The part I bolded is what I'm referring to. That's closer to the ratio of carbs to protein that the average person eats, and that's what was shown to cause a higher surge in glucose.
@ForecasterJason for your reading pleasure:ForecasterJason wrote: »
While #1 is true, #2 isn't very accurate. A link was already posted earlier in this thread that showed the BG spike is a good bit lower from protein. Also, most people do not eat equal amounts of protein and carbs in a day, so that's an irrelevant point. The average person is not going to be chowing down on so much protein in a day that there BG would rise from that as much as from carbs.WinoGelato wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »Couldn't be bothered to read everything so don't know if this has been mentioned. A big part of how unhealthy sugar can be is how your body deals with it. I am diabetic and regulary monitor my blood sugar levels so I have a good idea what is going on. When I was at my worst a bowl of oatmeal with milk would send my bloodsugar into the unhealthy range. Now I have improved my health by losing weight, cardio and weight training. I also only eat sugar from natural sources like fruit and milk. By doing all of this I can enjoy eating double the recommended sugar intake and still stay healthy. I did it for three months and had a blood test. My bloodsugar levels were still in the healthy range although slightly increaded. They rose from 30 to 35. The healthy range is 20 to 42 I think. I'm not saying try and eat loads of sugary things and stay healthy anyway as it is not wise to stress your body with excess sugar intake. It's just interesting to have this information. You can get far ahead of any health risks with the correct lifestyle and occasionaly enjoy treats and stay perfectly healthy. One day I at two whole pizzas to myself so I still indulge. Being fitter and stronger helps you out in everyday life too.
No one disputes that sugar needs to be watched by diabetics. That doesn't not apply to all.
Yeah but it's just you can be even further away from any health risks by at least not eating added sugar. It's not black and white, these things sneak up on people. Once something happens that you can't change you wish so bad that you lived differently.Added sugar has no benefits at all. It's a pure addiction.
Absolutely false.
Ok what are the benefits of adding sugar to food?
Energy. Calories (not EVERYONE is trying to lose weight). Taste. Carbs. Fuel for workouts.
All this is available without added sugar. You are conditioned to be this way. I don't need a sugar high to hit a deadlift PR.
So, your contention is that the availablility of alternatives means that each individual alternative has zero benefits?
Adding sugar to food is not an alternative. It's a food industry strategy and it works big time. The cost? Well I'm sure they don' t lose any sleep after they get tired counting their millions of dollars. Who cares if people get sick and die? What's a limb or two here and there? Where do you draw the line?
Yes, I'm sure the food industry's strategy is to kill or injure as many of their consumers as possible.
#WinningStrategy
But your post didn't answer the question I asked.
You simply do not need to add extra sugar to food. There is enough in it already. The food industry encourages over consumption of their products to maximize profits.
How are you defining extra sugar? Are you talking about adding sugar to something that's already sweet? I agree that would be overkill. Are you talking about the dreaded HFCS? Because when your body breaks it down, it treats it the same as any other sugar.
Now, I do think that processed foods have more sugar then they need in them, but it's for the same reason they use MSG: cheap way to add flavor. Which, incidentally, means I can't eat a lot of processed foods anymore since they're putting MSG back into them and my digestive system breaks out the pitchforks and torches when I get a little in my system. ><
But sugar itself? Sugar is not evil. It does not come from the Dark Side, it does not target your body and decay it from the inside, nor does it travel directly to your fat cells and build expansions. Sugar itself is a necessary nutrient you need. Just make sure you're getting a reasonable amount, and if you eat a lot of processed meals, make sure you keep track of it so you don't get too much.
Ok the point I'm making is that extracting sugar from food to use on other food is the problem. Stopping doing that is like a "dumb solution" if you like as people seem to be unable to control their eating. Everyone here is probably used to tracking what they eat so it's easy for us. Some people just cannot control themselves and just end up dying from it. All the information is out there on how to be healthy so why are there so many obese people? They just can't do it. Stopping adding sugar to foods would prevent a lot of this from happening. I know it's just a dream really because of all the money involved and corporate power blah blah
So I really am trying to understand your point here. Are you saying that no one should consume sugar in any form, regardless of whether or not they have a medical reason to restrict it, because someday we MIGHT have medical issues - IR, etc?...
I think his point is more leaning towards "if you consume any sugar in any form, even one grain of it, you'll get da diabeetus and die. 100% of the people, 100% of the time."
The points being conveniently omitted/ignored are:
1) All carbohydrates are metabolized into sugars. No matter how "clean" or "healthy" or "organic" or "complex" they are.
2) Protein causes a BG spike nearly identical to carbs. So if sugarz iz da debil, proteinz must be da debilz too.
MYTH: Carbohydrate Is Singularly Responsible for Driving Insulin
FACT: Protein Is a Potent Stimulator of Insulin Too
This is probably the biggest misconception that is out there. Carbohydrates get a bad rap because of their effect on insulin, but protein stimulates insulin secretion as well. In fact, it can be just as potent of a stimulus for insulin as carbohydrate. One recent study compared the effects of two different meals on insulin. One meal contained 21 grams of protein and 125 grams of carbohydrate. The other meal contained 75 grams of protein and 75 grams of carbohydrate. Both meals contained 675 calories. Here is a chart of the insulin response:
You can see that, despite the fact that the blood sugar response was much higher in the meal with more carbohydrate, the insulin response wasn't higher. In fact, the insulin response was somewhat higher after the high protein meal, although this wasn't statistically significant.
Some people might argue that the "low-carb" condition wasn't really low carb because it had 75 grams of carbohydrate. But that's not the point. The point is that the high-carb condition had nearly TWICE as much carbohydrate, along with a HIGHER glucose response, yet insulin secretion was slightly LOWER. The protein was just as powerful at stimulating insulin as the carbohydrate.
* I did not include the graphs...
Even if this is so (I don't really care if it is or not), I'm not seeing how this is relevant to anything being debated. Care to explain?
I believe it started with this comment:
2) Protein causes a BG spike nearly identical to carbs. So if sugarz iz da debil, proteinz must be da debilz too.
I'm actually wondering what the point was even prior to that -- who cares that carbs cause a BG spike?
Also, of course, it really depends on the person, as well as the specific foods consumed and with what.0 -
Okay, question answered!
It seems to have come in due to WinoGelato's questions about why we should care about there being sugar in ketchup or ranch dressing if you count calories and generally keep added sugar to a reasonable level.
Following that, we got:Sugar spikes blood sugar. Do that too often or too much, and insulin resistance results. Inflammation follows.
I think this is more black and white thinking -- eating sugar in an excessive way can be bad for you, so any and all sugar is terrible. Also, I would be willing to bet that 1 gram of sugar in some ranch dressing (WinoGelato's specific example) doesn't spike blood sugar. Presumably it would be on some salad with a good amount of fiber, too.
This particular poster went on about the horrors of grains and then evangelized for keto and some keto gurus, which I suppose is why carbs in general became the focus.
Back when I did debate in high school, the joke was that every argument ended with the opponent's position leading to nuclear holocaust (I'm old, it was the '80s). Here at MFP, every thread eventually becomes about the wonders of ketosis.0 -
Its really SAD to see (with all the information available today just a few clicks away) that some people still try to convince themselves that sugar can be good for you. There is absolutely nothing good about sugar in any form, we can tolerate loads of sugar yes, glucose is after all "biological fuel" but we should not be eating anything at all with sugar on the ingredients list.
This is the food industry that has been cleverly programming society for years and has got us all hooked on the stuff, all they need to do is keep adding sugar to all their new products and keep us addicted so we can keep buying more of their crap products, happy to say I'm 5 years clean, Had a few relapses perhaps every now and then (cough cough Christmas cough cough) but I know I'm never gonna be a full on addict ever again. Good luck to all of you.
I Vote for Banning Sugar!
http://www.naturalnews.com/047495_sugar_saccharin_addiction.html
According to Merriam Webster, addiction is a "compulsive need for and use of a habit-forming substance (as heroin, nicotine, or alcohol) characterized by tolerance and by well-defined physiological symptoms upon withdrawal; broadly : persistent compulsive use of a substance known by the user to be harmful"
People don't become 'addicted' to sugar any more than they do honey. People do crave sugar if they're used to it, yes. I'm not arguing that. But I've noticed that every single time I've seen a post about someone saying they're 'addicted' to sugar, after a few weeks or even a couple of months, they're fine. When you're used to eating something you like and suddenly cut it out, you're going to crave it. Happened to me when I switched out soda at lunch for tea. But after a month or so, I got used to it and was fine. I wasn't addicted, I was changing a habit. Changing an established habit is HARD, espically when it's one that gives you pleasure. That doesn't mean you're addicted to it. Real addiction isn't cured in a week or a month. In fact, for most addicts, it's a life-long struggle. That's why so many people go through cycles of trying to quit drugs, smoking, or alcohol. Rehab centers have lots of repeat customers for that reason. And in my opinion, saying you're addicted to sugar trivializes real addictions.
Sugar itself is a necessary nutrient your body needs. How you get that sugar can be horribly unhealthy and you can get way too much, but it's something you actually need. That's not true of real addictive substances. Your body doesn't NEED alcohol or crack to survive normally. If I never drink alcohol again, my body will survive just fine. If I cut out ALL sugar, my body will shut down before too long.
Out of curiosity, why did you skip over the first definition presented by Merriam Webster for "addiction"? Because that definition which links to "addicted" (or rather addict as a transitive verb) states:
transitive verb
1: to devote or surrender (oneself) to something habitually or obsessively <addicted to gambling>
2: to cause addiction to a substance in (a person or animal)
It seems likes the anecdote you presented coincides with proper usage of "addiction" in the first definition. It seems like the word is acceptable in both habit/obsession and substance usage.
Ok, just for completeness sake, the full definition from their website:
"Simple Definition of addiction
: a strong and harmful need to regularly have something (such as a drug) or do something (such as gamble)
: an unusually great interest in something or a need to do or have something
Full Definition of addiction
1
: the quality or state of being addicted <addiction to reading>
2
: compulsive need for and use of a habit-forming substance (as heroin, nicotine, or alcohol) characterized by tolerance and by well-defined physiological symptoms upon withdrawal; broadly : persistent compulsive use of a substance known by the user to be harmful"
From what I know, addiction is a condition of physically and psychologically craving something that is harmful to the body, to the point of interfering with a normal life. While I'm not arguing that excess sugar isn't harmful to the body, sugar itself is not harmful and is actually necessary for your body to function. You can certainly crave and want sugar because you've grown used to eating a certain amount, but that's not an addiction. I have yet to see anyone become so addicted to sugar that they simply CAN'T stop eating massive amounts and need psychological help in stopping. If you know of a proper scientific study that shows that, I'd love to see it.
I'm not playing the "show the study" game; unless everyone is going to start posting studies that meet the same criteria as "acceptable evidence" to support their various positions, expecting one person to back their position with studies but not the other is an exercise in futility.
My question was more curiosity than anything else, because the dictionary definitions acknowledge non-substance (i.e. non-physical) states of addiction. I don't believe that sugar is necessary harmful in and of itself, but I also don't think that everyone reacts to substances in the same way. While there may not currently be evidence of findings of meeting the physical addiction criteria, I think making a blanket statement that it's not addictive because of that and ignoring the other definition is unwise.
Part of my curiosity is that I view addiction as being a spectrum. Even with chemically addictive substances, there seems to be a range of tolerances. Some people can have one cigarette and be done, others will have one and want more. Some people can just quit cold turkey and do fine, others struggle even with the help of support groups and medical interventions. (Just to note, nicotine has been proven addictive, but plenty of people are able to stop without needed medical treatment or psychological help, so I'm not sure necessitating treatment is a good litmus for defining addiction)
It not just with addictive substances either - look at the potential side effects on medications. Not everyone experiences them, but they are listed because there is a possibility or it was reported during trials. Some women use hormonal birth control with no issues; others have horrific reactions to the hormones, and then there are people who are everywhere in between.
I'm not sure that I believe that things are all in people's heads, or that a person has to reach a Requiem for a Dream level of bottoming out for something to be considered interfering in their lives. Which is why I think there might be something to the anecdotal evidence people present. I find the BG levels particularly interesting.0 -
That point was also to clear up the misconceptions surrounding insulin, blood sugar, and carbs, as it was pretty clear that the science behind that was misunderstood by some.0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »Okay, question answered!
It seems to have come in due to WinoGelato's questions about why we should care about there being sugar in ketchup or ranch dressing if you count calories and generally keep added sugar to a reasonable level.
Following that, we got:Sugar spikes blood sugar. Do that too often or too much, and insulin resistance results. Inflammation follows.
I think this is more black and white thinking -- eating sugar in an excessive way can be bad for you, so any and all sugar is terrible. Also, I would be willing to bet that 1 gram of sugar in some ranch dressing (WinoGelato's specific example) doesn't spike blood sugar. Presumably it would be on some salad with a good amount of fiber, too.
This particular poster went on about the horrors of grains and then evangelized for keto and some keto gurus, which I suppose is why carbs in general became the focus.
Back when I did debate in high school, the joke was that every argument ended with the opponent's position leading to nuclear holocaust (I'm old, it was the '80s). Here at MFP, every thread eventually becomes about the wonders of ketosis.
Anti-sugar zealots apparently don't even consider the possibility that other macronutrients could be taken in at the same time which would moderate the BG/insulin reaction. Nope nope nope - in the SAD, everybody sits around shoveling scoops full of pure white sugar down their throat all day long, to the exclusion of all other nutrients.
'Cause they're like, addicted and stuff.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Okay, question answered!
It seems to have come in due to WinoGelato's questions about why we should care about there being sugar in ketchup or ranch dressing if you count calories and generally keep added sugar to a reasonable level.
Following that, we got:Sugar spikes blood sugar. Do that too often or too much, and insulin resistance results. Inflammation follows.
I think this is more black and white thinking -- eating sugar in an excessive way can be bad for you, so any and all sugar is terrible. Also, I would be willing to bet that 1 gram of sugar in some ranch dressing (WinoGelato's specific example) doesn't spike blood sugar. Presumably it would be on some salad with a good amount of fiber, too.
This particular poster went on about the horrors of grains and then evangelized for keto and some keto gurus, which I suppose is why carbs in general became the focus.
Back when I did debate in high school, the joke was that every argument ended with the opponent's position leading to nuclear holocaust (I'm old, it was the '80s). Here at MFP, every thread eventually becomes about the wonders of ketosis.
Anti-sugar zealots apparently don't even consider the possibility that other macronutrients could be taken in at the same time which would moderate the BG/insulin reaction. Nope nope nope - in the SAD, everybody sits around shoveling scoops full of pure white sugar down their throat all day long, to the exclusion of all other nutrients.
'Cause they're like, addicted and stuff.
Not me. I squirt that Ranch dressing in my mouth directly from the bottle.0 -
Its really SAD to see (with all the information available today just a few clicks away) that some people still try to convince themselves that sugar can be good for you. There is absolutely nothing good about sugar in any form, we can tolerate loads of sugar yes, glucose is after all "biological fuel" but we should not be eating anything at all with sugar on the ingredients list.
This is the food industry that has been cleverly programming society for years and has got us all hooked on the stuff, all they need to do is keep adding sugar to all their new products and keep us addicted so we can keep buying more of their crap products, happy to say I'm 5 years clean, Had a few relapses perhaps every now and then (cough cough Christmas cough cough) but I know I'm never gonna be a full on addict ever again. Good luck to all of you.
I Vote for Banning Sugar!
http://www.naturalnews.com/047495_sugar_saccharin_addiction.html
According to Merriam Webster, addiction is a "compulsive need for and use of a habit-forming substance (as heroin, nicotine, or alcohol) characterized by tolerance and by well-defined physiological symptoms upon withdrawal; broadly : persistent compulsive use of a substance known by the user to be harmful"
People don't become 'addicted' to sugar any more than they do honey. People do crave sugar if they're used to it, yes. I'm not arguing that. But I've noticed that every single time I've seen a post about someone saying they're 'addicted' to sugar, after a few weeks or even a couple of months, they're fine. When you're used to eating something you like and suddenly cut it out, you're going to crave it. Happened to me when I switched out soda at lunch for tea. But after a month or so, I got used to it and was fine. I wasn't addicted, I was changing a habit. Changing an established habit is HARD, espically when it's one that gives you pleasure. That doesn't mean you're addicted to it. Real addiction isn't cured in a week or a month. In fact, for most addicts, it's a life-long struggle. That's why so many people go through cycles of trying to quit drugs, smoking, or alcohol. Rehab centers have lots of repeat customers for that reason. And in my opinion, saying you're addicted to sugar trivializes real addictions.
Sugar itself is a necessary nutrient your body needs. How you get that sugar can be horribly unhealthy and you can get way too much, but it's something you actually need. That's not true of real addictive substances. Your body doesn't NEED alcohol or crack to survive normally. If I never drink alcohol again, my body will survive just fine. If I cut out ALL sugar, my body will shut down before too long.
Out of curiosity, why did you skip over the first definition presented by Merriam Webster for "addiction"? Because that definition which links to "addicted" (or rather addict as a transitive verb) states:
transitive verb
1: to devote or surrender (oneself) to something habitually or obsessively <addicted to gambling>
2: to cause addiction to a substance in (a person or animal)
It seems likes the anecdote you presented coincides with proper usage of "addiction" in the first definition. It seems like the word is acceptable in both habit/obsession and substance usage.
Ok, just for completeness sake, the full definition from their website:
"Simple Definition of addiction
: a strong and harmful need to regularly have something (such as a drug) or do something (such as gamble)
: an unusually great interest in something or a need to do or have something
Full Definition of addiction
1
: the quality or state of being addicted <addiction to reading>
2
: compulsive need for and use of a habit-forming substance (as heroin, nicotine, or alcohol) characterized by tolerance and by well-defined physiological symptoms upon withdrawal; broadly : persistent compulsive use of a substance known by the user to be harmful"
From what I know, addiction is a condition of physically and psychologically craving something that is harmful to the body, to the point of interfering with a normal life. While I'm not arguing that excess sugar isn't harmful to the body, sugar itself is not harmful and is actually necessary for your body to function. You can certainly crave and want sugar because you've grown used to eating a certain amount, but that's not an addiction. I have yet to see anyone become so addicted to sugar that they simply CAN'T stop eating massive amounts and need psychological help in stopping. If you know of a proper scientific study that shows that, I'd love to see it.
I'm not playing the "show the study" game; unless everyone is going to start posting studies that meet the same criteria as "acceptable evidence" to support their various positions, expecting one person to back their position with studies but not the other is an exercise in futility.
My question was more curiosity than anything else, because the dictionary definitions acknowledge non-substance (i.e. non-physical) states of addiction. I don't believe that sugar is necessary harmful in and of itself, but I also don't think that everyone reacts to substances in the same way. While there may not currently be evidence of findings of meeting the physical addiction criteria, I think making a blanket statement that it's not addictive because of that and ignoring the other definition is unwise.
Part of my curiosity is that I view addiction as being a spectrum. Even with chemically addictive substances, there seems to be a range of tolerances. Some people can have one cigarette and be done, others will have one and want more. Some people can just quit cold turkey and do fine, others struggle even with the help of support groups and medical interventions. (Just to note, nicotine has been proven addictive, but plenty of people are able to stop without needed medical treatment or psychological help, so I'm not sure necessitating treatment is a good litmus for defining addiction)
It not just with addictive substances either - look at the potential side effects on medications. Not everyone experiences them, but they are listed because there is a possibility or it was reported during trials. Some women use hormonal birth control with no issues; others have horrific reactions to the hormones, and then there are people who are everywhere in between.
I'm not sure that I believe that things are all in people's heads, or that a person has to reach a Requiem for a Dream level of bottoming out for something to be considered interfering in their lives. Which is why I think there might be something to the anecdotal evidence people present. I find the BG levels particularly interesting.
This is pretty much exactly what I believe. And a big gold star for referencing Requiem for a Dream!
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Okay, question answered!
It seems to have come in due to WinoGelato's questions about why we should care about there being sugar in ketchup or ranch dressing if you count calories and generally keep added sugar to a reasonable level.
Following that, we got:Sugar spikes blood sugar. Do that too often or too much, and insulin resistance results. Inflammation follows.
I think this is more black and white thinking -- eating sugar in an excessive way can be bad for you, so any and all sugar is terrible. Also, I would be willing to bet that 1 gram of sugar in some ranch dressing (WinoGelato's specific example) doesn't spike blood sugar. Presumably it would be on some salad with a good amount of fiber, too.
This particular poster went on about the horrors of grains and then evangelized for keto and some keto gurus, which I suppose is why carbs in general became the focus.
Back when I did debate in high school, the joke was that every argument ended with the opponent's position leading to nuclear holocaust (I'm old, it was the '80s). Here at MFP, every thread eventually becomes about the wonders of ketosis.
Anti-sugar zealots apparently don't even consider the possibility that other macronutrients could be taken in at the same time which would moderate the BG/insulin reaction. Nope nope nope - in the SAD, everybody sits around shoveling scoops full of pure white sugar down their throat all day long, to the exclusion of all other nutrients.
'Cause they're like, addicted and stuff.
It's so cool that we can do that, and yet the average American only eat 13% added sugar (with those who don't drink soda probably consuming substantially less). Really puts that stat in context when you realize we do nothing but suck down white sugar (oops, almost forgot, HFCS too) 24/7. America, your greatness has been reaffirmed!0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Okay, question answered!
It seems to have come in due to WinoGelato's questions about why we should care about there being sugar in ketchup or ranch dressing if you count calories and generally keep added sugar to a reasonable level.
Following that, we got:Sugar spikes blood sugar. Do that too often or too much, and insulin resistance results. Inflammation follows.
I think this is more black and white thinking -- eating sugar in an excessive way can be bad for you, so any and all sugar is terrible. Also, I would be willing to bet that 1 gram of sugar in some ranch dressing (WinoGelato's specific example) doesn't spike blood sugar. Presumably it would be on some salad with a good amount of fiber, too.
This particular poster went on about the horrors of grains and then evangelized for keto and some keto gurus, which I suppose is why carbs in general became the focus.
Back when I did debate in high school, the joke was that every argument ended with the opponent's position leading to nuclear holocaust (I'm old, it was the '80s). Here at MFP, every thread eventually becomes about the wonders of ketosis.
Anti-sugar zealots apparently don't even consider the possibility that other macronutrients could be taken in at the same time which would moderate the BG/insulin reaction. Nope nope nope - in the SAD, everybody sits around shoveling scoops full of pure white sugar down their throat all day long, to the exclusion of all other nutrients.
'Cause they're like, addicted and stuff.
anti-anti-sugar zealots apparently like to speak for other in a derogatory fashion. 'Cause they be like, so smart an stuff.0 -
Its really SAD to see (with all the information available today just a few clicks away) that some people still try to convince themselves that sugar can be good for you. There is absolutely nothing good about sugar in any form, we can tolerate loads of sugar yes, glucose is after all "biological fuel" but we should not be eating anything at all with sugar on the ingredients list.
This is the food industry that has been cleverly programming society for years and has got us all hooked on the stuff, all they need to do is keep adding sugar to all their new products and keep us addicted so we can keep buying more of their crap products, happy to say I'm 5 years clean, Had a few relapses perhaps every now and then (cough cough Christmas cough cough) but I know I'm never gonna be a full on addict ever again. Good luck to all of you.
I Vote for Banning Sugar!
http://www.naturalnews.com/047495_sugar_saccharin_addiction.html
According to Merriam Webster, addiction is a "compulsive need for and use of a habit-forming substance (as heroin, nicotine, or alcohol) characterized by tolerance and by well-defined physiological symptoms upon withdrawal; broadly : persistent compulsive use of a substance known by the user to be harmful"
People don't become 'addicted' to sugar any more than they do honey. People do crave sugar if they're used to it, yes. I'm not arguing that. But I've noticed that every single time I've seen a post about someone saying they're 'addicted' to sugar, after a few weeks or even a couple of months, they're fine. When you're used to eating something you like and suddenly cut it out, you're going to crave it. Happened to me when I switched out soda at lunch for tea. But after a month or so, I got used to it and was fine. I wasn't addicted, I was changing a habit. Changing an established habit is HARD, espically when it's one that gives you pleasure. That doesn't mean you're addicted to it. Real addiction isn't cured in a week or a month. In fact, for most addicts, it's a life-long struggle. That's why so many people go through cycles of trying to quit drugs, smoking, or alcohol. Rehab centers have lots of repeat customers for that reason. And in my opinion, saying you're addicted to sugar trivializes real addictions.
Sugar itself is a necessary nutrient your body needs. How you get that sugar can be horribly unhealthy and you can get way too much, but it's something you actually need. That's not true of real addictive substances. Your body doesn't NEED alcohol or crack to survive normally. If I never drink alcohol again, my body will survive just fine. If I cut out ALL sugar, my body will shut down before too long.
Out of curiosity, why did you skip over the first definition presented by Merriam Webster for "addiction"? Because that definition which links to "addicted" (or rather addict as a transitive verb) states:
transitive verb
1: to devote or surrender (oneself) to something habitually or obsessively <addicted to gambling>
2: to cause addiction to a substance in (a person or animal)
It seems likes the anecdote you presented coincides with proper usage of "addiction" in the first definition. It seems like the word is acceptable in both habit/obsession and substance usage.
Ok, just for completeness sake, the full definition from their website:
"Simple Definition of addiction
: a strong and harmful need to regularly have something (such as a drug) or do something (such as gamble)
: an unusually great interest in something or a need to do or have something
Full Definition of addiction
1
: the quality or state of being addicted <addiction to reading>
2
: compulsive need for and use of a habit-forming substance (as heroin, nicotine, or alcohol) characterized by tolerance and by well-defined physiological symptoms upon withdrawal; broadly : persistent compulsive use of a substance known by the user to be harmful"
From what I know, addiction is a condition of physically and psychologically craving something that is harmful to the body, to the point of interfering with a normal life. While I'm not arguing that excess sugar isn't harmful to the body, sugar itself is not harmful and is actually necessary for your body to function. You can certainly crave and want sugar because you've grown used to eating a certain amount, but that's not an addiction. I have yet to see anyone become so addicted to sugar that they simply CAN'T stop eating massive amounts and need psychological help in stopping. If you know of a proper scientific study that shows that, I'd love to see it.
I'm not playing the "show the study" game; unless everyone is going to start posting studies that meet the same criteria as "acceptable evidence" to support their various positions, expecting one person to back their position with studies but not the other is an exercise in futility.
My question was more curiosity than anything else, because the dictionary definitions acknowledge non-substance (i.e. non-physical) states of addiction. I don't believe that sugar is necessary harmful in and of itself, but I also don't think that everyone reacts to substances in the same way. While there may not currently be evidence of findings of meeting the physical addiction criteria, I think making a blanket statement that it's not addictive because of that and ignoring the other definition is unwise.
Part of my curiosity is that I view addiction as being a spectrum. Even with chemically addictive substances, there seems to be a range of tolerances. Some people can have one cigarette and be done, others will have one and want more. Some people can just quit cold turkey and do fine, others struggle even with the help of support groups and medical interventions. (Just to note, nicotine has been proven addictive, but plenty of people are able to stop without needed medical treatment or psychological help, so I'm not sure necessitating treatment is a good litmus for defining addiction)
It not just with addictive substances either - look at the potential side effects on medications. Not everyone experiences them, but they are listed because there is a possibility or it was reported during trials. Some women use hormonal birth control with no issues; others have horrific reactions to the hormones, and then there are people who are everywhere in between.
I'm not sure that I believe that things are all in people's heads, or that a person has to reach a Requiem for a Dream level of bottoming out for something to be considered interfering in their lives. Which is why I think there might be something to the anecdotal evidence people present. I find the BG levels particularly interesting.
I think for me, it's the fact that some people equate craving high levels of sugar to someone trying to quit smoking crack. I think we as a society tend to over-use 'addiction' as anything bad we like to do, which trivializes people with serious addiction problems. So it frustrates me when people just automatically assume they're addicted to something because too much of it is bad and they crave it. Sorry if I came off as overbearing, though! That wasn't my intention, I was just thinking I wasn't being clear in what I was saying. That happens to me a lot.
And I can see your point about addiction being a spectrum, but again, some people actually do have a disease as there's something in their brain that makes them much more likely to develop addictive behaviors. Thinking about it, you could probably apply this to sugar and other foods, but in that case, it would be something they CAN'T stop on their own. It's not that it's a certain food, it's that it triggers a certain behavior.
Sorry for hijacking the thread!0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Okay, question answered!
It seems to have come in due to WinoGelato's questions about why we should care about there being sugar in ketchup or ranch dressing if you count calories and generally keep added sugar to a reasonable level.
Following that, we got:Sugar spikes blood sugar. Do that too often or too much, and insulin resistance results. Inflammation follows.
I think this is more black and white thinking -- eating sugar in an excessive way can be bad for you, so any and all sugar is terrible. Also, I would be willing to bet that 1 gram of sugar in some ranch dressing (WinoGelato's specific example) doesn't spike blood sugar. Presumably it would be on some salad with a good amount of fiber, too.
This particular poster went on about the horrors of grains and then evangelized for keto and some keto gurus, which I suppose is why carbs in general became the focus.
Back when I did debate in high school, the joke was that every argument ended with the opponent's position leading to nuclear holocaust (I'm old, it was the '80s). Here at MFP, every thread eventually becomes about the wonders of ketosis.
Anti-sugar zealots apparently don't even consider the possibility that other macronutrients could be taken in at the same time which would moderate the BG/insulin reaction. Nope nope nope - in the SAD, everybody sits around shoveling scoops full of pure white sugar down their throat all day long, to the exclusion of all other nutrients.
'Cause they're like, addicted and stuff.
Not me. I squirt that Ranch dressing in my mouth directly from the bottle.
Ha ha! I will consume sugar til I die. I have hypoglycemia and I have to have some sort of sugar. Mmmm...sugar aw honey honey you are my candy girl. Heh!0 -
Its really SAD to see (with all the information available today just a few clicks away) that some people still try to convince themselves that sugar can be good for you. There is absolutely nothing good about sugar in any form, we can tolerate loads of sugar yes, glucose is after all "biological fuel" but we should not be eating anything at all with sugar on the ingredients list.
This is the food industry that has been cleverly programming society for years and has got us all hooked on the stuff, all they need to do is keep adding sugar to all their new products and keep us addicted so we can keep buying more of their crap products, happy to say I'm 5 years clean, Had a few relapses perhaps every now and then (cough cough Christmas cough cough) but I know I'm never gonna be a full on addict ever again. Good luck to all of you.
I Vote for Banning Sugar!
http://www.naturalnews.com/047495_sugar_saccharin_addiction.html
According to Merriam Webster, addiction is a "compulsive need for and use of a habit-forming substance (as heroin, nicotine, or alcohol) characterized by tolerance and by well-defined physiological symptoms upon withdrawal; broadly : persistent compulsive use of a substance known by the user to be harmful"
People don't become 'addicted' to sugar any more than they do honey. People do crave sugar if they're used to it, yes. I'm not arguing that. But I've noticed that every single time I've seen a post about someone saying they're 'addicted' to sugar, after a few weeks or even a couple of months, they're fine. When you're used to eating something you like and suddenly cut it out, you're going to crave it. Happened to me when I switched out soda at lunch for tea. But after a month or so, I got used to it and was fine. I wasn't addicted, I was changing a habit. Changing an established habit is HARD, espically when it's one that gives you pleasure. That doesn't mean you're addicted to it. Real addiction isn't cured in a week or a month. In fact, for most addicts, it's a life-long struggle. That's why so many people go through cycles of trying to quit drugs, smoking, or alcohol. Rehab centers have lots of repeat customers for that reason. And in my opinion, saying you're addicted to sugar trivializes real addictions.
Sugar itself is a necessary nutrient your body needs. How you get that sugar can be horribly unhealthy and you can get way too much, but it's something you actually need. That's not true of real addictive substances. Your body doesn't NEED alcohol or crack to survive normally. If I never drink alcohol again, my body will survive just fine. If I cut out ALL sugar, my body will shut down before too long.
Out of curiosity, why did you skip over the first definition presented by Merriam Webster for "addiction"? Because that definition which links to "addicted" (or rather addict as a transitive verb) states:
transitive verb
1: to devote or surrender (oneself) to something habitually or obsessively <addicted to gambling>
2: to cause addiction to a substance in (a person or animal)
It seems likes the anecdote you presented coincides with proper usage of "addiction" in the first definition. It seems like the word is acceptable in both habit/obsession and substance usage.
Ok, just for completeness sake, the full definition from their website:
"Simple Definition of addiction
: a strong and harmful need to regularly have something (such as a drug) or do something (such as gamble)
: an unusually great interest in something or a need to do or have something
Full Definition of addiction
1
: the quality or state of being addicted <addiction to reading>
2
: compulsive need for and use of a habit-forming substance (as heroin, nicotine, or alcohol) characterized by tolerance and by well-defined physiological symptoms upon withdrawal; broadly : persistent compulsive use of a substance known by the user to be harmful"
From what I know, addiction is a condition of physically and psychologically craving something that is harmful to the body, to the point of interfering with a normal life. While I'm not arguing that excess sugar isn't harmful to the body, sugar itself is not harmful and is actually necessary for your body to function. You can certainly crave and want sugar because you've grown used to eating a certain amount, but that's not an addiction. I have yet to see anyone become so addicted to sugar that they simply CAN'T stop eating massive amounts and need psychological help in stopping. If you know of a proper scientific study that shows that, I'd love to see it.
I'm not playing the "show the study" game; unless everyone is going to start posting studies that meet the same criteria as "acceptable evidence" to support their various positions, expecting one person to back their position with studies but not the other is an exercise in futility.
My question was more curiosity than anything else, because the dictionary definitions acknowledge non-substance (i.e. non-physical) states of addiction. I don't believe that sugar is necessary harmful in and of itself, but I also don't think that everyone reacts to substances in the same way. While there may not currently be evidence of findings of meeting the physical addiction criteria, I think making a blanket statement that it's not addictive because of that and ignoring the other definition is unwise.
Part of my curiosity is that I view addiction as being a spectrum. Even with chemically addictive substances, there seems to be a range of tolerances. Some people can have one cigarette and be done, others will have one and want more. Some people can just quit cold turkey and do fine, others struggle even with the help of support groups and medical interventions. (Just to note, nicotine has been proven addictive, but plenty of people are able to stop without needed medical treatment or psychological help, so I'm not sure necessitating treatment is a good litmus for defining addiction)
It not just with addictive substances either - look at the potential side effects on medications. Not everyone experiences them, but they are listed because there is a possibility or it was reported during trials. Some women use hormonal birth control with no issues; others have horrific reactions to the hormones, and then there are people who are everywhere in between.
I'm not sure that I believe that things are all in people's heads, or that a person has to reach a Requiem for a Dream level of bottoming out for something to be considered interfering in their lives. Which is why I think there might be something to the anecdotal evidence people present. I find the BG levels particularly interesting.
I think for me, it's the fact that some people equate craving high levels of sugar to someone trying to quit smoking crack. I think we as a society tend to over-use 'addiction' as anything bad we like to do, which trivializes people with serious addiction problems. So it frustrates me when people just automatically assume they're addicted to something because too much of it is bad and they crave it. Sorry if I came off as overbearing, though! That wasn't my intention, I was just thinking I wasn't being clear in what I was saying. That happens to me a lot.
And I can see your point about addiction being a spectrum, but again, some people actually do have a disease as there's something in their brain that makes them much more likely to develop addictive behaviors. Thinking about it, you could probably apply this to sugar and other foods, but in that case, it would be something they CAN'T stop on their own. It's not that it's a certain food, it's that it triggers a certain behavior.
Sorry for hijacking the thread!
I don't think it was necessarily a hijack - I do wonder about the impetus behind these new guidelines. If the idea is that in encouraging people to reduce added sugars, it will lead to a decline in the obesity rates by curbing overeating, I think the research on how people react to sugar can be pertinent. I think psulemon mentioned upthread (or maybe someplace else, I know I saw it in the last few days) that there has been evidence of overeating as it relates to foods containing sugar and fat, but if there is any weight to the anecdotal evidence people have mentioned on this site about how they personally react to added sugars (compared to those in fruits where fiber is present), the recommendation could unwittingly help someone with a similar reaction by helping them regain some control.
Now they just need to find something to help those of us who turn into gremlins when our blood sugar gets too low. :laugh: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
- 232.3K 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
- 999 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions