Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
The Sugar Conspiracy
Replies
-
paulgads82 wrote: »I'm out. This is ridiculous now. A calorie is a calorie. It's a measure of energy, not nutrition.
Wrong.
Tell me what a calorie is. Your own words.3 -
When I gave my oldest child food with added sugar for the first time in any real abundance, it was her first birthday, and we let her have a piece of birthday cake. She at first dabbed a finger and carefully tried it out. When it hit her tongue and mouth, 5 seconds later her eyes went WIDE open and she started to destroy that birthday cake.
With my next two kids, we did the same thing. We got out the video recorder expecting the same reaction, but neither kid had that reaction. Both of them ate some of the cake, but did it as if it were any other food.
Fast forward 14 years. My oldest has always been extremely addicted to sugar, the younger two can take it or leave it. My middle is addicted to mayo and butter and fats. My youngest isn't into either.
These are taste preferences.
It's common and normal for humans to really like high cal foods like fat and sugar (and in studies both tend to generate positive responses in the brain). Most people seem to have a particular affinity for combinations of sugar and fat or carbs/sugar/salt. This is totally normal and expected.2 -
stevencloser wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »
Sugar may not interfere with your brain chemistry, but you cannot speak for people for whom it does.Carlos_421 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »The heroine analogy is a bit much, but her point is to address the seemingly illogical idea that abstinence is more sustainable than moderation. In which case a comparison to addiction in general is more appropriate. Since the idea that sugar as a substance is addictive is very debatable, consider addictions which are not related to a substance. In those cases, moderation is very rarely prescribed.
But with eating addiction you (1) can't stop the behavior (we don't have to gamble, but we do have to eat), and (2) in at least many cases restriction itself makes the problem worse, if not actually causing it in the first place (which is why many recovered binge eaters and other ED sufferers (including overeaters) point to restrictive behavior/labeling foods bad and good as an issue. That's why -- even though I think for SOME people more restrictive approaches, like cutting out certain trigger foods or cutting down on carbs (I can't go along with the idea that cutting out all carbs and sugar, including veg, is healthy absent an actual health reason, like Crohn's, for doing so) is a helpful approach. It seems that for many others it's really counterproductive. I do find that the more I demonize foods (and this is something I've been prone to and work against) I have less control with them when I do eat them. Really consciously focusing on taking a logical approach to foods is one reason I think I've mostly managed to get rid of trigger foods. Again, not saying this works for everyone, but I would strongly caution you against the idea that if someone feels out of control about food or certain foods (as I have in the past), that the first and best answer should be "remove them, because a drunk shouldn't try to drink in moderation, right?"
Here are some links I think are worthwhile:
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/139/3/617.full (includes a discussion of the link between restriction and binging)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763414002140 (good discussion of the problems of "food addiction" and argument for "eating addiction")
http://www.refinery29.com/2015/01/80504/sugar-addiction-myths?utm_source=email&utm_medium=editorial&utm_content=everywhere&utm_campaign=150114-sugar-addiction-myths (nice article with interviews, and addresses this "sugar=heroin" nonsense that always comes up in these threads)
Good that you found something that works for you. Whatever is your experience is true for you. I am not questioning that. If moderation works for you, good for you (same for people who have problem feeling out of control with drinking).
Feeling out of control with food is quite different from alcoholism, IME.At the same time, whatever I experience is true to me. For me abstaining from sweets (candy, cakes, cookies, soda pop etc) works best and I do that.
Sure, not saying you shouldn't. I am saying that that approach shouldn't be assumed to be the One True One or necessary since we are pretending food is addictive. In some cases it can even be harmful. But can it be a strategy that works for some? I specifically said before that I thought it could.At the same time, I do eat a lot of vegetables and fruits as I am mostly vegetarian (I may eat fish or chicken one meal in a couple weeks). I eat very small quantities of whole grains because as the other poster said, I have a hard time feeling satiated and stay within my calorie needs when I eat grains and I feel hungry within two hours. I don't hate any food groups, but anything with added sugar is bad for me and I will abstain as moderation doesn't work for me.
It doesn't explain how to practice mindfulness when sugar has interfered with your brain chemistry and driving a primal desire to eat more of it.
Probably because sugar doesn't interfere with your brain chemistry or drive a primal desire to eat more of it. It just doesn't. It's not a mind altering or addictive substance. Any claims to the contrary are completely contradictory to all scientific evidence.
People eat sugar because it tastes good and they enjoy it. It's not warping their brain and driving them into fits to get their next hit of gummy bears.
I say this with all sensitivity - as someone who has had plenty of battles with eating disorders, I know how much eating issues suck - but why are you so convinced that something is wrong with your brain chemistry rather than that you have learned a disordered behavior? Why are you so sure it's the sugar's fault messing with your brain, rather than you like sugary, hyperpalatable foods, so you'd consume more and more of them, thus reinforcing the idea in your brain that sugary foods were meant to be overconsumed?
I can turn around an ask the same question. How are people so convinced that it is will power and not the brain chemistry? I am in no way reinforcing the idea in my brain that sugary foods were meant to be overconsumed. On the contrary, I am saying that there is absolutely no need for added sugar in our diet.
I am also saying that one person's experience is not an universal experience. If added sugar works for you, go for it. If moderation works for you, go for it. If abstaining works for you, go for it.
Because added sugar does not contain any chemicals that have the ability to mess with your brain chemistry?
Because you have sugar coursing through your veins from the moment you enter this world until you draw your last breath and you'd die if there wasn't?
Are those reasons enough to be convinced that no, cakes have not messed with your brain chemistry?
I don't even know where to start with that statement! We have glucose in our cells.
Glucose=sugar0 -
stevencloser wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »
Sugar may not interfere with your brain chemistry, but you cannot speak for people for whom it does.Carlos_421 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »The heroine analogy is a bit much, but her point is to address the seemingly illogical idea that abstinence is more sustainable than moderation. In which case a comparison to addiction in general is more appropriate. Since the idea that sugar as a substance is addictive is very debatable, consider addictions which are not related to a substance. In those cases, moderation is very rarely prescribed.
But with eating addiction you (1) can't stop the behavior (we don't have to gamble, but we do have to eat), and (2) in at least many cases restriction itself makes the problem worse, if not actually causing it in the first place (which is why many recovered binge eaters and other ED sufferers (including overeaters) point to restrictive behavior/labeling foods bad and good as an issue. That's why -- even though I think for SOME people more restrictive approaches, like cutting out certain trigger foods or cutting down on carbs (I can't go along with the idea that cutting out all carbs and sugar, including veg, is healthy absent an actual health reason, like Crohn's, for doing so) is a helpful approach. It seems that for many others it's really counterproductive. I do find that the more I demonize foods (and this is something I've been prone to and work against) I have less control with them when I do eat them. Really consciously focusing on taking a logical approach to foods is one reason I think I've mostly managed to get rid of trigger foods. Again, not saying this works for everyone, but I would strongly caution you against the idea that if someone feels out of control about food or certain foods (as I have in the past), that the first and best answer should be "remove them, because a drunk shouldn't try to drink in moderation, right?"
Here are some links I think are worthwhile:
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/139/3/617.full (includes a discussion of the link between restriction and binging)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763414002140 (good discussion of the problems of "food addiction" and argument for "eating addiction")
http://www.refinery29.com/2015/01/80504/sugar-addiction-myths?utm_source=email&utm_medium=editorial&utm_content=everywhere&utm_campaign=150114-sugar-addiction-myths (nice article with interviews, and addresses this "sugar=heroin" nonsense that always comes up in these threads)
Good that you found something that works for you. Whatever is your experience is true for you. I am not questioning that. If moderation works for you, good for you (same for people who have problem feeling out of control with drinking).
Feeling out of control with food is quite different from alcoholism, IME.At the same time, whatever I experience is true to me. For me abstaining from sweets (candy, cakes, cookies, soda pop etc) works best and I do that.
Sure, not saying you shouldn't. I am saying that that approach shouldn't be assumed to be the One True One or necessary since we are pretending food is addictive. In some cases it can even be harmful. But can it be a strategy that works for some? I specifically said before that I thought it could.At the same time, I do eat a lot of vegetables and fruits as I am mostly vegetarian (I may eat fish or chicken one meal in a couple weeks). I eat very small quantities of whole grains because as the other poster said, I have a hard time feeling satiated and stay within my calorie needs when I eat grains and I feel hungry within two hours. I don't hate any food groups, but anything with added sugar is bad for me and I will abstain as moderation doesn't work for me.
It doesn't explain how to practice mindfulness when sugar has interfered with your brain chemistry and driving a primal desire to eat more of it.
Probably because sugar doesn't interfere with your brain chemistry or drive a primal desire to eat more of it. It just doesn't. It's not a mind altering or addictive substance. Any claims to the contrary are completely contradictory to all scientific evidence.
People eat sugar because it tastes good and they enjoy it. It's not warping their brain and driving them into fits to get their next hit of gummy bears.
I say this with all sensitivity - as someone who has had plenty of battles with eating disorders, I know how much eating issues suck - but why are you so convinced that something is wrong with your brain chemistry rather than that you have learned a disordered behavior? Why are you so sure it's the sugar's fault messing with your brain, rather than you like sugary, hyperpalatable foods, so you'd consume more and more of them, thus reinforcing the idea in your brain that sugary foods were meant to be overconsumed?
I can turn around an ask the same question. How are people so convinced that it is will power and not the brain chemistry? I am in no way reinforcing the idea in my brain that sugary foods were meant to be overconsumed. On the contrary, I am saying that there is absolutely no need for added sugar in our diet.
I am also saying that one person's experience is not an universal experience. If added sugar works for you, go for it. If moderation works for you, go for it. If abstaining works for you, go for it.
Sugar is addictive, and can be even more addictive than cocaine:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23719144
And we already know that some people can walk away from cocaine, and others cannot, due to that individuals brain chemistry. The answer is pretty simple. We already know sugar has no health qualities of any kind, and that when you consider it as a fuel source, it is almost entirely negative in how it is processed by the human body. We also know that for some people it can be extremely addictive. Willpower requirements for sugar can vary from one person to the next dramatically. For one person, it may seem like going without a cupcake. For another person, it can feel like going without air.
But a calorie is not a calorie, and sugar is the worst kind. And it's addictive. Not really sure why there is a debate on this. The willpower one is old (and biased). To make matters more confusing, even willpower itself is a brain chemistry thing (and different from one person to the next). What is important to know is that (A) sugar is bad, and (B) everyone reacts differently to it.
I grow weary of people comparing a highly addictive substance that gives you PHYSICAL DEPENDENCE and destroys lives to sugar, saying "it can be more addictive" because *kitten* rats prefer not starving over getting high.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say. I mean, scientific studies have already shown the power of sugar in terms of brain chemistry reaction:
Overall, this research has revealed that sugar and sweet reward can not only substitute to addictive drugs, like cocaine, but can even be more rewarding and attractive. At the neurobiological level, the neural substrates of sugar and sweet reward appear to be more robust than those of cocaine (i.e., more resistant to functional failures), possibly reflecting past selective evolutionary pressures for seeking and taking foods high in sugar and calories.
This isn't people making excuses, it's people studying brain reactions.
This research you linked is the shortest science review I've ever seen. The full text is barely 4.5 pages long.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Serge_Ahmed/publication/236967373_Sugar_addiction_Pushing_the_drug-sugar_analogy_to_the_limit/links/02e7e51dab5fbc2754000000.pdf
0 -
I don't think sugar should be banned. I think more education is needed so people understand exactly how many calories they are eating, the calorie breakdown of nutrients they are consuming and how many calories they are or are not burning.
You are saying this despite knowing that a calorie is not just a calorie, right? The sugar industry wants us to think that 100 calories of sugar is identical to 100 calories of broccoli. But that just isn't accurate at all.
I also do not think it should be banned. But I think the industry needs to be watched closely. It's a bit sad that sugar can be as bad for a person as smoking, but since smoking causes a stinky smell, we take a lot of action on it, while we quietly let the children consume massive amounts of added sugar in processed foods, as they develop diabetes as teens and young adults.
Good luck trying to get kids to develop diabetes on a diet that is without added sugar and without processed carbs, where all they can eat is whole foods. Would never happen.
I think 100 calories of broccoli is the same amount of calories as 100 calories of sugar. My body will react differently to those 100 calories but still the same amount.
Your body is reacting to the macronutrients, not the amount of calories.
ETA: It's incorrect to say "100 calories of broccoli". As quoted from my post on page 9:
"A calorie is an intangible unit of energy measurement. It is incorrect to say "a calorie of sugar", "a calorie of fat", "a calorie of protein", etc. That's like saying "a degree of heat" or "a degree of cold". There simply is no such thing."
Final edit: Try saying "100 calories from broccoli" instead.2 -
stevencloser wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »
Sugar may not interfere with your brain chemistry, but you cannot speak for people for whom it does.Carlos_421 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »The heroine analogy is a bit much, but her point is to address the seemingly illogical idea that abstinence is more sustainable than moderation. In which case a comparison to addiction in general is more appropriate. Since the idea that sugar as a substance is addictive is very debatable, consider addictions which are not related to a substance. In those cases, moderation is very rarely prescribed.
But with eating addiction you (1) can't stop the behavior (we don't have to gamble, but we do have to eat), and (2) in at least many cases restriction itself makes the problem worse, if not actually causing it in the first place (which is why many recovered binge eaters and other ED sufferers (including overeaters) point to restrictive behavior/labeling foods bad and good as an issue. That's why -- even though I think for SOME people more restrictive approaches, like cutting out certain trigger foods or cutting down on carbs (I can't go along with the idea that cutting out all carbs and sugar, including veg, is healthy absent an actual health reason, like Crohn's, for doing so) is a helpful approach. It seems that for many others it's really counterproductive. I do find that the more I demonize foods (and this is something I've been prone to and work against) I have less control with them when I do eat them. Really consciously focusing on taking a logical approach to foods is one reason I think I've mostly managed to get rid of trigger foods. Again, not saying this works for everyone, but I would strongly caution you against the idea that if someone feels out of control about food or certain foods (as I have in the past), that the first and best answer should be "remove them, because a drunk shouldn't try to drink in moderation, right?"
Here are some links I think are worthwhile:
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/139/3/617.full (includes a discussion of the link between restriction and binging)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763414002140 (good discussion of the problems of "food addiction" and argument for "eating addiction")
http://www.refinery29.com/2015/01/80504/sugar-addiction-myths?utm_source=email&utm_medium=editorial&utm_content=everywhere&utm_campaign=150114-sugar-addiction-myths (nice article with interviews, and addresses this "sugar=heroin" nonsense that always comes up in these threads)
Good that you found something that works for you. Whatever is your experience is true for you. I am not questioning that. If moderation works for you, good for you (same for people who have problem feeling out of control with drinking).
Feeling out of control with food is quite different from alcoholism, IME.At the same time, whatever I experience is true to me. For me abstaining from sweets (candy, cakes, cookies, soda pop etc) works best and I do that.
Sure, not saying you shouldn't. I am saying that that approach shouldn't be assumed to be the One True One or necessary since we are pretending food is addictive. In some cases it can even be harmful. But can it be a strategy that works for some? I specifically said before that I thought it could.At the same time, I do eat a lot of vegetables and fruits as I am mostly vegetarian (I may eat fish or chicken one meal in a couple weeks). I eat very small quantities of whole grains because as the other poster said, I have a hard time feeling satiated and stay within my calorie needs when I eat grains and I feel hungry within two hours. I don't hate any food groups, but anything with added sugar is bad for me and I will abstain as moderation doesn't work for me.
It doesn't explain how to practice mindfulness when sugar has interfered with your brain chemistry and driving a primal desire to eat more of it.
Probably because sugar doesn't interfere with your brain chemistry or drive a primal desire to eat more of it. It just doesn't. It's not a mind altering or addictive substance. Any claims to the contrary are completely contradictory to all scientific evidence.
People eat sugar because it tastes good and they enjoy it. It's not warping their brain and driving them into fits to get their next hit of gummy bears.
I say this with all sensitivity - as someone who has had plenty of battles with eating disorders, I know how much eating issues suck - but why are you so convinced that something is wrong with your brain chemistry rather than that you have learned a disordered behavior? Why are you so sure it's the sugar's fault messing with your brain, rather than you like sugary, hyperpalatable foods, so you'd consume more and more of them, thus reinforcing the idea in your brain that sugary foods were meant to be overconsumed?
I can turn around an ask the same question. How are people so convinced that it is will power and not the brain chemistry? I am in no way reinforcing the idea in my brain that sugary foods were meant to be overconsumed. On the contrary, I am saying that there is absolutely no need for added sugar in our diet.
I am also saying that one person's experience is not an universal experience. If added sugar works for you, go for it. If moderation works for you, go for it. If abstaining works for you, go for it.
Because added sugar does not contain any chemicals that have the ability to mess with your brain chemistry?
Because you have sugar coursing through your veins from the moment you enter this world until you draw your last breath and you'd die if there wasn't?
Are those reasons enough to be convinced that no, cakes have not messed with your brain chemistry?
I don't even know where to start with that statement! We have glucose in our cells.
And glucose is...?3 -
stevencloser wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »The heroine analogy is a bit much, but her point is to address the seemingly illogical idea that abstinence is more sustainable than moderation. In which case a comparison to addiction in general is more appropriate. Since the idea that sugar as a substance is addictive is very debatable, consider addictions which are not related to a substance. In those cases, moderation is very rarely prescribed.
But with eating addiction you (1) can't stop the behavior (we don't have to gamble, but we do have to eat), and (2) in at least many cases restriction itself makes the problem worse, if not actually causing it in the first place (which is why many recovered binge eaters and other ED sufferers (including overeaters) point to restrictive behavior/labeling foods bad and good as an issue. That's why -- even though I think for SOME people more restrictive approaches, like cutting out certain trigger foods or cutting down on carbs (I can't go along with the idea that cutting out all carbs and sugar, including veg, is healthy absent an actual health reason, like Crohn's, for doing so) is a helpful approach. It seems that for many others it's really counterproductive. I do find that the more I demonize foods (and this is something I've been prone to and work against) I have less control with them when I do eat them. Really consciously focusing on taking a logical approach to foods is one reason I think I've mostly managed to get rid of trigger foods. Again, not saying this works for everyone, but I would strongly caution you against the idea that if someone feels out of control about food or certain foods (as I have in the past), that the first and best answer should be "remove them, because a drunk shouldn't try to drink in moderation, right?"
Here are some links I think are worthwhile:
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/139/3/617.full (includes a discussion of the link between restriction and binging)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763414002140 (good discussion of the problems of "food addiction" and argument for "eating addiction")
http://www.refinery29.com/2015/01/80504/sugar-addiction-myths?utm_source=email&utm_medium=editorial&utm_content=everywhere&utm_campaign=150114-sugar-addiction-myths (nice article with interviews, and addresses this "sugar=heroin" nonsense that always comes up in these threads)
Good that you found something that works for you. Whatever is your experience is true for you. I am not questioning that. If moderation works for you, good for you (same for people who have problem feeling out of control with drinking).
Feeling out of control with food is quite different from alcoholism, IME.At the same time, whatever I experience is true to me. For me abstaining from sweets (candy, cakes, cookies, soda pop etc) works best and I do that.
Sure, not saying you shouldn't. I am saying that that approach shouldn't be assumed to be the One True One or necessary since we are pretending food is addictive. In some cases it can even be harmful. But can it be a strategy that works for some? I specifically said before that I thought it could.At the same time, I do eat a lot of vegetables and fruits as I am mostly vegetarian (I may eat fish or chicken one meal in a couple weeks). I eat very small quantities of whole grains because as the other poster said, I have a hard time feeling satiated and stay within my calorie needs when I eat grains and I feel hungry within two hours. I don't hate any food groups, but anything with added sugar is bad for me and I will abstain as moderation doesn't work for me.
Okay.
And if you decide moderation doesn't work for you, it won't, that is certainly true. But if you are happier not eating added sugar, that's fine too.
Well...you may think that feeling out of control with food is quite different from alcoholism. That doesn't mean it is true. Also we are talking sugar, and specifically added sugar in this topic not food in general. Neither I said abstaining is a panacea for all addiction. But for many, abstaining works well.
Moderation didn't stop working for me after I decided it will not work for me. On the contrary, I came to the conclusion that moderation doesn't work for me after many failed attempts at moderation.
Also, from r29 article:
"Food manufacturers add sugar to just about everything, but you might be surprised to learn how often it's added to savory items. "There’s more added sugar per calorie in most pasta sauces than in ice cream toppings," Dr. Katz points out. "You'll see many potato chips brands with high-fructose corn syrup sprayed on at the end." That's because sweetness is an appetite stimulant, urging you to eat more. Dr. Katz calls this "stealth sugar," because you don't consciously taste it, but it increases the amount you need to eat to feel satisfied."
So added sugar causes people to eat more. It is an appetite stimulant for vast majority of people. Though the article cleverly not mentions sugar in cakes, candies, it has the same effect on many people where they are stimulated to eat more of it. Then the article says practice mindfulness while eating added sugar. It doesn't explain how to practice mindfulness when sugar has interfered with your brain chemistry and driving a primal desire to eat more of it.
Yeah, I'm sure the 1 gram of added sugar per bag of chips is going to make all the difference.
Well..what do you think is the reason for these manufacturers to add sugar in their products?
Taste, texture, so the spices stick to the chips...
"the literal fraction of a gram of sugar per chip is going to make you go wild and hungry" is somewhere at the bottom of the list of possible reasons.
This couldn't be further from the truth. In fact, food companies actually add salt in addition to sugar, to hide the sweetness factor while the brain still gets the sugar reward. There is a reason that there is a TON of sugar in a jar of Prego sauce. They aren't winning you over with quality ingredients or authentic taste, so they are loading up on sugar and salt to make your brain happy.
As you said, they aren't using quality ingredients. Sometimes sugar is added to tomato sauce in order to balance acidity from the tomatoes. It's not for malicious purposes.1 -
stevencloser wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »The heroine analogy is a bit much, but her point is to address the seemingly illogical idea that abstinence is more sustainable than moderation. In which case a comparison to addiction in general is more appropriate. Since the idea that sugar as a substance is addictive is very debatable, consider addictions which are not related to a substance. In those cases, moderation is very rarely prescribed.
But with eating addiction you (1) can't stop the behavior (we don't have to gamble, but we do have to eat), and (2) in at least many cases restriction itself makes the problem worse, if not actually causing it in the first place (which is why many recovered binge eaters and other ED sufferers (including overeaters) point to restrictive behavior/labeling foods bad and good as an issue. That's why -- even though I think for SOME people more restrictive approaches, like cutting out certain trigger foods or cutting down on carbs (I can't go along with the idea that cutting out all carbs and sugar, including veg, is healthy absent an actual health reason, like Crohn's, for doing so) is a helpful approach. It seems that for many others it's really counterproductive. I do find that the more I demonize foods (and this is something I've been prone to and work against) I have less control with them when I do eat them. Really consciously focusing on taking a logical approach to foods is one reason I think I've mostly managed to get rid of trigger foods. Again, not saying this works for everyone, but I would strongly caution you against the idea that if someone feels out of control about food or certain foods (as I have in the past), that the first and best answer should be "remove them, because a drunk shouldn't try to drink in moderation, right?"
Here are some links I think are worthwhile:
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/139/3/617.full (includes a discussion of the link between restriction and binging)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763414002140 (good discussion of the problems of "food addiction" and argument for "eating addiction")
http://www.refinery29.com/2015/01/80504/sugar-addiction-myths?utm_source=email&utm_medium=editorial&utm_content=everywhere&utm_campaign=150114-sugar-addiction-myths (nice article with interviews, and addresses this "sugar=heroin" nonsense that always comes up in these threads)
Good that you found something that works for you. Whatever is your experience is true for you. I am not questioning that. If moderation works for you, good for you (same for people who have problem feeling out of control with drinking).
Feeling out of control with food is quite different from alcoholism, IME.At the same time, whatever I experience is true to me. For me abstaining from sweets (candy, cakes, cookies, soda pop etc) works best and I do that.
Sure, not saying you shouldn't. I am saying that that approach shouldn't be assumed to be the One True One or necessary since we are pretending food is addictive. In some cases it can even be harmful. But can it be a strategy that works for some? I specifically said before that I thought it could.At the same time, I do eat a lot of vegetables and fruits as I am mostly vegetarian (I may eat fish or chicken one meal in a couple weeks). I eat very small quantities of whole grains because as the other poster said, I have a hard time feeling satiated and stay within my calorie needs when I eat grains and I feel hungry within two hours. I don't hate any food groups, but anything with added sugar is bad for me and I will abstain as moderation doesn't work for me.
Okay.
And if you decide moderation doesn't work for you, it won't, that is certainly true. But if you are happier not eating added sugar, that's fine too.
Well...you may think that feeling out of control with food is quite different from alcoholism. That doesn't mean it is true. Also we are talking sugar, and specifically added sugar in this topic not food in general. Neither I said abstaining is a panacea for all addiction. But for many, abstaining works well.
Moderation didn't stop working for me after I decided it will not work for me. On the contrary, I came to the conclusion that moderation doesn't work for me after many failed attempts at moderation.
Also, from r29 article:
"Food manufacturers add sugar to just about everything, but you might be surprised to learn how often it's added to savory items. "There’s more added sugar per calorie in most pasta sauces than in ice cream toppings," Dr. Katz points out. "You'll see many potato chips brands with high-fructose corn syrup sprayed on at the end." That's because sweetness is an appetite stimulant, urging you to eat more. Dr. Katz calls this "stealth sugar," because you don't consciously taste it, but it increases the amount you need to eat to feel satisfied."
So added sugar causes people to eat more. It is an appetite stimulant for vast majority of people. Though the article cleverly not mentions sugar in cakes, candies, it has the same effect on many people where they are stimulated to eat more of it. Then the article says practice mindfulness while eating added sugar. It doesn't explain how to practice mindfulness when sugar has interfered with your brain chemistry and driving a primal desire to eat more of it.
Yeah, I'm sure the 1 gram of added sugar per bag of chips is going to make all the difference.
Well..what do you think is the reason for these manufacturers to add sugar in their products?
Taste, texture, so the spices stick to the chips...
"the literal fraction of a gram of sugar per chip is going to make you go wild and hungry" is somewhere at the bottom of the list of possible reasons.
This couldn't be further from the truth. In fact, food companies actually add salt in addition to sugar, to hide the sweetness factor while the brain still gets the sugar reward. There is a reason that there is a TON of sugar in a jar of Prego sauce. They aren't winning you over with quality ingredients or authentic taste, so they are loading up on sugar and salt to make your brain happy.
Yeah, tomatoes have a ton of sugar. The pasta sauce argument is so weird, because they take a whole jar of something with like 10 or 20 servings and compare it to one soda or candy bar. AND they never distinguish between added and intrinsic sugars.
I have a tomato and meat sauce saved in my recipe box. It has a ton of vegetables in it -- onion, celery, carrots, eggplant, summer squash, chard, and of course a bunch of tomatoes. One serving has 7 grams of sugar. I looked up a commercial tomato sauce (heck, I'll even use Prego, although I'm sure some others are lower) and it has 10 grams of sugar/serving. With my sauce I know there is NO added sugar -- I am therefore curious how much added sugar is really in the Prego. I'm sure there's some -- my Marcella Hazen Italian cooking book recommends adding a little sugar to a red sauce, although I never do. But huge amounts? I'd need to see the numbers. (And happily we are getting labels that will make that clear.)4 -
singingflutelady wrote: »and sugar doesn't cause diabetes
Eating too much sugar can cause weight gain, which increases your risk of developing T2D.
Eating too much of anything causes weight gain.10 -
I don't think sugar should be banned. I think more education is needed so people understand exactly how many calories they are eating, the calorie breakdown of nutrients they are consuming and how many calories they are or are not burning.
You are saying this despite knowing that a calorie is not just a calorie, right? The sugar industry wants us to think that 100 calories of sugar is identical to 100 calories of broccoli. But that just isn't accurate at all.
I also do not think it should be banned. But I think the industry needs to be watched closely. It's a bit sad that sugar can be as bad for a person as smoking, but since smoking causes a stinky smell, we take a lot of action on it, while we quietly let the children consume massive amounts of added sugar in processed foods, as they develop diabetes as teens and young adults.
Good luck trying to get kids to develop diabetes on a diet that is without added sugar and without processed carbs, where all they can eat is whole foods. Would never happen.
I think 100 calories of broccoli is the same amount of calories as 100 calories of sugar. My body will react differently to those 100 calories but still the same amount.
I would clarify this as your body will react differently to those FOODS, which is of course true, and no one claims a food is a food. (It's of course also harder to eat 100 calories from broccoli than 100 calories from a sugary food (although about 50% of those calories are usually from fat) or for many people from soda or some such.)
The problem is that some people (or non credible blogs on the internet) pretend to think that "a calorie is a calorie" is intended to mean that all foods are the same, when of course it is not.2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »The heroine analogy is a bit much, but her point is to address the seemingly illogical idea that abstinence is more sustainable than moderation. In which case a comparison to addiction in general is more appropriate. Since the idea that sugar as a substance is addictive is very debatable, consider addictions which are not related to a substance. In those cases, moderation is very rarely prescribed.
But with eating addiction you (1) can't stop the behavior (we don't have to gamble, but we do have to eat), and (2) in at least many cases restriction itself makes the problem worse, if not actually causing it in the first place (which is why many recovered binge eaters and other ED sufferers (including overeaters) point to restrictive behavior/labeling foods bad and good as an issue. That's why -- even though I think for SOME people more restrictive approaches, like cutting out certain trigger foods or cutting down on carbs (I can't go along with the idea that cutting out all carbs and sugar, including veg, is healthy absent an actual health reason, like Crohn's, for doing so) is a helpful approach. It seems that for many others it's really counterproductive. I do find that the more I demonize foods (and this is something I've been prone to and work against) I have less control with them when I do eat them. Really consciously focusing on taking a logical approach to foods is one reason I think I've mostly managed to get rid of trigger foods. Again, not saying this works for everyone, but I would strongly caution you against the idea that if someone feels out of control about food or certain foods (as I have in the past), that the first and best answer should be "remove them, because a drunk shouldn't try to drink in moderation, right?"
Here are some links I think are worthwhile:
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/139/3/617.full (includes a discussion of the link between restriction and binging)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763414002140 (good discussion of the problems of "food addiction" and argument for "eating addiction")
http://www.refinery29.com/2015/01/80504/sugar-addiction-myths?utm_source=email&utm_medium=editorial&utm_content=everywhere&utm_campaign=150114-sugar-addiction-myths (nice article with interviews, and addresses this "sugar=heroin" nonsense that always comes up in these threads)
Good that you found something that works for you. Whatever is your experience is true for you. I am not questioning that. If moderation works for you, good for you (same for people who have problem feeling out of control with drinking).
Feeling out of control with food is quite different from alcoholism, IME.At the same time, whatever I experience is true to me. For me abstaining from sweets (candy, cakes, cookies, soda pop etc) works best and I do that.
Sure, not saying you shouldn't. I am saying that that approach shouldn't be assumed to be the One True One or necessary since we are pretending food is addictive. In some cases it can even be harmful. But can it be a strategy that works for some? I specifically said before that I thought it could.At the same time, I do eat a lot of vegetables and fruits as I am mostly vegetarian (I may eat fish or chicken one meal in a couple weeks). I eat very small quantities of whole grains because as the other poster said, I have a hard time feeling satiated and stay within my calorie needs when I eat grains and I feel hungry within two hours. I don't hate any food groups, but anything with added sugar is bad for me and I will abstain as moderation doesn't work for me.
Okay.
And if you decide moderation doesn't work for you, it won't, that is certainly true. But if you are happier not eating added sugar, that's fine too.
Well...you may think that feeling out of control with food is quite different from alcoholism. That doesn't mean it is true. Also we are talking sugar, and specifically added sugar in this topic not food in general. Neither I said abstaining is a panacea for all addiction. But for many, abstaining works well.
Moderation didn't stop working for me after I decided it will not work for me. On the contrary, I came to the conclusion that moderation doesn't work for me after many failed attempts at moderation.
Also, from r29 article:
"Food manufacturers add sugar to just about everything, but you might be surprised to learn how often it's added to savory items. "There’s more added sugar per calorie in most pasta sauces than in ice cream toppings," Dr. Katz points out. "You'll see many potato chips brands with high-fructose corn syrup sprayed on at the end." That's because sweetness is an appetite stimulant, urging you to eat more. Dr. Katz calls this "stealth sugar," because you don't consciously taste it, but it increases the amount you need to eat to feel satisfied."
So added sugar causes people to eat more. It is an appetite stimulant for vast majority of people. Though the article cleverly not mentions sugar in cakes, candies, it has the same effect on many people where they are stimulated to eat more of it. Then the article says practice mindfulness while eating added sugar. It doesn't explain how to practice mindfulness when sugar has interfered with your brain chemistry and driving a primal desire to eat more of it.
Yeah, I'm sure the 1 gram of added sugar per bag of chips is going to make all the difference.
Well..what do you think is the reason for these manufacturers to add sugar in their products?
Taste, texture, so the spices stick to the chips...
"the literal fraction of a gram of sugar per chip is going to make you go wild and hungry" is somewhere at the bottom of the list of possible reasons.
This couldn't be further from the truth. In fact, food companies actually add salt in addition to sugar, to hide the sweetness factor while the brain still gets the sugar reward. There is a reason that there is a TON of sugar in a jar of Prego sauce. They aren't winning you over with quality ingredients or authentic taste, so they are loading up on sugar and salt to make your brain happy.
Yeah, tomatoes have a ton of sugar. The pasta sauce argument is so weird, because they take a whole jar of something with like 10 or 20 servings and compare it to one soda or candy bar. AND they never distinguish between added and intrinsic sugars.
I have a tomato and meat sauce saved in my recipe box. It has a ton of vegetables in it -- onion, celery, carrots, eggplant, summer squash, chard, and of course a bunch of tomatoes. One serving has 7 grams of sugar. I looked up a commercial tomato sauce (heck, I'll even use Prego, although I'm sure some others are lower) and it has 10 grams of sugar/serving. With my sauce I know there is NO added sugar -- I am therefore curious how much added sugar is really in the Prego. I'm sure there's some -- my Marcella Hazen Italian cooking book recommends adding a little sugar to a red sauce, although I never do. But huge amounts? I'd need to see the numbers. (And happily we are getting labels that will make that clear.)
Well, they come from the same corner that said the 1 gram per 100g in a bag of chips (out of which 0.5 g are probably from the potatoes themselves too) is a huge amount and makes you hungry and they need to add salt to mask that huge amount of sugar.6 -
dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3600914/Makeover-coming-food-nutrition-labels.html#ixzz49DXK3ZpJ
USA to now label added sugar on nutrition labels.0 -
A brief search tells me 100g of Prego has 8g of sugar. The fruit I just had after dinner was around 40g.8
-
This thread has turned into a full blown derp volcano.20
-
Man, I work for an hour and this thread gets scary. I'll just leave this here:
The plausibility of sugar addiction and its role in obesity and eating disorders
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S02615614090023982 -
I read both Yudkin's and Lustig's books after this Guardian article came out. Yudkin's book "Pure, White, and Deadly" was written contemporaneously with Ancel Keys's Seven Countries Study and I think serves as a needed corrective to Keys. Yudkin points out that Keys selected only the data from his set which correlated with his assumption that saturated fat leads to heart disease -- that's bad science. Yudkin also points out that the consumption of added sugars correlates at least as strongly with heart disease as saturated fat. He backs this statement up with research of his own.
I think we would have less of an obesity epidemic if we had listened to him in the 1970's instead of making saturated fat the villain and sugar a comedic-relief side kick in our nutritional saga.
Lustig's book "Fat Chance" starts in a good place: his observation that our assumption that sugar is innocent has led to nutrition policies which make a super-abundance of sugars available cheaply; which in turn has had a strong correlation with obesity-related diseases in the infants and children he sees in his practice. He takes a bit of a conspiratorial turn after that point. He claims the WHO report calling for an RDA of 50 grams of sugar a day was suppressed when it was adopted by the WHO internationally and the American Heart Association here.
He does point out the reality that nutrition labels don't differentiate between naturally occurring sugars and added sugars and this is a valid problem. You can't tell from a nutrition label whether your apple has been sweetened with grape juice concentrate and that's a problem.
Between the two books and various references I think that something an average of 50 grams a day of total sugars should probably be the normal rate of consumption. On average eat about three times that amount in just added sugars (1) -- and that works out to 10 lbs a month in sugar per person. I think anyone looking at two bags of sugar would think it was impossible to eat that in a month, and yet we do.
(1) http://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2012/08/30/how-much-sugar-are-americans-eating-infographic/#39146bfe1f71
2 -
stevencloser wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »The heroine analogy is a bit much, but her point is to address the seemingly illogical idea that abstinence is more sustainable than moderation. In which case a comparison to addiction in general is more appropriate. Since the idea that sugar as a substance is addictive is very debatable, consider addictions which are not related to a substance. In those cases, moderation is very rarely prescribed.
But with eating addiction you (1) can't stop the behavior (we don't have to gamble, but we do have to eat), and (2) in at least many cases restriction itself makes the problem worse, if not actually causing it in the first place (which is why many recovered binge eaters and other ED sufferers (including overeaters) point to restrictive behavior/labeling foods bad and good as an issue. That's why -- even though I think for SOME people more restrictive approaches, like cutting out certain trigger foods or cutting down on carbs (I can't go along with the idea that cutting out all carbs and sugar, including veg, is healthy absent an actual health reason, like Crohn's, for doing so) is a helpful approach. It seems that for many others it's really counterproductive. I do find that the more I demonize foods (and this is something I've been prone to and work against) I have less control with them when I do eat them. Really consciously focusing on taking a logical approach to foods is one reason I think I've mostly managed to get rid of trigger foods. Again, not saying this works for everyone, but I would strongly caution you against the idea that if someone feels out of control about food or certain foods (as I have in the past), that the first and best answer should be "remove them, because a drunk shouldn't try to drink in moderation, right?"
Here are some links I think are worthwhile:
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/139/3/617.full (includes a discussion of the link between restriction and binging)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763414002140 (good discussion of the problems of "food addiction" and argument for "eating addiction")
http://www.refinery29.com/2015/01/80504/sugar-addiction-myths?utm_source=email&utm_medium=editorial&utm_content=everywhere&utm_campaign=150114-sugar-addiction-myths (nice article with interviews, and addresses this "sugar=heroin" nonsense that always comes up in these threads)
Good that you found something that works for you. Whatever is your experience is true for you. I am not questioning that. If moderation works for you, good for you (same for people who have problem feeling out of control with drinking).
Feeling out of control with food is quite different from alcoholism, IME.At the same time, whatever I experience is true to me. For me abstaining from sweets (candy, cakes, cookies, soda pop etc) works best and I do that.
Sure, not saying you shouldn't. I am saying that that approach shouldn't be assumed to be the One True One or necessary since we are pretending food is addictive. In some cases it can even be harmful. But can it be a strategy that works for some? I specifically said before that I thought it could.At the same time, I do eat a lot of vegetables and fruits as I am mostly vegetarian (I may eat fish or chicken one meal in a couple weeks). I eat very small quantities of whole grains because as the other poster said, I have a hard time feeling satiated and stay within my calorie needs when I eat grains and I feel hungry within two hours. I don't hate any food groups, but anything with added sugar is bad for me and I will abstain as moderation doesn't work for me.
Okay.
And if you decide moderation doesn't work for you, it won't, that is certainly true. But if you are happier not eating added sugar, that's fine too.
Well...you may think that feeling out of control with food is quite different from alcoholism. That doesn't mean it is true. Also we are talking sugar, and specifically added sugar in this topic not food in general. Neither I said abstaining is a panacea for all addiction. But for many, abstaining works well.
Moderation didn't stop working for me after I decided it will not work for me. On the contrary, I came to the conclusion that moderation doesn't work for me after many failed attempts at moderation.
Also, from r29 article:
"Food manufacturers add sugar to just about everything, but you might be surprised to learn how often it's added to savory items. "There’s more added sugar per calorie in most pasta sauces than in ice cream toppings," Dr. Katz points out. "You'll see many potato chips brands with high-fructose corn syrup sprayed on at the end." That's because sweetness is an appetite stimulant, urging you to eat more. Dr. Katz calls this "stealth sugar," because you don't consciously taste it, but it increases the amount you need to eat to feel satisfied."
So added sugar causes people to eat more. It is an appetite stimulant for vast majority of people. Though the article cleverly not mentions sugar in cakes, candies, it has the same effect on many people where they are stimulated to eat more of it. Then the article says practice mindfulness while eating added sugar. It doesn't explain how to practice mindfulness when sugar has interfered with your brain chemistry and driving a primal desire to eat more of it.
Yeah, I'm sure the 1 gram of added sugar per bag of chips is going to make all the difference.
Well..what do you think is the reason for these manufacturers to add sugar in their products?
Taste, texture, so the spices stick to the chips...
"the literal fraction of a gram of sugar per chip is going to make you go wild and hungry" is somewhere at the bottom of the list of possible reasons.
This couldn't be further from the truth. In fact, food companies actually add salt in addition to sugar, to hide the sweetness factor while the brain still gets the sugar reward. There is a reason that there is a TON of sugar in a jar of Prego sauce. They aren't winning you over with quality ingredients or authentic taste, so they are loading up on sugar and salt to make your brain happy.
Yeah, tomatoes have a ton of sugar. The pasta sauce argument is so weird, because they take a whole jar of something with like 10 or 20 servings and compare it to one soda or candy bar. AND they never distinguish between added and intrinsic sugars.
I have a tomato and meat sauce saved in my recipe box. It has a ton of vegetables in it -- onion, celery, carrots, eggplant, summer squash, chard, and of course a bunch of tomatoes. One serving has 7 grams of sugar. I looked up a commercial tomato sauce (heck, I'll even use Prego, although I'm sure some others are lower) and it has 10 grams of sugar/serving. With my sauce I know there is NO added sugar -- I am therefore curious how much added sugar is really in the Prego. I'm sure there's some -- my Marcella Hazen Italian cooking book recommends adding a little sugar to a red sauce, although I never do. But huge amounts? I'd need to see the numbers. (And happily we are getting labels that will make that clear.)
Well, they come from the same corner that said the 1 gram per 100g in a bag of chips (out of which 0.5 g are probably from the potatoes themselves too) is a huge amount and makes you hungry and they need to add salt to mask that huge amount of sugar.
It's like the argument that people overeat McDonald's because of sugar.
Yeah, I really don't think so.4 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3600914/Makeover-coming-food-nutrition-labels.html#ixzz49DXK3ZpJ
USA to now label added sugar on nutrition labels.
Yeah, there's a thread about this elsewhere, and I referenced it. Not sure why you are using the Daily Mail as a source for a US regulation/policy change, though. I'm honestly kind of curious if you feel like telling me.4 -
I just had a burger too. I could easily have had 4. The white bun was also equally tasty. Why could I eat 4? They are tasty and food makes me happy. Same with McDonalds for others (I think they are yuck) but salt, fat, protein, sugar all thrown in together makes something delicious. Delicious is addictive.5
-
I read both Yudkin's and Lustig's books after this Guardian article came out. Yudkin's book "Pure, White, and Deadly" was written contemporaneously with Ancel Keys's Seven Countries Study and I think serves as a needed corrective to Keys. Yudkin points out that Keys selected only the data from his set which correlated with his assumption that saturated fat leads to heart disease -- that's bad science. Yudkin also points out that the consumption of added sugars correlates at least as strongly with heart disease as saturated fat. He backs this statement up with research of his own.
I think we would have less of an obesity epidemic if we had listened to him in the 1970's instead of making saturated fat the villain and sugar a comedic-relief side kick in our nutritional saga.
Lustig's book "Fat Chance" starts in a good place: his observation that our assumption that sugar is innocent has led to nutrition policies which make a super-abundance of sugars available cheaply; which in turn has had a strong correlation with obesity-related diseases in the infants and children he sees in his practice. He takes a bit of a conspiratorial turn after that point. He claims the WHO report calling for an RDA of 50 grams of sugar a day was suppressed when it was adopted by the WHO internationally and the American Heart Association here.
He does point out the reality that nutrition labels don't differentiate between naturally occurring sugars and added sugars and this is a valid problem. You can't tell from a nutrition label whether your apple has been sweetened with grape juice concentrate and that's a problem.
Between the two books and various references I think that something an average of 50 grams a day of total sugars should probably be the normal rate of consumption. On average eat about three times that amount in just added sugars (1) -- and that works out to 10 lbs a month in sugar per person. I think anyone looking at two bags of sugar would think it was impossible to eat that in a month, and yet we do.
(1) http://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2012/08/30/how-much-sugar-are-americans-eating-infographic/#39146bfe1f71
Honest question: Does this refer to whole apples for sale in the fresh produce aisle? If not, wouldn't the nutrition label have to list grape juice concentrate as an ingredient?0 -
pcoslady83 wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »
Sugar may not interfere with your brain chemistry, but you cannot speak for people for whom it does.Carlos_421 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »The heroine analogy is a bit much, but her point is to address the seemingly illogical idea that abstinence is more sustainable than moderation. In which case a comparison to addiction in general is more appropriate. Since the idea that sugar as a substance is addictive is very debatable, consider addictions which are not related to a substance. In those cases, moderation is very rarely prescribed.
But with eating addiction you (1) can't stop the behavior (we don't have to gamble, but we do have to eat), and (2) in at least many cases restriction itself makes the problem worse, if not actually causing it in the first place (which is why many recovered binge eaters and other ED sufferers (including overeaters) point to restrictive behavior/labeling foods bad and good as an issue. That's why -- even though I think for SOME people more restrictive approaches, like cutting out certain trigger foods or cutting down on carbs (I can't go along with the idea that cutting out all carbs and sugar, including veg, is healthy absent an actual health reason, like Crohn's, for doing so) is a helpful approach. It seems that for many others it's really counterproductive. I do find that the more I demonize foods (and this is something I've been prone to and work against) I have less control with them when I do eat them. Really consciously focusing on taking a logical approach to foods is one reason I think I've mostly managed to get rid of trigger foods. Again, not saying this works for everyone, but I would strongly caution you against the idea that if someone feels out of control about food or certain foods (as I have in the past), that the first and best answer should be "remove them, because a drunk shouldn't try to drink in moderation, right?"
Here are some links I think are worthwhile:
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/139/3/617.full (includes a discussion of the link between restriction and binging)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763414002140 (good discussion of the problems of "food addiction" and argument for "eating addiction")
http://www.refinery29.com/2015/01/80504/sugar-addiction-myths?utm_source=email&utm_medium=editorial&utm_content=everywhere&utm_campaign=150114-sugar-addiction-myths (nice article with interviews, and addresses this "sugar=heroin" nonsense that always comes up in these threads)
Good that you found something that works for you. Whatever is your experience is true for you. I am not questioning that. If moderation works for you, good for you (same for people who have problem feeling out of control with drinking).
Feeling out of control with food is quite different from alcoholism, IME.At the same time, whatever I experience is true to me. For me abstaining from sweets (candy, cakes, cookies, soda pop etc) works best and I do that.
Sure, not saying you shouldn't. I am saying that that approach shouldn't be assumed to be the One True One or necessary since we are pretending food is addictive. In some cases it can even be harmful. But can it be a strategy that works for some? I specifically said before that I thought it could.At the same time, I do eat a lot of vegetables and fruits as I am mostly vegetarian (I may eat fish or chicken one meal in a couple weeks). I eat very small quantities of whole grains because as the other poster said, I have a hard time feeling satiated and stay within my calorie needs when I eat grains and I feel hungry within two hours. I don't hate any food groups, but anything with added sugar is bad for me and I will abstain as moderation doesn't work for me.
It doesn't explain how to practice mindfulness when sugar has interfered with your brain chemistry and driving a primal desire to eat more of it.
Probably because sugar doesn't interfere with your brain chemistry or drive a primal desire to eat more of it. It just doesn't. It's not a mind altering or addictive substance. Any claims to the contrary are completely contradictory to all scientific evidence.
People eat sugar because it tastes good and they enjoy it. It's not warping their brain and driving them into fits to get their next hit of gummy bears.
I say this with all sensitivity - as someone who has had plenty of battles with eating disorders, I know how much eating issues suck - but why are you so convinced that something is wrong with your brain chemistry rather than that you have learned a disordered behavior? Why are you so sure it's the sugar's fault messing with your brain, rather than you like sugary, hyperpalatable foods, so you'd consume more and more of them, thus reinforcing the idea in your brain that sugary foods were meant to be overconsumed?
I can turn around an ask the same question. How are people so convinced that it is will power and not the brain chemistry? I am in no way reinforcing the idea in my brain that sugary foods were meant to be overconsumed. On the contrary, I am saying that there is absolutely no need for added sugar in our diet.
I am also saying that one person's experience is not an universal experience. If added sugar works for you, go for it. If moderation works for you, go for it. If abstaining works for you, go for it.
1) Sugar is addictive, and can be even more addictive than cocaine:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23719144
2) And we already know that some people can walk away from cocaine, and others cannot, due to that individuals brain chemistry. The answer is pretty simple. We already know sugar has no health qualities of any kind, and that 3 when you consider it as a fuel source, it is almost entirely negative in how it is processed by the human body. We also know that for some people it can be extremely addictive. Willpower requirements for sugar can vary from one person to the next dramatically. For one person, it may seem like going without a cupcake. 4) For another person, it can feel like going without air.
5) But a calorie is not a calorie, and sugar is the worst kind. And it's addictive. Not really sure why there is a debate on this. The willpower one is old (and biased). To make matters more confusing, even willpower itself is a brain chemistry thing (and different from one person to the next). What is important to know is that (A) 6) sugar is bad, and (B) everyone reacts differently to it.
1) Anyone who's dealt with drug addiction will tell you that this false claim is not only ridiculous but potentially offensive.
2) No one who is addicted to cocaine can just walk away from it. Someone who used it once or twice at a party may be able to walk away but once someone is addicted, it's not so simple as walking away.
Still yet, sugar addict after sugar addict assures us that once they kicked sugar out for a few weeks, all they're cravings were gone! Cured!!
3) Actually, I would say that quick energy and glycogen restoration are pretty beneficial. Can you name something bad that happens from ingesting sugar? And before you say it spikes insulin, 1) that's not a bad thing and 2) so does protein.
4) Pig manure.
5) A calorie is a unit of energy. A calorie from sugar has the same amount of energy as a calorie from protein or a calorie from fat. That's all a calorie is. What you likely mean (yet even more likely don't understand the difference) is that a nutrient is not just a nutrient. A gram of fat is not a gram of carbs. A gram of carbs is not a gram of protein. An orange does not have the same vitamins as a cut of beef.
However, weight maintenance/gain/loss is determined entirely by energy balance. Eating 100 more calories than you burn will result in weight gain. Eating 100 calories less than you burn will result in weight loss. This is scientific fact and holds true regardless of the source of those calories.
6) Not only is sugar not bad but it is so vital to life that if you don't eat it, your body will produce it on it's own because if you don't have glucose in your blood you will die.11 -
AngelMommy13 wrote: »The people who seem to be against the idea that sugar can be a problem for people seem to be those for whom sugar has never been a problem. It didn't happen to me so I don't believe it, and that's where Lustig exaggerated: Sugar is not a problem for everybody, but it is a problem for many. Just because the nutrition powers of yesteryear had fat labelled as the nutritional problem child in the 80s, it does not mean that sugar has been mislabelled as a problem nutrient ( or as the scapegoat) today. It IS a problem for some.
Looking within myself did not help me lose weight. The minute I dropped sugar and reduced my carbs I lost weight. Easily and lots of it. You bet I was eating too many calories but I was eating too much because of sugar (and partially due to those carbs which are readily converted to sugar). I didn't have to do any soul searching or suddenly develop great will power in order to lose weight; all I had to do was cut sugar out of my diet and I was much less hungry, I lost my cravings, and the slight thermogenic poperties of a very LCHF diet helped a bit too.
I also love cheese and nuts and overeat those pretty regularly but that's not what made me fat either. Candy, soda, muffins, and unneeded carby plate fillers made me fat. I cut those and replaced them with other macro nutrients (at a slight caloric deficit) and lost weight. Simply cutting calories was not sustainable for more that a week or two for me. Cut sugar too? Suddenly it was easy to lose. It may not be true for all, but it was for me and it is true for many, especially those of us with IR issues (known and undiagnosed). I am not a special snowflake here.
Sure, many people are fine with eating sugar but many aren't. I was fine with sugar until I approached 40, when suddenly I was not. Stating sugar is a problem for all is wrong, and Lustig should stop it. Staing that sugar is NOT a problem for all is just as wrong - claiming it is a scapegoat is incorrect. A better statement might be that sugar is not a problem for some people, although it may become a problem for some of them later, and that it is indeed a problem for some people right now (somewhere between 1/3 to 1/2 it appears to me based on those affected with IR issues like NAFLD, T2D, PCOS, prediabetes, Alzheimer's, as well as some of those who find weight loss difficult without sugar reduction - not a tiny group).
... This thread should probably be moved to the debate section.
I agree completely. I have insulin resistance so sugar is definitely a big cause for weight gain. Those who it isn't a problem for are extremely lucky. I was cutting calories, working out and not losing any weight. Went to the Dr and they told me I was insulin resistant. Cut out sugars, processed, foods ect and tada!, the weight started coming off.
Your disease is the problem.
Saying that sugar is bad because you have a disease (IR) is like saying almonds are bad because you have a nut allergy.6 -
At best, I see sugar as neutral in terms of health. At worst, I see it as contributing to health problems. Same thing goes for weight management. I doubt there are many out there who can lose weight with relative ease while eating a high sugar diet.
LOL - I guess I'm that exception! When I was actively losing weight (I'm at goal and have been for over four years). I ate double (sometimes triple) the sugar that MFP recommended. Candy, cupcakes, cookies, ice cream, sweetened yogurt, and fruit were all major players in my day-to-day diet. I just stayed within my calorie goal and the weight came off reliably, steadily, and effortlessly. In the end, I lost about 60 pounds.
I went back and randomly picked a day from 2011 - when I was working on losing weight. Chocolate pastry for breakfast - pineapple, strawberries, candy at lunch - two sugar cookies for a snack. I'd say that was a pretty typical day during my weight loss phase. It came out to 1836 calories and I came fairly close to all my macro goals. I probably eat less sugar and more vegetables now, in my current weight maintenance phase . I'm not sure why - maybe my food preferences have just evolved. I still do 50-55% of my calories from carbs, and I still don't track sugar or carbs in my diary.
In case it matters... I'm 44, 5'9" and weigh somewhere between 135-140lbs. My doctor is very pleased with my health. So... for me, it really all did come down to CICO.
YOU ARE A SUPERHERO!!0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »
Sugar may not interfere with your brain chemistry, but you cannot speak for people for whom it does.Carlos_421 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »The heroine analogy is a bit much, but her point is to address the seemingly illogical idea that abstinence is more sustainable than moderation. In which case a comparison to addiction in general is more appropriate. Since the idea that sugar as a substance is addictive is very debatable, consider addictions which are not related to a substance. In those cases, moderation is very rarely prescribed.
But with eating addiction you (1) can't stop the behavior (we don't have to gamble, but we do have to eat), and (2) in at least many cases restriction itself makes the problem worse, if not actually causing it in the first place (which is why many recovered binge eaters and other ED sufferers (including overeaters) point to restrictive behavior/labeling foods bad and good as an issue. That's why -- even though I think for SOME people more restrictive approaches, like cutting out certain trigger foods or cutting down on carbs (I can't go along with the idea that cutting out all carbs and sugar, including veg, is healthy absent an actual health reason, like Crohn's, for doing so) is a helpful approach. It seems that for many others it's really counterproductive. I do find that the more I demonize foods (and this is something I've been prone to and work against) I have less control with them when I do eat them. Really consciously focusing on taking a logical approach to foods is one reason I think I've mostly managed to get rid of trigger foods. Again, not saying this works for everyone, but I would strongly caution you against the idea that if someone feels out of control about food or certain foods (as I have in the past), that the first and best answer should be "remove them, because a drunk shouldn't try to drink in moderation, right?"
Here are some links I think are worthwhile:
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/139/3/617.full (includes a discussion of the link between restriction and binging)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763414002140 (good discussion of the problems of "food addiction" and argument for "eating addiction")
http://www.refinery29.com/2015/01/80504/sugar-addiction-myths?utm_source=email&utm_medium=editorial&utm_content=everywhere&utm_campaign=150114-sugar-addiction-myths (nice article with interviews, and addresses this "sugar=heroin" nonsense that always comes up in these threads)
Good that you found something that works for you. Whatever is your experience is true for you. I am not questioning that. If moderation works for you, good for you (same for people who have problem feeling out of control with drinking).
Feeling out of control with food is quite different from alcoholism, IME.At the same time, whatever I experience is true to me. For me abstaining from sweets (candy, cakes, cookies, soda pop etc) works best and I do that.
Sure, not saying you shouldn't. I am saying that that approach shouldn't be assumed to be the One True One or necessary since we are pretending food is addictive. In some cases it can even be harmful. But can it be a strategy that works for some? I specifically said before that I thought it could.At the same time, I do eat a lot of vegetables and fruits as I am mostly vegetarian (I may eat fish or chicken one meal in a couple weeks). I eat very small quantities of whole grains because as the other poster said, I have a hard time feeling satiated and stay within my calorie needs when I eat grains and I feel hungry within two hours. I don't hate any food groups, but anything with added sugar is bad for me and I will abstain as moderation doesn't work for me.
It doesn't explain how to practice mindfulness when sugar has interfered with your brain chemistry and driving a primal desire to eat more of it.
Probably because sugar doesn't interfere with your brain chemistry or drive a primal desire to eat more of it. It just doesn't. It's not a mind altering or addictive substance. Any claims to the contrary are completely contradictory to all scientific evidence.
People eat sugar because it tastes good and they enjoy it. It's not warping their brain and driving them into fits to get their next hit of gummy bears.
I say this with all sensitivity - as someone who has had plenty of battles with eating disorders, I know how much eating issues suck - but why are you so convinced that something is wrong with your brain chemistry rather than that you have learned a disordered behavior? Why are you so sure it's the sugar's fault messing with your brain, rather than you like sugary, hyperpalatable foods, so you'd consume more and more of them, thus reinforcing the idea in your brain that sugary foods were meant to be overconsumed?
I can turn around an ask the same question. How are people so convinced that it is will power and not the brain chemistry? I am in no way reinforcing the idea in my brain that sugary foods were meant to be overconsumed. On the contrary, I am saying that there is absolutely no need for added sugar in our diet.
I am also saying that one person's experience is not an universal experience. If added sugar works for you, go for it. If moderation works for you, go for it. If abstaining works for you, go for it.
1) Sugar is addictive, and can be even more addictive than cocaine:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23719144
2) And we already know that some people can walk away from cocaine, and others cannot, due to that individuals brain chemistry. The answer is pretty simple. We already know sugar has no health qualities of any kind, and that 3 when you consider it as a fuel source, it is almost entirely negative in how it is processed by the human body. We also know that for some people it can be extremely addictive. Willpower requirements for sugar can vary from one person to the next dramatically. For one person, it may seem like going without a cupcake. 4) For another person, it can feel like going without air.
5) But a calorie is not a calorie, and sugar is the worst kind. And it's addictive. Not really sure why there is a debate on this. The willpower one is old (and biased). To make matters more confusing, even willpower itself is a brain chemistry thing (and different from one person to the next). What is important to know is that (A) 6) sugar is bad, and (B) everyone reacts differently to it.
1) Anyone who's dealt with drug addiction will tell you that this false claim is not only ridiculous but potentially offensive.
2) No one who is addicted to cocaine can just walk away from it. Someone who used it once or twice at a party may be able to walk away but once someone is addicted, it's not so simple as walking away.
Still yet, sugar addict after sugar addict assures us that once they kicked sugar out for a few weeks, all they're cravings were gone! Cured!!
3) Actually, I would say that quick energy and glycogen restoration are pretty beneficial. Can you name something bad that happens from ingesting sugar? And before you say it spikes insulin, 1) that's not a bad thing and 2) so does protein.
4) Pig manure.
5) A calorie is a unit of energy. A calorie from sugar has the same amount of energy as a calorie from protein or a calorie from fat. That's all a calorie is. What you likely mean (yet even more likely don't understand the difference) is that a nutrient is not just a nutrient. A gram of fat is not a gram of carbs. A gram of carbs is not a gram of protein. An orange does not have the same vitamins as a cut of beef.
However, weight maintenance/gain/loss is determined entirely by energy balance. Eating 100 more calories than you burn will result in weight gain. Eating 100 calories less than you burn will result in weight loss. This is scientific fact and holds true regardless of the source of those calories.
6) Not only is sugar not bad but it is so vital to life that if you don't eat it, your body will produce it on it's own because if you don't have glucose in your blood you will die.
All. Of. This.1 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »
Sugar may not interfere with your brain chemistry, but you cannot speak for people for whom it does.Carlos_421 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »The heroine analogy is a bit much, but her point is to address the seemingly illogical idea that abstinence is more sustainable than moderation. In which case a comparison to addiction in general is more appropriate. Since the idea that sugar as a substance is addictive is very debatable, consider addictions which are not related to a substance. In those cases, moderation is very rarely prescribed.
But with eating addiction you (1) can't stop the behavior (we don't have to gamble, but we do have to eat), and (2) in at least many cases restriction itself makes the problem worse, if not actually causing it in the first place (which is why many recovered binge eaters and other ED sufferers (including overeaters) point to restrictive behavior/labeling foods bad and good as an issue. That's why -- even though I think for SOME people more restrictive approaches, like cutting out certain trigger foods or cutting down on carbs (I can't go along with the idea that cutting out all carbs and sugar, including veg, is healthy absent an actual health reason, like Crohn's, for doing so) is a helpful approach. It seems that for many others it's really counterproductive. I do find that the more I demonize foods (and this is something I've been prone to and work against) I have less control with them when I do eat them. Really consciously focusing on taking a logical approach to foods is one reason I think I've mostly managed to get rid of trigger foods. Again, not saying this works for everyone, but I would strongly caution you against the idea that if someone feels out of control about food or certain foods (as I have in the past), that the first and best answer should be "remove them, because a drunk shouldn't try to drink in moderation, right?"
Here are some links I think are worthwhile:
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/139/3/617.full (includes a discussion of the link between restriction and binging)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763414002140 (good discussion of the problems of "food addiction" and argument for "eating addiction")
http://www.refinery29.com/2015/01/80504/sugar-addiction-myths?utm_source=email&utm_medium=editorial&utm_content=everywhere&utm_campaign=150114-sugar-addiction-myths (nice article with interviews, and addresses this "sugar=heroin" nonsense that always comes up in these threads)
Good that you found something that works for you. Whatever is your experience is true for you. I am not questioning that. If moderation works for you, good for you (same for people who have problem feeling out of control with drinking).
Feeling out of control with food is quite different from alcoholism, IME.At the same time, whatever I experience is true to me. For me abstaining from sweets (candy, cakes, cookies, soda pop etc) works best and I do that.
Sure, not saying you shouldn't. I am saying that that approach shouldn't be assumed to be the One True One or necessary since we are pretending food is addictive. In some cases it can even be harmful. But can it be a strategy that works for some? I specifically said before that I thought it could.At the same time, I do eat a lot of vegetables and fruits as I am mostly vegetarian (I may eat fish or chicken one meal in a couple weeks). I eat very small quantities of whole grains because as the other poster said, I have a hard time feeling satiated and stay within my calorie needs when I eat grains and I feel hungry within two hours. I don't hate any food groups, but anything with added sugar is bad for me and I will abstain as moderation doesn't work for me.
It doesn't explain how to practice mindfulness when sugar has interfered with your brain chemistry and driving a primal desire to eat more of it.
Probably because sugar doesn't interfere with your brain chemistry or drive a primal desire to eat more of it. It just doesn't. It's not a mind altering or addictive substance. Any claims to the contrary are completely contradictory to all scientific evidence.
People eat sugar because it tastes good and they enjoy it. It's not warping their brain and driving them into fits to get their next hit of gummy bears.
I say this with all sensitivity - as someone who has had plenty of battles with eating disorders, I know how much eating issues suck - but why are you so convinced that something is wrong with your brain chemistry rather than that you have learned a disordered behavior? Why are you so sure it's the sugar's fault messing with your brain, rather than you like sugary, hyperpalatable foods, so you'd consume more and more of them, thus reinforcing the idea in your brain that sugary foods were meant to be overconsumed?
I can turn around an ask the same question. How are people so convinced that it is will power and not the brain chemistry? I am in no way reinforcing the idea in my brain that sugary foods were meant to be overconsumed. On the contrary, I am saying that there is absolutely no need for added sugar in our diet.
I am also saying that one person's experience is not an universal experience. If added sugar works for you, go for it. If moderation works for you, go for it. If abstaining works for you, go for it.
1) Sugar is addictive, and can be even more addictive than cocaine:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23719144
2) And we already know that some people can walk away from cocaine, and others cannot, due to that individuals brain chemistry. The answer is pretty simple. We already know sugar has no health qualities of any kind, and that 3 when you consider it as a fuel source, it is almost entirely negative in how it is processed by the human body. We also know that for some people it can be extremely addictive. Willpower requirements for sugar can vary from one person to the next dramatically. For one person, it may seem like going without a cupcake. 4) For another person, it can feel like going without air.
5) But a calorie is not a calorie, and sugar is the worst kind. And it's addictive. Not really sure why there is a debate on this. The willpower one is old (and biased). To make matters more confusing, even willpower itself is a brain chemistry thing (and different from one person to the next). What is important to know is that (A) 6) sugar is bad, and (B) everyone reacts differently to it.
1) Anyone who's dealt with drug addiction will tell you that this false claim is not only ridiculous but potentially offensive.
2) No one who is addicted to cocaine can just walk away from it. Someone who used it once or twice at a party may be able to walk away but once someone is addicted, it's not so simple as walking away.
Still yet, sugar addict after sugar addict assures us that once they kicked sugar out for a few weeks, all they're cravings were gone! Cured!!
3) Actually, I would say that quick energy and glycogen restoration are pretty beneficial. Can you name something bad that happens from ingesting sugar? And before you say it spikes insulin, 1) that's not a bad thing and 2) so does protein.
4) Pig manure.
5) A calorie is a unit of energy. A calorie from sugar has the same amount of energy as a calorie from protein or a calorie from fat. That's all a calorie is. What you likely mean (yet even more likely don't understand the difference) is that a nutrient is not just a nutrient. A gram of fat is not a gram of carbs. A gram of carbs is not a gram of protein. An orange does not have the same vitamins as a cut of beef.
However, weight maintenance/gain/loss is determined entirely by energy balance. Eating 100 more calories than you burn will result in weight gain. Eating 100 calories less than you burn will result in weight loss. This is scientific fact and holds true regardless of the source of those calories.
6) Not only is sugar not bad but it is so vital to life that if you don't eat it, your body will produce it on it's own because if you don't have glucose in your blood you will die.
The last part can't be repeated enough. You always have sugar in your blood, your body needs it to live. Thinking added sugar somehow *kitten* over your brain chemistry is on par with thinking getting a blood transfusion gives you the character of the donor.7 -
robingmurphy wrote: »Here's my thoughts/experience: Compulsive overeating is a bad habit. We can form compulsive habits from anything that gives us a dopamine spike (shopping, gambling, etc.) Overeating food in general provides a dopamine spike, so it can be compulsive habit forming. Sugar-bearing foods for many/most people cause a stronger dopamine spike than many other foods, so they are more likely to result in a compulsive habit for people who are susceptible to it. For me, it is very easy to form compulsive habits around food, in particular for me high sugar foods (because of the increased dopamine spike over other foods), so I do eat them, but I'm careful with them. More careful than I am with a food that is lower in sugar.
I think this most closely describes what's going on with most people who say they're addicted to sugar or other foods. It's rewarding to them (and perhaps the reward signals are stronger for them than for others) and it's thus easier for it to become a compulsive habit in their lives.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3600914/Makeover-coming-food-nutrition-labels.html#ixzz49DXK3ZpJ
USA to now label added sugar on nutrition labels.
Yeah, there's a thread about this elsewhere, and I referenced it. Not sure why you are using the Daily Mail as a source for a US regulation/policy change, though. I'm honestly kind of curious if you feel like telling me.
I was wondering this too - why would a UK based publication (which includes a slant toward credulous journalism, IMO) would be the source for a change in US based policy changes?1 -
singingflutelady wrote: »Wow this post has really turned bad. Eek
No *kitten*. I take back my comments from two days ago about how people were really trying to understand each other's perspectives and not just spout spurious claims based on "well this is how it happens FOR ME so therefore it must be true for everyone else".4 -
While I get what you're saying, for them to think people shouldn't really be eating more than 5% of their total calories from it, I would think they consider it bad enough. That's a fairly small amount for a lot of people (especially those with lower calorie requirements). And in regards to the obesity epidemic, just about everyone eats more than that (even I often eat slightly more than that.)lemurcat12 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »
Sugar may not interfere with your brain chemistry, but you cannot speak for people for whom it does.Carlos_421 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »The heroine analogy is a bit much, but her point is to address the seemingly illogical idea that abstinence is more sustainable than moderation. In which case a comparison to addiction in general is more appropriate. Since the idea that sugar as a substance is addictive is very debatable, consider addictions which are not related to a substance. In those cases, moderation is very rarely prescribed.
But with eating addiction you (1) can't stop the behavior (we don't have to gamble, but we do have to eat), and (2) in at least many cases restriction itself makes the problem worse, if not actually causing it in the first place (which is why many recovered binge eaters and other ED sufferers (including overeaters) point to restrictive behavior/labeling foods bad and good as an issue. That's why -- even though I think for SOME people more restrictive approaches, like cutting out certain trigger foods or cutting down on carbs (I can't go along with the idea that cutting out all carbs and sugar, including veg, is healthy absent an actual health reason, like Crohn's, for doing so) is a helpful approach. It seems that for many others it's really counterproductive. I do find that the more I demonize foods (and this is something I've been prone to and work against) I have less control with them when I do eat them. Really consciously focusing on taking a logical approach to foods is one reason I think I've mostly managed to get rid of trigger foods. Again, not saying this works for everyone, but I would strongly caution you against the idea that if someone feels out of control about food or certain foods (as I have in the past), that the first and best answer should be "remove them, because a drunk shouldn't try to drink in moderation, right?"
Here are some links I think are worthwhile:
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/139/3/617.full (includes a discussion of the link between restriction and binging)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763414002140 (good discussion of the problems of "food addiction" and argument for "eating addiction")
http://www.refinery29.com/2015/01/80504/sugar-addiction-myths?utm_source=email&utm_medium=editorial&utm_content=everywhere&utm_campaign=150114-sugar-addiction-myths (nice article with interviews, and addresses this "sugar=heroin" nonsense that always comes up in these threads)
Good that you found something that works for you. Whatever is your experience is true for you. I am not questioning that. If moderation works for you, good for you (same for people who have problem feeling out of control with drinking).
Feeling out of control with food is quite different from alcoholism, IME.At the same time, whatever I experience is true to me. For me abstaining from sweets (candy, cakes, cookies, soda pop etc) works best and I do that.
Sure, not saying you shouldn't. I am saying that that approach shouldn't be assumed to be the One True One or necessary since we are pretending food is addictive. In some cases it can even be harmful. But can it be a strategy that works for some? I specifically said before that I thought it could.At the same time, I do eat a lot of vegetables and fruits as I am mostly vegetarian (I may eat fish or chicken one meal in a couple weeks). I eat very small quantities of whole grains because as the other poster said, I have a hard time feeling satiated and stay within my calorie needs when I eat grains and I feel hungry within two hours. I don't hate any food groups, but anything with added sugar is bad for me and I will abstain as moderation doesn't work for me.
It doesn't explain how to practice mindfulness when sugar has interfered with your brain chemistry and driving a primal desire to eat more of it.
Probably because sugar doesn't interfere with your brain chemistry or drive a primal desire to eat more of it. It just doesn't. It's not a mind altering or addictive substance. Any claims to the contrary are completely contradictory to all scientific evidence.
People eat sugar because it tastes good and they enjoy it. It's not warping their brain and driving them into fits to get their next hit of gummy bears.
I say this with all sensitivity - as someone who has had plenty of battles with eating disorders, I know how much eating issues suck - but why are you so convinced that something is wrong with your brain chemistry rather than that you have learned a disordered behavior? Why are you so sure it's the sugar's fault messing with your brain, rather than you like sugary, hyperpalatable foods, so you'd consume more and more of them, thus reinforcing the idea in your brain that sugary foods were meant to be overconsumed?
I can turn around an ask the same question. How are people so convinced that it is will power and not the brain chemistry? I am in no way reinforcing the idea in my brain that sugary foods were meant to be overconsumed. On the contrary, I am saying that there is absolutely no need for added sugar in our diet.
I am also saying that one person's experience is not an universal experience. If added sugar works for you, go for it. If moderation works for you, go for it. If abstaining works for you, go for it.
Do you believe sugar should be banned like the article in the OP suggests? Have you had a chance to read any of the response articles that were posted, yet?
I don't believe sugar should be banned. I do believe that added sugar is bad for vast majority of people and it is one of the important causes for the obesity epidemic and people should be educated about this.
That's not the position that health entities like the WHO take. They recommend that it be limited, of course, but not that it is bad for people in any amount.
If someone wants to cut out added sugar as a personal choice, that's fine -- I did it for a bit myself and returned to it for a month later. But if it were truly addictive you wouldn't be able to distinguish between added sugar and intrinsic sugar like this.
1 -
The Daily Mail are on par with Fox News in terms of scientific credibility.2
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions