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
-
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 working 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.
Super respectful tone btw, much appreciated.
I know what you are referring to, and certain people are certainly genetically predisposed to it. I did mention the "pre-existing disease" as a caveat. But your point is valid. I believe all of this is really genetics ... including how sugar will impact each individual person.1 -
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???
They reproduce asexually.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.
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.
OK, then what does the phrase a calorie is not a calorie mean? Does anyone actually think it means that a calorie is not an actual calorie?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.
Where, in this thread or any other, did people say that there is no reason to moderate sugar consumption? People have said (correctly) that the CALORIES from sugar are the same as the CALORIES from any other food because CALORIES are a unit of energy. Sugar is not a macronutrient. You keep saying this is word play and semantics, but the fact of the matter remains that the words matter, the definitions matter, the proper usage of terminology matters, context and dosage also matter.
This was a largely very positive thread a few days ago with people really getting past the "words" and into trying to understand each others points of view and perspectives in a respectful and logical way. Unfortunately today, it has devolved into the same type of sugar thread we see week in and week out here.10 -
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?
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.
That "scientific conclusion/study" was a poorly done review of a study which, in all factuality, showed that lab rats prefer sugar water. It demonstrates nothing in regards to addiction or to human responses to sugar.
ETA: And yeah, you also said that for some people, going without sugar is like going without air.5 -
WinoGelato wrote: »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.
Where, in this thread or any other, did people say that there is no reason to moderate sugar consumption? People have said (correctly) that the CALORIES from sugar are the same as the CALORIES from any other food because CALORIES are a unit of energy. Sugar is not a macronutrient. You keep saying this is word play and semantics, but the fact of the matter remains that the words matter, the definitions matter, the proper usage of terminology matters, context and dosage also matter.
This was a largely very positive thread a few days ago with people really getting past the "words" and into trying to understand each others points of view and perspectives in a respectful and logical way. Unfortunately today, it has devolved into the same type of sugar thread we see week in and week out here.
Agree with WinoGelato-- can we get back to knowledge transfer and understanding each other's point of view rather than attacks and defensive posts? I for one am very interested in what people have to say here.5 -
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.
In fact, usually it is an argument against someone saying "a calorie is a calorie."
What that means, of course, is that calories, as units of energy, are the same for weight loss purposes, all else equal (like deficit and activity). What it does not mean, obviously and as frequently explained, is that a food is a food. No one thinks that.
Yet the people who assert "a calories is not a calorie" do not actually argue that. They argue that foods are different, something that is not in debate.
I think that's a dishonest tactic and even intentionally insulting, as it seems intended to suggest that those who claim otherwise are unable to see any differences between, say, broccoli and steak.7 -
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?
There are things that I haven't read enough about to form a solid opinion. This is one of them, which is why I refrain from commenting on that topic. Believe it or not, I'm actually reading this thread to learn why some people answer your question with a yes.0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »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.
Where, in this thread or any other, did people say that there is no reason to moderate sugar consumption? People have said (correctly) that the CALORIES from sugar are the same as the CALORIES from any other food because CALORIES are a unit of energy. Sugar is not a macronutrient. You keep saying this is word play and semantics, but the fact of the matter remains that the words matter, the definitions matter, the proper usage of terminology matters, context and dosage also matter.
This was a largely very positive thread a few days ago with people really getting past the "words" and into trying to understand each others points of view and perspectives in a respectful and logical way. Unfortunately today, it has devolved into the same type of sugar thread we see week in and week out here.
I understand. I feel bad that it has devolved. I joined in only when I saw some comments that I felt were hitting on the tone you reference. I'm sure I was part of the problem (as one who thought they were part of the solution).
In the end, this boils down to people being convinced of their opinions, most of which are based off of their own experiences. There are scientific articles in all directions that point to multiple sides of an argument. The sugar.org website is laden with "counting calories is all that matters" articles, which doesn't address the "what does sugar do to the human mind" aspect of things.
So perhaps sugar makes you crave more sugar (psychologically). Maybe for some that pull is extremely strong (they will pass up any other food option as not interested, but can't pass up sugar). This can cause them to gain weight, develop insulin resistance as a result of the weight gain, and eventually get sick. But if someone skips the guts of that and says sugar == T2D, some will get the correlation, others will focus on the links in the chain.
So, I apologize if I have been part of the degradation of the discussion. I do think, however, that it will always end up going down this path eventually. As with politics, it's a rare bird that ever changes their stance on anything after their initial mind is made up.3 -
In regards to the thread tone, no malicious intent in any of my posts my posting style can appear a little blunt at times. I'm all love, disagreements are just that, disagreements.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
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?
There are things that I haven't read enough about to form a solid opinion. This is one of them, which is why I refrain from commenting on that topic. Believe it or not, I'm actually reading this thread to learn why some people answer your question with a yes.
I think the answer is yes, for some people, probably many people.
NOT because sugar triggers cravings or is any more irresistible than anything else -- I think humans tend to like sugar from birth (for obvious reasons) and some like it more than others, but what we crave and are triggered by tends to be more learned and related to habits and associations.
But I do think sugary foods tend to be on average not that sating to many and easy to overeat without feeling stuffed (that they are high fat and low fiber is a big part of this or that they come in liquid form). I also think that people are more likely to overeat foods that taste good to them, so the availability of treat type foods goes along with more overeating.
But ultimately this isn't the SUGAR causing it, it's the availability plus (IMO) the breakdown of the kinds of habits and customs that used to regular it. (When I was a kid there were just normal eating times and you didn't eat outside them. It would be seen as weird to eat cookies all day on a normal day or to drink soda throughout the day. That no longer seems to be the case, and people much more often will likely do things like skipping a balanced meal for some treat food -- I think that's about social norms, not addiction.)
Also, it's not just sugar that tends to encourage people to overeat, but also fat, which plays just as big a role in hedonic eating. What is the average person more likely to overeat? Plain roasted potatoes? Or french fries, chips, and mashed potatoes with lots of butter?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".
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.
OK, then what does the phrase a calorie is not a calorie mean? Does anyone actually think it means that a calorie is not an actual calorie?
I've seen plenty of people in MFP and other places who believe that calories from carbohydrates automatically make you fatter than calories from protein3 -
Double post.0
-
Carlos_421 wrote: »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.
@Carlos_421, I do not believe there is a "sugar conspiracy" or that sugar is bad, and I eat processed sugar
daily . . . BUT . . . if there WAS a sugar conspiracy, the Big Sugar companies would do everything possible to keep it off of the stinking list . . . right?
1 -
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.
OK, then what does the phrase a calorie is not a calorie mean? Does anyone actually think it means that a calorie is not an actual calorie?
I've seen plenty of people in MFP and other places who believe that calories from carbohydrates automatically make you fatter than calories from protein
I guess it depends on how you mean that - and perhaps this is the core of this discussion.
When you say "calories from carbohydrates make you fatter than calories from protein", I would say I agree. But that's because I am referring to all of the details that go along with it, and the reactions. Such as how protein burns more calories in digestion, and how protein is usually not as tasty to the taste buds and pleasing to the brain.
I would agree that 100 calories from protein versus carbs would at that level alone, be the same in terms of calorie count. But when some people talk like this they may be referring to all of the baggage that comes with the carbs/insulin/refined/processed/sodium/sugar stuff that goes with it.
1 -
WinoGelato wrote: »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.
Where, in this thread or any other, did people say that there is no reason to moderate sugar consumption? People have said (correctly) that the CALORIES from sugar are the same as the CALORIES from any other food because CALORIES are a unit of energy. Sugar is not a macronutrient. You keep saying this is word play and semantics, but the fact of the matter remains that the words matter, the definitions matter, the proper usage of terminology matters, context and dosage also matter.
This was a largely very positive thread a few days ago with people really getting past the "words" and into trying to understand each others points of view and perspectives in a respectful and logical way. Unfortunately today, it has devolved into the same type of sugar thread we see week in and week out here.
Agree with WinoGelato-- can we get back to knowledge transfer and understanding each other's point of view rather than attacks and defensive posts? I for one am very interested in what people have to say here.
Yes! This is why the thread was so interesting to begin with!1 -
positivepowers wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »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.
@Carlos_421, I do not believe there is a "sugar conspiracy" or that sugar is bad, and I eat processed sugar
daily . . . BUT . . . if there WAS a sugar conspiracy, the Big Sugar companies would do everything possible to keep it off of the stinking list . . . right?
True...but Big Sugar isn't the one making the list.
ETA:
3 -
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?
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.
Let's not overstate the facts. It was from a 4 and a half page long article in an extra magazine of clinical nutrition called "current opinion".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. 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?
There are things that I haven't read enough about to form a solid opinion. This is one of them, which is why I refrain from commenting on that topic. Believe it or not, I'm actually reading this thread to learn why some people answer your question with a yes.
For me personally, I can tell you that sugar makes me high. Literally. I get a hard buzz when I eat sugar. It makes me so very very very happy while I am eating it. I usually feel terrible later, but at the time of consumption, I like it more than being drunk from alcohol or other options. Since I was a young child, eating candy/chocolate was a primary objective. Back then I didn't know anything about calories, carbs, or weight gain. I was a kid, and I just wanted it. I would eat an entire pillowcase of Halloween candy as fast as I could, only stopping if I felt I was going to vomit.
I had no other compulsive behaviors. Gambling? Alcohol? Drugs? Other foods? Nothing. Just the sugar. To a degree, high carb foods have a similar but lesser effect on me (bagels, pizza, italian bread), but nothing like sugar.
I used to race BMX as a kid, and they sew the phrase "Snicker Powered" on my jersey, because I would eat a Snickers bar before each race, get a huge rush of pleasure and energy, and then go out and crush the competition.
I tried about 10 different diets between the ages of 25 and 40, everything from Atkins, to Body for Life, to calorie counting. None of them worked, even though I badly wanted them too. Until one day, at age 36, I tried Paleo. In Paleo, I was forced to cut added sugar out, and even encouraged to minimize sweet fruits to small amounts.
I spent two weeks in terrible withdrawal. Really bad headaches, and I felt sick. I told my wife I actually thought there was something seriously wrong with me and I should see a doctor, because I felt like I was dying. But I had read about the "carb flu", and decided to push through it. At the end of week 2, all of my cravings fell away. And over the next 18 months I lost 50 pounds and reached my goal weight.
I found that if I had any added sugar, even 18 months later, it triggered me to becoming a T-Rex, craving more cookies/donuts/cake/frosting. Heck, I could eat the frosting off of 10 cupcakes and leave the cake behind. So like a guy with an alcohol problem (I have friends who are AA), I have to try to avoid sugar entirely, and even stay out of sugar situations as I lose my ability to make decisions when I get around it too much.
So yes, I personally think that sugar is the cause, at least for me. I have no problem admitting that it's not sugar (which just like nicotine or gambling in itself can be considered a harmless thing) but perhaps my biological make-up, but that was my original point. How it affects some people is different.
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".
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.
OK, then what does the phrase a calorie is not a calorie mean? Does anyone actually think it means that a calorie is not an actual calorie?
I've seen plenty of people in MFP and other places who believe that calories from carbohydrates automatically make you fatter than calories from protein
I guess it depends on how you mean that - and perhaps this is the core of this discussion.
When you say "calories from carbohydrates make you fatter than calories from protein", I would say I agree. But that's because I am referring to all of the details that go along with it, and the reactions. Such as how protein burns more calories in digestion, and how protein is usually not as tasty to the taste buds and pleasing to the brain.
I would agree that 100 calories from protein versus carbs would at that level alone, be the same in terms of calorie count. But when some people talk like this they may be referring to all of the baggage that comes with the carbs/insulin/refined/processed/sodium/sugar stuff that goes with it.
You might be right. But there are also a lot of people who have a vague idea based off Atkins and the South Beach diet that carbs just make you fatter; and then there are the people who believe that dietary fat is quickly stored away as body fat.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.
OK, then what does the phrase a calorie is not a calorie mean? Does anyone actually think it means that a calorie is not an actual calorie?
I've seen plenty of people in MFP and other places who believe that calories from carbohydrates automatically make you fatter than calories from protein
I guess it depends on how you mean that - and perhaps this is the core of this discussion.
When you say "calories from carbohydrates make you fatter than calories from protein", I would say I agree. But that's because I am referring to all of the details that go along with it, and the reactions. Such as how protein burns more calories in digestion, and how protein is usually not as tasty to the taste buds and pleasing to the brain.
I would agree that 100 calories from protein versus carbs would at that level alone, be the same in terms of calorie count. But when some people talk like this they may be referring to all of the baggage that comes with the carbs/insulin/refined/processed/sodium/sugar stuff that goes with it.
Related tidbit, but when polar bears feed on a seal, you'll often see that they only eat the fat off of it, and leave the entire carcass laying on the ice. Of course sometimes they eat the meat as well, but often it's just the fat. The reason is indeed the one you state above, namely, that protein will burn too many calories to digest, and they want the biggest bang for the buck, so to speak, so they consume the fat.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.
OK, then what does the phrase a calorie is not a calorie mean? Does anyone actually think it means that a calorie is not an actual calorie?
More people than you think do.positivepowers wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »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.
@Carlos_421, I do not believe there is a "sugar conspiracy" or that sugar is bad, and I eat processed sugar
daily . . . BUT . . . if there WAS a sugar conspiracy, the Big Sugar companies would do everything possible to keep it off of the stinking list . . . right?
Sure, just like the tobacco industry managed to keep the part about it causing cancer under wraps.
Oh wait.1 -
I found what @robingmurphy said back on page 9 to be interesting. Anyone have any thoughts on it?robingmurphy wrote: »Here's my thoughts/experience: Compulsive overeating is a bad habit. We can form compulsive habits from anything that gives us a dopamine spike (shopping, gambling, etc.) Overeating food in general provides a dopamine spike, so it can be compulsive habit forming. Sugar-bearing foods for many/most people cause a stronger dopamine spike than many other foods, so they are more likely to result in a compulsive habit for people who are susceptible to it. For me, it is very easy to form compulsive habits around food, in particular for me high sugar foods (because of the increased dopamine spike over other foods), so I do eat them, but I'm careful with them. More careful than I am with a food that is lower in sugar.
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »
I got your sarcasm, thanks. I just found your post funny directly after someone had agreed with him.
That's just a sockpuppet account. No one could dislike Ferrero Nutella (TM), the light breakfast spread with the best of milk, hazelnuts and cocoa.
Wait, did you just call me a sockpuppet, ratface?4 -
paulgads82 wrote: »In regards to the thread tone, no malicious intent in any of my posts my posting style can appear a little blunt at times. I'm all love, disagreements are just that, disagreements.
Well said. Same here!1 -
currently trying "the junkfood diet" out of boredom with lowcarb and just to piss off all the low carbers and "clean eaters". No change in weight loss or fat loss. Sorry, it's just calories.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.
Do you think sugar can cause people to be more prone to overeat?
There are things that I haven't read enough about to form a solid opinion. This is one of them, which is why I refrain from commenting on that topic. Believe it or not, I'm actually reading this thread to learn why some people answer your question with a yes.
For me personally, I can tell you that sugar makes me high. Literally. I get a hard buzz when I eat sugar. It makes me so very very very happy while I am eating it. I usually feel terrible later, but at the time of consumption, I like it more than being drunk from alcohol or other options. Since I was a young child, eating candy/chocolate was a primary objective. Back then I didn't know anything about calories, carbs, or weight gain. I was a kid, and I just wanted it. I would eat an entire pillowcase of Halloween candy as fast as I could, only stopping if I felt I was going to vomit.
I had no other compulsive behaviors. Gambling? Alcohol? Drugs? Other foods? Nothing. Just the sugar. To a degree, high carb foods have a similar but lesser effect on me (bagels, pizza, italian bread), but nothing like sugar.
I used to race BMX as a kid, and they sew the phrase "Snicker Powered" on my jersey, because I would eat a Snickers bar before each race, get a huge rush of pleasure and energy, and then go out and crush the competition.
I tried about 10 different diets between the ages of 25 and 40, everything from Atkins, to Body for Life, to calorie counting. None of them worked, even though I badly wanted them too. Until one day, at age 36, I tried Paleo. In Paleo, I was forced to cut added sugar out, and even encouraged to minimize sweet fruits to small amounts.
I spent two weeks in terrible withdrawal. Really bad headaches, and I felt sick. I told my wife I actually thought there was something seriously wrong with me and I should see a doctor, because I felt like I was dying. But I had read about the "carb flu", and decided to push through it. At the end of week 2, all of my cravings fell away. And over the next 18 months I lost 50 pounds and reached my goal weight.
I found that if I had any added sugar, even 18 months later, it triggered me to becoming a T-Rex, craving more cookies/donuts/cake/frosting. Heck, I could eat the frosting off of 10 cupcakes and leave the cake behind. So like a guy with an alcohol problem (I have friends who are AA), I have to try to avoid sugar entirely, and even stay out of sugar situations as I lose my ability to make decisions when I get around it too much.
So yes, I personally think that sugar is the cause, at least for me. I have no problem admitting that it's not sugar (which just like nicotine or gambling in itself can be considered a harmless thing) but perhaps my biological make-up, but that was my original point. How it affects some people is different.
Sounds like maybe your real problem is with self control in general.4 -
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.
OK, then what does the phrase a calorie is not a calorie mean? Does anyone actually think it means that a calorie is not an actual calorie?
I've seen plenty of people in MFP and other places who believe that calories from carbohydrates automatically make you fatter than calories from protein
I guess it depends on how you mean that - and perhaps this is the core of this discussion.
When you say "calories from carbohydrates make you fatter than calories from protein", I would say I agree. But that's because I am referring to all of the details that go along with it, and the reactions. Such as how protein burns more calories in digestion, and how protein is usually not as tasty to the taste buds and pleasing to the brain.
I would agree that 100 calories from protein versus carbs would at that level alone, be the same in terms of calorie count. But when some people talk like this they may be referring to all of the baggage that comes with the carbs/insulin/refined/processed/sodium/sugar stuff that goes with it.
Related tidbit, but when polar bears feed on a seal, you'll often see that they only eat the fat off of it, and leave the entire carcass laying on the ice. Of course sometimes they eat the meat as well, but often it's just the fat. The reason is indeed the one you state above, namely, that protein will burn too many calories to digest, and they want the biggest bang for the buck, so to speak, so they consume the fat.
The extra calories burned from protein don't make a big difference for humans. ~7 kcal per 1000 kcal of total calories per 10% increased protein was determined.
Example: 1500 kcal diet, 15% protein vs. 35% protein (which is absolute minimum vs. bodybuilder optimum amounts) results in 7 * 1.5 (from 1500 kcal total) * 2 (from 20% more protein than the comparison diet) = 21 extra calories burned.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/5/899S.full
They conclude a calorie is a calorie btw.5 -
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.
OK, then what does the phrase a calorie is not a calorie mean? Does anyone actually think it means that a calorie is not an actual calorie?
I've seen plenty of people in MFP and other places who believe that calories from carbohydrates automatically make you fatter than calories from protein
I guess it depends on how you mean that - and perhaps this is the core of this discussion.
When you say "calories from carbohydrates make you fatter than calories from protein", I would say I agree. But that's because I am referring to all of the details that go along with it, and the reactions. Such as how protein burns more calories in digestion, and how protein is usually not as tasty to the taste buds and pleasing to the brain.
I would agree that 100 calories from protein versus carbs would at that level alone, be the same in terms of calorie count. But when some people talk like this they may be referring to all of the baggage that comes with the carbs/insulin/refined/processed/sodium/sugar stuff that goes with it.
You might be right. But there are also a lot of people who have a vague idea based off Atkins and the South Beach diet that carbs just make you fatter; and then there are the people who believe that dietary fat is quickly stored away as body fat.
Well, a lot I have read talks about the effects of insulin on weight gain and loss. Saying high insulin levels make it harder to burn fat cells with the same energy expenditure, and the opposite on lower insulin levels. This might be what they are referring to. I'm not a molecular scientist (just a computer scientist), and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but I do get the feeling there is something to the CARB/INSULIN vs LOWCARB/LOWINSULIN level thing in terms of fat burning. I mean, across the board, celebrities shed massive amounts of fat when they go low carb. It has to be more than just a coincidence.0 -
I thought it made sense. IMO it still validates the point that sugar is a problem for many.I found what @robingmurphy said back on page 9 to be interesting. Anyone have any thoughts on it?robingmurphy wrote: »Here's my thoughts/experience: Compulsive overeating is a bad habit. We can form compulsive habits from anything that gives us a dopamine spike (shopping, gambling, etc.) Overeating food in general provides a dopamine spike, so it can be compulsive habit forming. Sugar-bearing foods for many/most people cause a stronger dopamine spike than many other foods, so they are more likely to result in a compulsive habit for people who are susceptible to it. For me, it is very easy to form compulsive habits around food, in particular for me high sugar foods (because of the increased dopamine spike over other foods), so I do eat them, but I'm careful with them. More careful than I am with a food that is lower in sugar.
2
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions