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
-
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)
This worked for me, too. Once I stopped categorizing foods into "good" and "bad" they stopped having any power over me. Most of the time. It isn't perfect, but I haven't had a 5000 cal+ binge since I decided to eat all the foods I wanted in moderation.5 -
stevencloser wrote: »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 ***** over your brain chemistry is on par with thinking getting a blood transfusion gives you the character of the donor.
But how do you explain bronies???
2 -
lemurcat12 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)
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.
Really? I figured you would have better deductive reasoning skills than that. LCHF is not particularly likely to hold high membership of all the groups I listed. I'm starting to doubt your ability to perform objective analysis.
The "experts" in your links operate mostly in lab environments and while they do make a determination of cause, they do not conclude or offer a real world practical implementation of a solution.
You seem to say that someone afflicted with this condition is unable to stop the behavior because there are no alternatives. They have to eat. To me, that point of view makes an assumption that people have to eat all the foods. Your experts identified "specific foods, especially those that are rich in fat and/or sugar" as being capable of producing addiction-like behavior (this is true in my experience as well). I offered donuts as an example of a specific food which is both high in sugar and in fat content and is regarded as "highly palatable" to many people. I was not claiming such a thing as donut addiction, per se, but eliminating specific foods (like donuts or anything on which they binge) is certainly an option for those afflicted the condition.
All of this was to offer some insight to the question posed by Steven when he said:I do see a weird contradiction between having problems controlling sugar to the point where it sounds like you basically eat it against your will and just being able to cut it out completely and be absolutely fine.
The comparison (which is also employed by your experts) serves to offer a similar instance of people having problems ingesting a substance so that they basically do so against their will yet are often able to cut it out completely and be "fine".1 -
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.
Your comparison is flawed. Any parent who turns a blind eye to their child's diet and/or weight problem is not demonstrating good parenting skills, just like parents who don't care if their children are around second-hand smoke.0 -
paulgads82 wrote: »The Daily Mail are on par with Fox News in terms of scientific credibility.
Breaking:
Donald Trump blames the sugar epidemic on Mexico.9 -
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.
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.
Newsflash: Sugar doesn't cause diabetes. The consensus in the medical community is that the three big culprits are genetics, obesity and sedentary lifestyle.
Get obese on a high fat, low sugar diet and you're at risk for diabetes. Eat perfectly healthy but stay sedentary and you're at risk for diabetes. Do everything just right but have parents with diabetes and you're still at risk for diabetes.9 -
WinoGelato wrote: »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?
Heh, just saw this in wiki:The Mail's science journalism often follows a strategy of attention-grabbing headlines, often reporting on small studies of limited value for research. In 2010, physician Ben Goldacre commented that its health reporting was an "ongoing project to divide all the inanimate objects in the world into ones that either cause or prevent cancer."
And yeah, even in the US people are somewhat aware of the Mail's rather questionable reputation.3 -
paulgads82 wrote: »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.
Eating 100 calories of two different macro-nutrients can have a different effect on the body. That is all.
Insulin generation alone (and it's impact on the pancreas and other organs) is a factor. So is how many calories are burned from digesting the macro-nutrient. So is how that macro-nutrient feeds various tissues (or does not feed), and so is how the body gets rid of the waste of that macro as well.
This is what people mean when they say a calorie is not a calorie. Hopefully you didn't think someone was actually believing that a rock is not a rock. It's an expression. Easy as pie makes no sense grammatically, but we all know what it means.3 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3600914/Makeover-coming-food-nutrition-labels.html#ixzz49DXK3ZpJ
USA to now label added sugar on nutrition labels.
Do you go out of your way to cite the least credible sources possible?4 -
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.
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.
From here: https://www.diabetes.org.uk/Guide-to-diabetes/Enjoy-food/Eating-with-diabetes/Diabetes-food-myths/Myth-sugar-causes-diabetes/With Type 2 diabetes, though we know sugar doesn’t directly causes Type 2 diabetes, you are more likely to get it if you are overweight. You gain weight when you take in more calories than your body needs, and sugary foods and drinks contain a lot of calories.
And it's important to add that fatty foods and drinks are playing a part in our nation's expanding waistline.
So you can see if too much sugar is making you put on weight, then you are increasing your risk of getting Type 2 diabetes. But Type 2 diabetes is complex, and sugar is unlikely to be the only reason the condition develops.2 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
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.
No, they don't think it's "bad enough." They think that added sugar alone contributes calories and not any micronutrients, so when the problem is obesity and overconsumption of calories, it makes sense to limit consumption. Also, people tend to get it in foods that ALSO have lots of calories from fat, often sat fat, and other highly refined carbs. The WHO doesn't suggest that adding some sugar to a rhubarb sauce or in oatmeal if you like it better that way is a problem or that people can't continue having a little something sweet after dinner (or at breakfast, maybe). Just don't overdo it, as way too many do. (I think this is because we've lost traditional customs about eating and high cal options are oh so available, nothing more sinister than that.)1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »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?
Heh, just saw this in wiki:The Mail's science journalism often follows a strategy of attention-grabbing headlines, often reporting on small studies of limited value for research. In 2010, physician Ben Goldacre commented that its health reporting was an "ongoing project to divide all the inanimate objects in the world into ones that either cause or prevent cancer."
And yeah, even in the US people are somewhat aware of the Mail's rather questionable reputation.
Sadly many people latch onto those headlines and fail to vet the source of the information. I think one of the biggest problems with our society in general, and we see it often in these forums, is a tendency to blindly trust an article or document that confirms a particular viewpoint that the reader is passionate about with an absence of critical thinking about the content overall.2 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »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 ***** over your brain chemistry is on par with thinking getting a blood transfusion gives you the character of the donor.
But how do you explain bronies???
2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »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?
Heh, just saw this in wiki:The Mail's science journalism often follows a strategy of attention-grabbing headlines, often reporting on small studies of limited value for research. In 2010, physician Ben Goldacre commented that its health reporting was an "ongoing project to divide all the inanimate objects in the world into ones that either cause or prevent cancer."
And yeah, even in the US people are somewhat aware of the Mail's rather questionable reputation.
National Enquirer has its own headline grabbing. Perfect for today's threads.
http://www.nationalenquirer.com/q/food-addiction-real-reason-you-cant-lose-weight/
2 -
paulgads82 wrote: »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.
Eating 100 calories of two different macro-nutrients can have a different effect on the body. That is all.
Insulin generation alone (and it's impact on the pancreas and other organs) is a factor. So is how many calories are burned from digesting the macro-nutrient. So is how that macro-nutrient feeds various tissues (or does not feed), and so is how the body gets rid of the waste of that macro as well.
This is what people mean when they say a calorie is not a calorie. Hopefully you didn't think someone was actually believing that a rock is not a rock. It's an expression. Easy as pie makes no sense grammatically, but we all know what it means.
I find that people interpret that phrase in different ways. That's why when we talk about science we use clearly defined terminology that everyone agrees upon and understands, not "expressions".1 -
WinoGelato wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »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?
Heh, just saw this in wiki:The Mail's science journalism often follows a strategy of attention-grabbing headlines, often reporting on small studies of limited value for research. In 2010, physician Ben Goldacre commented that its health reporting was an "ongoing project to divide all the inanimate objects in the world into ones that either cause or prevent cancer."
And yeah, even in the US people are somewhat aware of the Mail's rather questionable reputation.
Sadly many people latch onto those headlines and fail to vet the source of the information. I think one of the biggest problems with our society in general, and we see it often in these forums, is a tendency to blindly trust an article or document that confirms a particular viewpoint that the reader is passionate about with an absence of critical thinking about the content overall.
Agreed, but that works both ways.
Wine & chocolate = healthy! is one of the biggest offenders.
Smoking doesn't cause cancer sells as well, to those who smoke.
"sugar is harmless" works well with people who don't like it much, or who like it a lot but don't want to give it up.
Wikipedia has a great page on all of the types of cognitive biases that exist. Ironically, message board content is usually 90% cognitive bias.1 -
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.
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.
From here: https://www.diabetes.org.uk/Guide-to-diabetes/Enjoy-food/Eating-with-diabetes/Diabetes-food-myths/Myth-sugar-causes-diabetes/With Type 2 diabetes, though we know sugar doesn’t directly causes Type 2 diabetes, you are more likely to get it if you are overweight. You gain weight when you take in more calories than your body needs, and sugary foods and drinks contain a lot of calories.
And it's important to add that fatty foods and drinks are playing a part in our nation's expanding waistline.
So you can see if too much sugar is making you put on weight, then you are increasing your risk of getting Type 2 diabetes. But Type 2 diabetes is complex, and sugar is unlikely to be the only reason the condition develops.
I still stand behind what I said above.
I never said that sugar was the only and direct cause of T2D. I said try seeing if kids will develop T2D without processed carbs and sugar in their diet. They wont, because the dopamine response and cravings will be in check. With the exception of people with pre-existing disease, most would only eat what they needed and stay healthy. Many people think that grapes taste good, but you never hear about compulsive eating around them. Wine? Different story
0 -
paulgads82 wrote: »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.
Eating 100 calories of two different macro-nutrients can have a different effect on the body. That is all.
Insulin generation alone (and it's impact on the pancreas and other organs) is a factor. So is how many calories are burned from digesting the macro-nutrient. So is how that macro-nutrient feeds various tissues (or does not feed), and so is how the body gets rid of the waste of that macro as well.
This is what people mean when they say a calorie is not a calorie. Hopefully you didn't think someone was actually believing that a rock is not a rock. It's an expression. Easy as pie makes no sense grammatically, but we all know what it means.
I find that people interpret that phrase in different ways. That's why when we talk about science we use clearly defined terminology that everyone agrees upon and understands, not "expressions".
Sigh ... wow.
My bad. No one uses the phrase "cold fusion" even though it can happen at room temperature. A "Blue Shift" can be any wavelength, even red.
But let's focus on the grammar, and not the science.2 -
WinoGelato wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »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?
Heh, just saw this in wiki:The Mail's science journalism often follows a strategy of attention-grabbing headlines, often reporting on small studies of limited value for research. In 2010, physician Ben Goldacre commented that its health reporting was an "ongoing project to divide all the inanimate objects in the world into ones that either cause or prevent cancer."
And yeah, even in the US people are somewhat aware of the Mail's rather questionable reputation.
Sadly many people latch onto those headlines and fail to vet the source of the information. I think one of the biggest problems with our society in general, and we see it often in these forums, is a tendency to blindly trust an article or document that confirms a particular viewpoint that the reader is passionate about with an absence of critical thinking about the content overall.
Agreed, but that works both ways.
Wine & chocolate = healthy! is one of the biggest offenders.
Smoking doesn't cause cancer sells as well, to those who smoke.
"sugar is harmless" works well with people who don't like it much, or who like it a lot but don't want to give it up.
Wikipedia has a great page on all of the types of cognitive biases that exist. Ironically, message board content is usually 90% cognitive bias.
This seems like a straw man to me. Is anyone here actually claiming that sugar is harmless? The message I see people trying to get across is that sugar is ok in moderation but if someone wants to avoid added sugars that's fine too. No one is saying that unlimited amounts of sugar is harmless.1 -
While it may not have been said in this thread, there was a thread up earlier this week (the mods deleted it) in which it was stated that excessive sugar consumption is fine.WinoGelato wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »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?
Heh, just saw this in wiki:The Mail's science journalism often follows a strategy of attention-grabbing headlines, often reporting on small studies of limited value for research. In 2010, physician Ben Goldacre commented that its health reporting was an "ongoing project to divide all the inanimate objects in the world into ones that either cause or prevent cancer."
And yeah, even in the US people are somewhat aware of the Mail's rather questionable reputation.
Sadly many people latch onto those headlines and fail to vet the source of the information. I think one of the biggest problems with our society in general, and we see it often in these forums, is a tendency to blindly trust an article or document that confirms a particular viewpoint that the reader is passionate about with an absence of critical thinking about the content overall.
Agreed, but that works both ways.
Wine & chocolate = healthy! is one of the biggest offenders.
Smoking doesn't cause cancer sells as well, to those who smoke.
"sugar is harmless" works well with people who don't like it much, or who like it a lot but don't want to give it up.
Wikipedia has a great page on all of the types of cognitive biases that exist. Ironically, message board content is usually 90% cognitive bias.
This seems like a straw man to me. Is anyone here actually claiming that sugar is harmless? The message I see people trying to get across is that sugar is ok in moderation but if someone wants to avoid added sugars that's fine too. No one is saying that unlimited amounts of sugar is harmless.
0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »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?
Heh, just saw this in wiki:The Mail's science journalism often follows a strategy of attention-grabbing headlines, often reporting on small studies of limited value for research. In 2010, physician Ben Goldacre commented that its health reporting was an "ongoing project to divide all the inanimate objects in the world into ones that either cause or prevent cancer."
And yeah, even in the US people are somewhat aware of the Mail's rather questionable reputation.
Sadly many people latch onto those headlines and fail to vet the source of the information. I think one of the biggest problems with our society in general, and we see it often in these forums, is a tendency to blindly trust an article or document that confirms a particular viewpoint that the reader is passionate about with an absence of critical thinking about the content overall.
Agreed, but that works both ways.
Wine & chocolate = healthy! is one of the biggest offenders.
Smoking doesn't cause cancer sells as well, to those who smoke.
"sugar is harmless" works well with people who don't like it much, or who like it a lot but don't want to give it up.
Wikipedia has a great page on all of the types of cognitive biases that exist. Ironically, message board content is usually 90% cognitive bias.
This seems like a straw man to me. Is anyone here actually claiming that sugar is harmless? The message I see people trying to get across is that sugar is ok in moderation but if someone wants to avoid added sugars that's fine too. No one is saying that unlimited amounts of sugar is harmless.
I'd walk away from the debate if people were saying that sugar when limited was not so bad. But there are people who are claiming that sugar is no different than any other macro-nutrient.
Others are equating minimal natural forming sugars in the body required for survival to refined sugar cane or HCFS. We have sodium in our body too, but I think we all know eating 5 pounds of it would not go very well for us (sadly parents have used salt poisoning to kill their children).
A lot of this debate is semantics, grammar and word play (i.e. people saying that a grain of sugar isn't bad, so sugar isn't bad, where as others mean that high levels of sugar is bad). The human body is very resilient. Small amounts of poison can be dealt with. Larger quantities can overwhelm.2 -
paulgads82 wrote: »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.
Eating 100 calories of two different macro-nutrients can have a different effect on the body. That is all.
Insulin generation alone (and it's impact on the pancreas and other organs) is a factor. So is how many calories are burned from digesting the macro-nutrient. So is how that macro-nutrient feeds various tissues (or does not feed), and so is how the body gets rid of the waste of that macro as well.
This is what people mean when they say a calorie is not a calorie. Hopefully you didn't think someone was actually believing that a rock is not a rock. It's an expression. Easy as pie makes no sense grammatically, but we all know what it means.
Pointing out that carbs (including sugar), fat and protein are used by the body for different things does not demonstrate that any of them are harmful or that they hinder fitness goals.
ETA: If anything, it demonstrates that since the body uses different nutrients for different purposes, it's important to get a good mix of all three.1 -
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.
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.
From here: https://www.diabetes.org.uk/Guide-to-diabetes/Enjoy-food/Eating-with-diabetes/Diabetes-food-myths/Myth-sugar-causes-diabetes/With Type 2 diabetes, though we know sugar doesn’t directly causes Type 2 diabetes, you are more likely to get it if you are overweight. You gain weight when you take in more calories than your body needs, and sugary foods and drinks contain a lot of calories.
And it's important to add that fatty foods and drinks are playing a part in our nation's expanding waistline.
So you can see if too much sugar is making you put on weight, then you are increasing your risk of getting Type 2 diabetes. But Type 2 diabetes is complex, and sugar is unlikely to be the only reason the condition develops.
I still stand behind what I said above.
I never said that sugar was the only and direct cause of T2D. I said try seeing if kids will develop T2D without processed carbs and sugar in their diet. They wont, because the dopamine response and cravings will be in check. With the exception of people with pre-existing disease, most would only eat what they needed and stay healthy. Many people think that grapes taste good, but you never hear about compulsive eating around them. Wine? Different story
You can stand behind what you said, but it's obesity that contributes to the risk of T2D. It's not only sugar that makes people obese. Your statement is hypothetical.2 -
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.
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.
From here: https://www.diabetes.org.uk/Guide-to-diabetes/Enjoy-food/Eating-with-diabetes/Diabetes-food-myths/Myth-sugar-causes-diabetes/With Type 2 diabetes, though we know sugar doesn’t directly causes Type 2 diabetes, you are more likely to get it if you are overweight. You gain weight when you take in more calories than your body needs, and sugary foods and drinks contain a lot of calories.
And it's important to add that fatty foods and drinks are playing a part in our nation's expanding waistline.
So you can see if too much sugar is making you put on weight, then you are increasing your risk of getting Type 2 diabetes. But Type 2 diabetes is complex, and sugar is unlikely to be the only reason the condition develops.
I still stand behind what I said above.
I never said that sugar was the only and direct cause of T2D. I said try seeing if kids will develop T2D without processed carbs and sugar in their diet. They wont, because the dopamine response and cravings will be in check. With the exception of people with pre-existing disease, most would only eat what they needed and stay healthy. Many people think that grapes taste good, but you never hear about compulsive eating around them. Wine? Different story
Henry, I'll preface this by saying I've worked in diabetes research for 15 years. Not that that means I know more or less than you, just that I've read a lot of research. The country with the largest number of diabetics is India-- it's a huge problem there. And this even though the vast majority of the population does not eat processed carbs and sugar in their diet-- just basic homecooked food, such as rice, meats, and veggies. For them, the main issue is genetics; they are predisposed to diabetes. So, my comment is that you do not need processed carbs and added sugars in your diet to become a T2D.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.
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.
From here: https://www.diabetes.org.uk/Guide-to-diabetes/Enjoy-food/Eating-with-diabetes/Diabetes-food-myths/Myth-sugar-causes-diabetes/With Type 2 diabetes, though we know sugar doesn’t directly causes Type 2 diabetes, you are more likely to get it if you are overweight. You gain weight when you take in more calories than your body needs, and sugary foods and drinks contain a lot of calories.
And it's important to add that fatty foods and drinks are playing a part in our nation's expanding waistline.
So you can see if too much sugar is making you put on weight, then you are increasing your risk of getting Type 2 diabetes. But Type 2 diabetes is complex, and sugar is unlikely to be the only reason the condition develops.
I still stand behind what I said above.
I never said that sugar was the only and direct cause of T2D. I said try seeing if kids will develop T2D without processed carbs and sugar in their diet. They wont, because the dopamine response and cravings will be in check. With the exception of people with pre-existing disease, most would only eat what they needed and stay healthy. Many people think that grapes taste good, but you never hear about compulsive eating around them. Wine? Different story
You can stand behind what you said, but it's obesity that contributes to the risk of T2D. It's not only sugar that makes people obese. Your statement is hypothetical.
Do you think sugar can cause people to be more prone to overeat?0 -
Sigh ... wow.
My bad. No one uses the phrase "cold fusion" even though it can happen at room temperature. A "Blue Shift" can be any wavelength, even red.
But let's focus on the grammar, and not the science.
Are you using addiction as a phrase too? What about sugar bring addictive as cocaine? Phrase or scientific statement?1 -
You seem to say that someone afflicted with this condition is unable to stop the behavior because there are no alternatives. They have to eat. To me, that point of view makes an assumption that people have to eat all the foods.
Well, no. The point is that the addiction is to eating, not to specific foods. You can't stop the addictive behavior. You can change what you eat, if you want, but that can't be the solution to eating addiction (or bingeing) as people with eating addiction or BED are not limited to specific foods. That's what you seem to be ignoring. We've had a number of people in these various threads with BED talk about how they would binge on anything, and not specifically sugary things.Your experts identified "specific foods, especially those that are rich in fat and/or sugar" as being capable of producing addiction-like behavior (this is true in my experience as well). I offered donuts as an example of a specific food which is both high in sugar and in fat content and is regarded as "highly palatable" to many people. I was not claiming such a thing as donut addiction, per se, but eliminating specific foods (like donuts or anything on which they binge) is certainly an option for those afflicted the condition.
Hedonic eating, sure, but that's not an addiction (which is what the links clarified).
Even people like Nicole Avena, who tends to take the "highly palatable foods are addictive" line does not claim they are exactly like drugs or recommend complete abstinence.
And again I'm not saying that abstinence from trigger foods CANNOT be a reasonable strategy for some (although I personally would want to work on not having trigger foods). I am cautioning you that claiming that the right solution for anyone who feels "addicted" (which often just means feeling out of control or sometimes overeating -- things that many or most of us have experienced and which are totally normal) is "cut out the food right now and never have it again" can be counterproductive. In many cases the more serious addictive behaviors around food and eating (which are basically eating disorders in reality) developed in large part related to restrictive behaviors and telling oneself that eating certain foods is bad. So to assume and insist that must be the correct approach is wrong. If someone was really struggling seriously like this, I think the correct advice is to get therapy. (And none of this is really applicable to the usual "I think I have a cookie addiction" post on MFP -- those more typically sound like the very same kinds of things that I have worked on and in some cases dealt with, and which I personally would never compare to addiction although as I always say the advice threads aren't the place to argue about terminology.)The comparison (which is also employed by your experts) serves to offer a similar instance of people having problems ingesting a substance so that they basically do so against their will yet are often able to cut it out completely and be "fine".
I happen to agree that for some people and in some circumstances not eating something can be much easier than moderation.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.
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.
From here: https://www.diabetes.org.uk/Guide-to-diabetes/Enjoy-food/Eating-with-diabetes/Diabetes-food-myths/Myth-sugar-causes-diabetes/With Type 2 diabetes, though we know sugar doesn’t directly causes Type 2 diabetes, you are more likely to get it if you are overweight. You gain weight when you take in more calories than your body needs, and sugary foods and drinks contain a lot of calories.
And it's important to add that fatty foods and drinks are playing a part in our nation's expanding waistline.
So you can see if too much sugar is making you put on weight, then you are increasing your risk of getting Type 2 diabetes. But Type 2 diabetes is complex, and sugar is unlikely to be the only reason the condition develops.
I still stand behind what I said above.
I never said that sugar was the only and direct cause of T2D. I said try seeing if kids will develop T2D without processed carbs and sugar in their diet.
Not only is it not the only cause, it's not even on the stinking list.6 -
paulgads82 wrote: »
I find that people interpret that phrase in different ways. That's why when we talk about science we use clearly defined terminology that everyone agrees upon and understands, not "expressions".
Sigh ... wow.
My bad. No one uses the phrase "cold fusion" even though it can happen at room temperature. A "Blue Shift" can be any wavelength, even red.
But let's focus on the grammar, and not the science.
Are you using addiction as a phrase too? What about sugar bring addictive as cocaine? Phrase or scientific statement?[/quote]
That wasn't my statement, it was from a scientific conclusion/study. It didn't discuss the withdrawal differences, but did talk about the pleasure response being stronger.0 -
paulgads82 wrote: »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.
Eating 100 calories of two different macro-nutrients can have a different effect on the body. That is all.
Insulin generation alone (and it's impact on the pancreas and other organs) is a factor. So is how many calories are burned from digesting the macro-nutrient. So is how that macro-nutrient feeds various tissues (or does not feed), and so is how the body gets rid of the waste of that macro as well.
This is what people mean when they say a calorie is not a calorie. Hopefully you didn't think someone was actually believing that a rock is not a rock. It's an expression. Easy as pie makes no sense grammatically, but we all know what it means.
I find that people interpret that phrase in different ways. That's why when we talk about science we use clearly defined terminology that everyone agrees upon and understands, not "expressions".
Sigh ... wow.
My bad. No one uses the phrase "cold fusion" even though it can happen at room temperature. A "Blue Shift" can be any wavelength, even red.
But let's focus on the grammar, and not the science.
I get what you are saying, but "a calorie is not a calorie" is in no way a scientifically defined term. People understand it in different ways because it's just a saying, and when it comes up it's good to establish what it means to the person using it so we can have a discussion based on mutual understanding.1
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