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

Options
1…89111314…47

Replies

  • moe0303
    moe0303 Posts: 934 Member
    Options
    snikkins wrote: »
    moe0303 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    moe0303 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)

    If one has a problem with controlling consumption of donuts, they never have to eat a donut again. I'm sure many of you will reply with something like "a life without donuts isn't worth living!" or whatever, but many alcoholics feel the same way about drinking.

    I understand your point of view, but it isn't coming from someone who lives in this world. I talk with self described food (eating) addicts, anorexia and bulimia nervosa sufferers, compulsive overeaters and those with binge eating disorder almost daily. Abstinence is the OVERWHELMING majority of what they practice. That being said, it isn't the only method used to treat the problem. Either ("any" is a better word) method is only a tool and actual treatment and recovery comes on another level.

    Can I ask in what context you talk with these people?

    I belong to groups which are inclusive of those types of individuals.
  • moe0303
    moe0303 Posts: 934 Member
    Options
    paulgads82 wrote: »
    stevencloser wrote: »
    moe0303 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.

    It's not really debatable. There is absolutely nothing in sugar that counts as an addictive substance and virtually everyone who ever says they're "addicted to sugar" only overeats a certain small subset of foods containing sugar, whereas someone who was actually addicted to the substance wouldn't care where it's in, see hard cases of alcoholism where people drink hand sanitizer for god's sake.
    That's why I can't take anyone's comparisons to alcohol or even HEROIN seriously in the slightest, and find them quite insulting in fact.

    I will take the heroin comparison seriously when I see sugar rehabilitation clinics. I agree, it's a crass and insulting comparison. Plus you literally need sugar to function.

    I understand your reasons for taking offense. I wish I could offer an apology to you guys, but I haven't ever made the comparison as I know little about heroin addiction. Of course, I think the studies are partially to blame for this because they tend to draw the comparisons (even one of the links posted by lemurcat does this) which are then blown out of proportion from there.

    Regarding the bold, you are mistaken about that. Humans have no requirement to ingest sugar.
  • owensy12
    owensy12 Posts: 88 Member
    Options
    moe0303 wrote: »
    paulgads82 wrote: »
    stevencloser wrote: »
    moe0303 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.

    It's not really debatable. There is absolutely nothing in sugar that counts as an addictive substance and virtually everyone who ever says they're "addicted to sugar" only overeats a certain small subset of foods containing sugar, whereas someone who was actually addicted to the substance wouldn't care where it's in, see hard cases of alcoholism where people drink hand sanitizer for god's sake.
    That's why I can't take anyone's comparisons to alcohol or even HEROIN seriously in the slightest, and find them quite insulting in fact.

    I will take the heroin comparison seriously when I see sugar rehabilitation clinics. I agree, it's a crass and insulting comparison. Plus you literally need sugar to function.

    I understand your reasons for taking offense. I wish I could offer an apology to you guys, but I haven't ever made the comparison as I know little about heroin addiction. Of course, I think the studies are partially to blame for this because they tend to draw the comparisons (even one of the links posted by lemurcat does this) which are then blown out of proportion from there.

    Regarding the bold, you are mistaken about that. Humans have no requirement to ingest sugar.

    Exactly. We don't. Carbs are broken down in to sugar (glucose), but we have no need to include added sugar in our diets.
  • moe0303
    moe0303 Posts: 934 Member
    Options
    Guys,

    I don't really have the time or the energy to debate this today. My stance on this subject has changed little over time. The application of the word "addiction" to these cases seems to me to be a distractor. I think most of the time the word "compulsion" would probably fit better. That being said, I find the subject of the label to be inconsequential to the treatment of the condition. Whether it is an addiction or compulsion or something else, the individual will need to address the problem on psychological level very similar to (if not exactly like) treatments used for other, more readily accepted, addictions. This has been happening for decades.

    You all have a good weekend.

  • paulgads82
    paulgads82 Posts: 256 Member
    Options
    I think that's a little pedantic, besides I never actually said ingested sugar, if we are going to continue the pedantry ;)
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    moe0303 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    moe0303 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)

    If one has a problem with controlling consumption of donuts, they never have to eat a donut again. I'm sure many of you will reply with something like "a life without donuts isn't worth living!" or whatever, but many alcoholics feel the same way about drinking.

    No, I think giving up donuts is pretty trivial and for some people might be an okay strategy, although I am skeptical it will work as a long-term solution. (Don't care if someone tries it, though.) I also don't think the alcohol comparison is valid, and NONE of the research supports an idea of "donut addiction." (Donuts are physically the same as many other foods.)

    In that the arguments are for SUGAR addiction or FOOD addiction and that the best evidence supports EATING addiction, it's not surprising that the experts don't seem to think abstinence is the best and obvious path. Again, not saying someone shouldn't try it -- or something like low carb -- but it's important to be aware of how in many cases strategies of restriction can be exactly wrong for people with control and bingeing issues around food. I've heard this anecdotally from many people (apparently the opposite of your experience, but there's a certain self selection there, as I suspect yours is coming from low carb groups and the like) and more important, from the experts and research, such as my links indicated.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    pcoslady83 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    moe0303 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.
  • moe0303
    moe0303 Posts: 934 Member
    Options
    stevencloser wrote: »
    moe0303 wrote: »
    paulgads82 wrote: »
    stevencloser wrote: »
    moe0303 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.

    It's not really debatable. There is absolutely nothing in sugar that counts as an addictive substance and virtually everyone who ever says they're "addicted to sugar" only overeats a certain small subset of foods containing sugar, whereas someone who was actually addicted to the substance wouldn't care where it's in, see hard cases of alcoholism where people drink hand sanitizer for god's sake.
    That's why I can't take anyone's comparisons to alcohol or even HEROIN seriously in the slightest, and find them quite insulting in fact.

    I will take the heroin comparison seriously when I see sugar rehabilitation clinics. I agree, it's a crass and insulting comparison. Plus you literally need sugar to function.

    I understand your reasons for taking offense. I wish I could offer an apology to you guys, but I haven't ever made the comparison as I know little about heroin addiction. Of course, I think the studies are partially to blame for this because they tend to draw the comparisons (even one of the links posted by lemurcat does this) which are then blown out of proportion from there.

    Regarding the bold, you are mistaken about that. Humans have no requirement to ingest sugar.
    owensy12 wrote: »
    moe0303 wrote: »
    paulgads82 wrote: »
    stevencloser wrote: »
    moe0303 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.

    It's not really debatable. There is absolutely nothing in sugar that counts as an addictive substance and virtually everyone who ever says they're "addicted to sugar" only overeats a certain small subset of foods containing sugar, whereas someone who was actually addicted to the substance wouldn't care where it's in, see hard cases of alcoholism where people drink hand sanitizer for god's sake.
    That's why I can't take anyone's comparisons to alcohol or even HEROIN seriously in the slightest, and find them quite insulting in fact.

    I will take the heroin comparison seriously when I see sugar rehabilitation clinics. I agree, it's a crass and insulting comparison. Plus you literally need sugar to function.

    I understand your reasons for taking offense. I wish I could offer an apology to you guys, but I haven't ever made the comparison as I know little about heroin addiction. Of course, I think the studies are partially to blame for this because they tend to draw the comparisons (even one of the links posted by lemurcat does this) which are then blown out of proportion from there.

    Regarding the bold, you are mistaken about that. Humans have no requirement to ingest sugar.

    Exactly. We don't. Carbs are broken down in to sugar (glucose), but we have no need to include added sugar in our diets.

    Your body needs glucose all the same, if you don't consume it it has to create its own. You literally at all times have that substance in your blood as long as you're alive. Hence why the comparison to addictive substances is so wrong.

    Also note that substance addiction includes the substance giving you physical dependency additionally to the psychological component, the psychological part can for example be seen with people giving up smoking fiddling around with their hands all the time because they were so used to having a cigarette in their hand and the positive feelings their brain associates with having something between their fingers.
    In contrast to that is addiction to certain actions where it's just the psychological component like gambling or binge eating where you're addicted to a feeling caused by the action, not something inherent to the thing making you dependent on it. People who are addicted to gambling will not selectively only have a problem with slots and be fine around black jack because they're addicted to the idea of gambling, the thrill, ups and downs etc.
    The way "sugar addiction" is portrayed on these boards fits neither of those two addiction "archetypes", it's not a substance that can give you a physical dependency, but the action of "eating something sweet" would not differentiate between things with added sugar or not, so the small subset of sweet things people list they can't stop eating doesn't fit with addiction either, they should have similar problems around sweet fruit or a ton of other things. Yet it's always a very personalized and small group of things that get listed, one says soda, others say sweets, others yet bakery things, cakes or other things. Most of those also have tons of fat and wouldn't taste nearly as good if they were low fat, but no one says they've got fat addiction.

    I wish Shell was still around, she had lots of insight into the whole addiction thing.

    I know a few who claim to only have problems with fat and salt, though not on here. They follow the same protocol. I've heard Shell's story before. I think I remember her saying that she had binge eating disorder but thought it was a sugar addiction, but through Cognitive Behavioral Therapy she realized that it wasn't a sugar addiction at all. In other words, she addressed the problem on psychological level very similar to treatments used for other, more readily accepted, addictions.

    I seriously have to go now...but have fun.
  • pcoslady83
    pcoslady83 Posts: 55 Member
    Options
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    pcoslady83 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    moe0303 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.
  • pcoslady83
    pcoslady83 Posts: 55 Member
    Options
    stevencloser wrote: »
    pcoslady83 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    pcoslady83 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    moe0303 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?
  • zyxst
    zyxst Posts: 9,134 Member
    Options
    moe0303 wrote: »
    stevencloser wrote: »
    moe0303 wrote: »
    paulgads82 wrote: »
    stevencloser wrote: »
    moe0303 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.

    It's not really debatable. There is absolutely nothing in sugar that counts as an addictive substance and virtually everyone who ever says they're "addicted to sugar" only overeats a certain small subset of foods containing sugar, whereas someone who was actually addicted to the substance wouldn't care where it's in, see hard cases of alcoholism where people drink hand sanitizer for god's sake.
    That's why I can't take anyone's comparisons to alcohol or even HEROIN seriously in the slightest, and find them quite insulting in fact.

    I will take the heroin comparison seriously when I see sugar rehabilitation clinics. I agree, it's a crass and insulting comparison. Plus you literally need sugar to function.

    I understand your reasons for taking offense. I wish I could offer an apology to you guys, but I haven't ever made the comparison as I know little about heroin addiction. Of course, I think the studies are partially to blame for this because they tend to draw the comparisons (even one of the links posted by lemurcat does this) which are then blown out of proportion from there.

    Regarding the bold, you are mistaken about that. Humans have no requirement to ingest sugar.
    owensy12 wrote: »
    moe0303 wrote: »
    paulgads82 wrote: »
    stevencloser wrote: »
    moe0303 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.

    It's not really debatable. There is absolutely nothing in sugar that counts as an addictive substance and virtually everyone who ever says they're "addicted to sugar" only overeats a certain small subset of foods containing sugar, whereas someone who was actually addicted to the substance wouldn't care where it's in, see hard cases of alcoholism where people drink hand sanitizer for god's sake.
    That's why I can't take anyone's comparisons to alcohol or even HEROIN seriously in the slightest, and find them quite insulting in fact.

    I will take the heroin comparison seriously when I see sugar rehabilitation clinics. I agree, it's a crass and insulting comparison. Plus you literally need sugar to function.

    I understand your reasons for taking offense. I wish I could offer an apology to you guys, but I haven't ever made the comparison as I know little about heroin addiction. Of course, I think the studies are partially to blame for this because they tend to draw the comparisons (even one of the links posted by lemurcat does this) which are then blown out of proportion from there.

    Regarding the bold, you are mistaken about that. Humans have no requirement to ingest sugar.

    Exactly. We don't. Carbs are broken down in to sugar (glucose), but we have no need to include added sugar in our diets.

    Your body needs glucose all the same, if you don't consume it it has to create its own. You literally at all times have that substance in your blood as long as you're alive. Hence why the comparison to addictive substances is so wrong.

    Also note that substance addiction includes the substance giving you physical dependency additionally to the psychological component, the psychological part can for example be seen with people giving up smoking fiddling around with their hands all the time because they were so used to having a cigarette in their hand and the positive feelings their brain associates with having something between their fingers.
    In contrast to that is addiction to certain actions where it's just the psychological component like gambling or binge eating where you're addicted to a feeling caused by the action, not something inherent to the thing making you dependent on it. People who are addicted to gambling will not selectively only have a problem with slots and be fine around black jack because they're addicted to the idea of gambling, the thrill, ups and downs etc.
    The way "sugar addiction" is portrayed on these boards fits neither of those two addiction "archetypes", it's not a substance that can give you a physical dependency, but the action of "eating something sweet" would not differentiate between things with added sugar or not, so the small subset of sweet things people list they can't stop eating doesn't fit with addiction either, they should have similar problems around sweet fruit or a ton of other things. Yet it's always a very personalized and small group of things that get listed, one says soda, others say sweets, others yet bakery things, cakes or other things. Most of those also have tons of fat and wouldn't taste nearly as good if they were low fat, but no one says they've got fat addiction.

    I wish Shell was still around, she had lots of insight into the whole addiction thing.

    I know a few who claim to only have problems with fat and salt, though not on here. They follow the same protocol. I've heard Shell's story before. I think I remember her saying that she had binge eating disorder but thought it was a sugar addiction, but through Cognitive Behavioral Therapy she realized that it wasn't a sugar addiction at all. In other words, she addressed the problem on psychological level very similar to treatments used for other, more readily accepted, addictions.

    I seriously have to go now...but have fun.

    Shell said she was a food addict, not sugar. Found a post that specifically mentions it, page 7 about half way down (16 posts up from the bottom) - http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10388272/addiction-versus-dependence/p7
  • kimny72
    kimny72 Posts: 16,013 Member
    Options
    I guess my question for people who say they are addicted to sugar, or who eat it compulsively, and who have to abstain, why do you not have to cut out fruits and sweet veggies as well? If you have no control over eating a bag of jelly beans, why don't you have the same issue with a bowl of ripe peaches, or a bunch of bananas? Do you stuff yourself on roasted carrots? Because those things taste just as "sweet" and contain just as much sugar as candy. If there was anything physical or chemical in your brain or your body causing you to eat too much candy, healthy sweet foods would have the same affect, wouldn't it?
  • Gamliela
    Gamliela Posts: 2,468 Member
    edited May 2016
    Options
    kimny72 wrote: »
    I guess my question for people who say they are addicted to sugar, or who eat it compulsively, and who have to abstain, why do you not have to cut out fruits and sweet veggies as well? If you have no control over eating a bag of jelly beans, why don't you have the same issue with a bowl of ripe peaches, or a bunch of bananas? Do you stuff yourself on roasted carrots? Because those things taste just as "sweet" and contain just as much sugar as candy. If there was anything physical or chemical in your brain or your body causing you to eat too much candy, healthy sweet foods would have the same affect, wouldn't it?

    I think the lady with the bowl full of sugar just went straight for the most dense sugar hit she could get in the quickest amount of time, and put herself in bed so she could sleep it off afterwards.

    A couple of pounds of roasted carrots (something far more appealing to me by the way)
    just wouldn't pack it for her.

  • paulgads82
    paulgads82 Posts: 256 Member
    Options
    pcoslady83 wrote: »
    stevencloser wrote: »
    pcoslady83 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    pcoslady83 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    moe0303 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?

    It tastes good. Ditto adding salt. Fat. Etc etc etc.
  • paulgads82
    paulgads82 Posts: 256 Member
    Options
    Gamliela wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    I guess my question for people who say they are addicted to sugar, or who eat it compulsively, and who have to abstain, why do you not have to cut out fruits and sweet veggies as well? If you have no control over eating a bag of jelly beans, why don't you have the same issue with a bowl of ripe peaches, or a bunch of bananas? Do you stuff yourself on roasted carrots? Because those things taste just as "sweet" and contain just as much sugar as candy. If there was anything physical or chemical in your brain or your body causing you to eat too much candy, healthy sweet foods would have the same affect, wouldn't it?

    I think the lady with the bowl full of sugar just went straight for the most dense sugar hit she could get in the quickest amount of time, and put herself in bed so she could sleep it off afterwards.

    A couple of pounds of roasted carrots (something far more appealing to me by the way)
    just wouldn't pack it for her.

    It would be interesting to find out how many people who think they have a sugar addiction have issues with fruit only.

Categories