Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
The Sugar Conspiracy
Replies
-
paulgads82 wrote: »Eat sugar. It's amazing.
Unless you've developed diabetes, in which case, avoid it like the plague. I wish as an obese person, I'd gotten blood work done earlier. Get your blood panel done, folks. I don't know which came first, diabetes or my fat. But now that I've got both, I'm a weight loss fanatic, and count carefully those sparse grams of sugar (and carbs which turn into sugar) that spike my BS.5 -
walker1world wrote: »The people who seem to be against the idea that sugar can be a problem for people seem to be those for whom sugar has never been a problem. It didn't happen to me so I don't believe it, and that's where Lustig exaggerated: Sugar is not a problem for everybody, but it is a problem for many. Just because the nutrition powers of yesteryear had fat labelled as the nutritional problem child in the 80s, it does not mean that sugar has been mislabelled as a problem nutrient ( or as the scapegoat) today. It IS a problem for some.
Looking within myself did not help me lose weight. The minute I dropped sugar and reduced my carbs I lost weight. Easily and lots of it. You bet I was eating too many calories but I was eating too much because of sugar (and partially due to those carbs which are readily converted to sugar). I didn't have to do any soul searching or suddenly develop great will power in order to lose weight; all I had to do was cut sugar out of my diet and I was much less hungry, I lost my cravings, and the slight thermogenic poperties of a very LCHF diet helped a bit too.
I also love cheese and nuts and overeat those pretty regularly but that's not what made me fat either. Candy, soda, muffins, and unneeded carby plate fillers made me fat. I cut those and replaced them with other macro nutrients (at a slight caloric deficit) and lost weight. Simply cutting calories was not sustainable for more that a week or two for me. Cut sugar too? Suddenly it was easy to lose. It may not be true for all, but it was for me and it is true for many, especially those of us with IR issues (known and undiagnosed). I am not a special snowflake here.
Sure, many people are fine with eating sugar but many aren't. I was fine with sugar until I approached 40, when suddenly I was not. Stating sugar is a problem for all is wrong, and Lustig should stop it. Staing that sugar is NOT a problem for all is just as wrong - claiming it is a scapegoat is incorrect. A better statement might be that sugar is not a problem for some people, although it may become a problem for some of them later, and that it is indeed a problem for some people right now (somewhere between 1/3 to 1/2 it appears to me based on those affected with IR issues like NAFLD, T2D, PCOS, prediabetes, Alzheimer's, as well as some of those who find weight loss difficult without sugar reduction - not a tiny group).
... This thread should probably be moved to the debate section.
I like your reasonable approach to this conversation. I think that the science about insulin is we established, what makes the anti sugar thing questionable is I haven't heard why 30% of people can eat sugar and have little direct effect.
Thanks.
I've basically bowed out of this thread because it went the usual route. There seems to be a fair bit of thinking that what works for one person will work for another and that isn't always true. A physical truth for one person is not true for another. For example, wheat products make me very ill but I don't think everyone needs to go gluten free; and milk hurts my stomach but I don't think everyone should give up milk. I firmly believe that my physical reaction to sugar is unusual when compared to many but not everyone should avoid eating sugar - avoiding sugar doesn't help everyone - although I don't think sugar has much of a positive impact on most of those people's diets either (barring those who use it as an exercise supplement).
It just won't be accepted by some that my experience is different than theirs. Not worse or harder, or better or easier. Just different. That's where I think Lustig is wrong. His statements are too sweeping. Sugar is not a problem for all, just some of us.... Sort of (in a very exaggerated way) like a substance addiction, and that seems to be where addiction is brought into conversations as a clike this.
I call my "relationship" with sugar "addiction-like" because it is not an addiction but it is more than just a will power issue. There is some physical component to it - for me. I know it isn't the same as a drug addiction but there is something that isn't normal... Using the word addiction is a good metaphor - figurative language and not literal (in my mind); it lets one know that there is something more to it than just wanting more and making bad food choices.
Like addictions, sugar is not an issue for all. Not everyone will be addicted to alcohol or gambling but it is a problem for some. The consequences of sugar "addiction" will not affect all either. Not everyone will develop IR or reactive hypoglycemia, just like not all smokers get cancer, or all alcoholics develop liver disease. Many people can eat all the sugar they want and remain insulin sensitive for a variety of reasons (good genetics, high levels of exercise, "good" carbs rather than "bad" processed carbs are eaten, youth). It would be wrong to think sugar is not a problem for some just because that person has stayed insulin sensitive.
Someone up thread implied that the problem with this thread is that people with medical conditions seem to think what applies to them applies to healthy people too. That could be part of it but the door swings both ways. Part of the problem with this thread is also people without medical conditions that seem to think that what applies to them applies to all other people too.
For me, Lustig is not 100% right or wrong. He is only right for some. He was right for me.
I agree with the bolded. I would like to see more balance in this area because not everyone who visits here has perfect health and is tolerant of all foods. Someone such as yourself, speaking from your own experience, might be able to help others who are in a similar situation and haven't put two and two together yet. Others should be equally free to express their different experiences; and all sides ought to recognise that they are just that -- different experiences.
In a perfect world. 0 -
topathemorning wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »Eat sugar. It's amazing.
Unless you've developed diabetes, in which case, avoid it like the plague. I wish as an obese person, I'd gotten blood work done earlier. Get your blood panel done, folks. I don't know which came first, diabetes or my fat. But now that I've got both, I'm a weight loss fanatic, and count carefully those sparse grams of sugar (and carbs which turn into sugar) that spike my BS.
Eat nuts. They're amazing. Unless you have a nut allergy.1 -
dietitianwithoutborders.com/what-are-free-sugars/
"WHAT ARE FREE SUGARS?
July 27, 2015 By Gemma Sampson RD APD 5 Comments
The Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) recently released a report in the UK on Carbohydrates where they gave new recommendations in line with WHO that free sugar intake should account for no more than 5% of daily energy intake. But what are free sugars, just how much sugar is that, and what does it mean in day to day life?
WHAT ARE FREE SUGARS?
A slightly misleading term (in my opinion), free sugars are not as you may be inclined to believe, sugars that can be freely consumed without any concern. In fact they are the opposite – ones you want to be limiting within your everyday diet. The official definition of free sugars from SACN states that:
‘Free sugars’ comprises all monosaccharides* and disaccharides* added to foods by the manufacturer, cook or consumer, plus sugars naturally present in honey, syrups and unsweetened fruit juices. Under this definition lactose (the sugar in milk) when naturally present in milk and milk products and the sugars contained within the cellular structure of foods (particularly fruits and vegetables) are excluded.
*Monosaccharides are single sugar units (glucose and fructose) and disaccharides are two single units joined together (sucrose).
FREE SUGARS INCLUDE:
Table sugar (sugar cane/ beet/other sources)
Golden Syrup
Molasses or Treacle
Agave syrup
Rice malt syrup
Coconut blossom syrup
Maple syrup
Coconut sugar
Honey
Unsweetened fruit juice
**Any other sort of syrup that I have failed to mention typically used as a sugar replacer that contains sugar in the food label!
WHAT DOESN’T COUNT AS FREE SUGARS?
Lactose in milk and dairy products
Sugar naturally present in fruit, including dried, canned and stewed
Sugar naturally present in vegetables
Sugar naturally present in grains and cereals
WHAT DOES 5% OF FREE SUGARS MEAN?
The new SACN recommends that free sugar intake in the UK should account for no more than 5% of daily energy intake. Based on average population diets, this equates to:
Children 4-6 years – 19g (5 sugar cubes)
Children 7-10 years – 24g (6 sugar cubes)
Children 11 years + and adults – 30g (7 sugar cubes)"
The above quote from the above link about how much and how to compute sugar consumption per World Health Organization in my view cuts through the noise. For healthy people I see consuming up to 30 grams of Free Sugars daily to be just fine.
For my personal definition (not for you) I treat anything that winds up as glucose in the body as I do sugar/carbs. That means I have a concern about all carbs and half of all protein in my diet. Managing my joint and muscle pain by diet was initially my main objective. When that was achieved 30 days after I cut my daily carbs to <50 grams daily then I turned to Type 2 Diabetes, Heart Disease, Cancer, etc prevention/treatment protocols research and testing.
The weight loss side effect was a plus but was not why I started to eat this way. I was losing mobility fast and did not want to die in a nursing home due to my old way of eating like some of my friends recently.
After my weight drifted down from 250 to 200 were it has maintained for over a year now eating to the point of being stuffed I realized my macro of 5% carbs, 15% protein and 80% fats made me happy and gave me improving health with zero food cravings.
All I wish for others is that they find the macro (what ever it may be) that makes them happy and gives improving health.
How others eat is not really in my control so there is no reason for me to try and change anyone plus it can not be done in my experience at the age of 65 with a good medical background.
Change can ONLY come from within. As far as health goes I think being 50-100 pounds over some ideal weight is not as likely to lead to a premature death as being in a toxic relationship at home, work or socially. Personally I have lived long enough to see often bullies of all types often experience a premature death. The reason I say this is in part to what I have been learning about epigenetics.
We can call sugar toxic but sugar is not the real reason we die prematurely. When any food becomes toxic to one it would be best to find out WHY. While for the most part Type 2 diabetes is diet induced we know because it can often be reversed by changing our Way Of Eating.
When we eat the food the way the we were taught in school and still get sick maybe something is wrong with what we have been taught about food. Today I think if we have high blood pressure, heart disease, type 2 diabetes, cancer, many autoimmune diseases, etc a hard look one's Way Of Eating (WOE) may be revealing as to why.
Carbs are what feeds the world. They are what I grew up eating and I was never even fat say nothing about being obese. My carbs were mainly from whole foods at we grew. I expect if we stuck with the WHO limit of 30 grams of free sugars daily per the article we would be OK for the most part. Note eating whole fruits and vegetable are not limited by the WHO terminology.
1 -
trollerskates wrote: »Sugary foods are pretty calorie dense. Its super easy to "over eat" when you make bad choices.
Ribeye steaks are pretty calorie dense. Just sayin. They are the number one reason I got so fat.3 -
rankinsect wrote: »makingmark wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »The people who seem to be against the idea that sugar can be a problem for people seem to be those for whom sugar has never been a problem. It didn't happen to me so I don't believe it, and that's where Lustig exaggerated: Sugar is not a problem for everybody, but it is a problem for many. Just because the nutrition powers of yesteryear had fat labelled as the nutritional problem child in the 80s, it does not mean that sugar has been mislabelled as a problem nutrient ( or as the scapegoat) today. It IS a problem for some.
Looking within myself did not help me lose weight. The minute I dropped sugar and reduced my carbs I lost weight. Easily and lots of it. You bet I was eating too many calories but I was eating too much because of sugar (and partially due to those carbs which are readily converted to sugar). I didn't have to do any soul searching or suddenly develop great will power in order to lose weight; all I had to do was cut sugar out of my diet and I was much less hungry, I lost my cravings, and the slight thermogenic poperties of a very LCHF diet helped a bit too.
I also love cheese and nuts and overeat those pretty regularly but that's not what made me fat either. Candy, soda, muffins, and unneeded carby plate fillers made me fat. I cut those and replaced them with other macro nutrients (at a slight caloric deficit) and lost weight. Simply cutting calories was not sustainable for more that a week or two for me. Cut sugar too? Suddenly it was easy to lose. It may not be true for all, but it was for me and it is true for many, especially those of us with IR issues (known and undiagnosed). I am not a special snowflake here.
Sure, many people are fine with eating sugar but many aren't. I was fine with sugar until I approached 40, when suddenly I was not. Stating sugar is a problem for all is wrong, and Lustig should stop it. Staing that sugar is NOT a problem for all is just as wrong - claiming it is a scapegoat is incorrect. A better statement might be that sugar is not a problem for some people, although it may become a problem for some of them later, and that it is indeed a problem for some people right now (somewhere between 1/3 to 1/2 it appears to me based on those affected with IR issues like NAFLD, T2D, PCOS, prediabetes, Alzheimer's, as well as some of those who find weight loss difficult without sugar reduction - not a tiny group).
... This thread should probably be moved to the debate section.
"Readily converted to sugar" is another of those phrases that is used to fear monger against it, as if that makes it bad somehow.
You're outright denying in your post that things apart from carbs made you fat. "Oh, I've been overeating this and that and X and Y and Z regularly too but that wasn't the problem, no.". I call BS. If you've been overeating you've been overeating them and they were part of the problem.
I used to eat lots of sugar.
And lots of fat.
And probably protein too.
Like 4+ ham and cheese sandwiches as a single meal? Check.
Wieners with a bunch of fries? Yeah, did that.
Pizza and whatnot? Yup. All lots of it and not a single gram of added sugar. Cutting out sugar would have changed nothing at all, because I like eating. I would have just eaten something else instead.
Yeah no. I can still each 4 oz of cheese in a day and not gain weight. I do it often. Too often, but I can cut other foods from my diet when I do it. I had 4oz of cheese for lunch? Okay, I'll eat less at dinner. No problem. I had a cup of macadamia nuts with coconut for an afternoon "snack". I'll skip dinner. I had a large soda or a bag of jelly bellies? I'm still hungry and I find it harder to regulate my food intake. I can be sure that I'll be hungry for dinner even after a family sized bag of candy.
I tend to overeat cheese more now since I eat lower carb. I don't eat candy or soda any longer. Even though I overeat in one food it does not mean I overeat my caloric totals for the day. I consider it to be overeating in cheese when it slows my bms for day. LOL
Pizza? If I eat 4 pieces I am quite full and I stop. Angel food cake? I can eat the whole thing and look for more. We react differently to different foods. Sugar isn't a problem for you. Great. It's egocentric to assume one's experience is true for everyone.
All of that being said doesn't make sugar evil or a problem. All it means that you have a weakness for it. I can overeat on meat... easily. I don't tend to go for sugary stuff, but I got fat on a lot of proteins, fats, and other carbs including fruits and vegetables.
To label a nutrient/food as evil isn't helping either. If you individually have issues that is something you have to deal with, but it isn't the fault of sugar, fat, protein, white foods, meat, carbs, etc.
My biggest problem is that I just didn't monitor what I ate. Now I count my calories and am cognizant of how many calories I am consuming. I eat anything I want, just less. You are right that it is egocentric to assume one's experience is true for everyone, that is why the sugar conspiracy myth is so wrong.
At best, I see sugar as neutral in terms of health. At worst, I see it as contributing to health problems. Same thing goes for weight management. I doubt there are many out there who can lose weight with relative ease while eating a high sugar diet. It can be be neutral for some who are at a good weight, but it can also be a problem for some.
I don't see sugar as evil. I have never labelled it as evil. Food cannot be evil, but it can contribute to problems. For me, someone with minor IR, reactive hypoglycemia, and autoimmune issues that benefit from avoid inflammatory sugars, sugar is a problem. It's only benefit for me is good taste... perhaps as an appetite stimulant if I needed my appetite increased.
You don't have problems with sugar (leading to overeating of health issues). You're lucky. Some do.
What counts as a "high sugar" diet? I likely qualify, and I'm down by about 110 lb so far.
Per MFP and my trained averaging eyeball I eat around 225g carbs / 100g sugars per day. Some of that is milk (I drink a lot of the stuff) but I also have plenty of foods with a lot of added sugars too.
And some smokers/alcoholics/drug addicts can get down to just a few a day and make sure it doesn't affect their livelihoods...doesn't make those things good for you.3 -
eveandqsmom wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »makingmark wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »The people who seem to be against the idea that sugar can be a problem for people seem to be those for whom sugar has never been a problem. It didn't happen to me so I don't believe it, and that's where Lustig exaggerated: Sugar is not a problem for everybody, but it is a problem for many. Just because the nutrition powers of yesteryear had fat labelled as the nutritional problem child in the 80s, it does not mean that sugar has been mislabelled as a problem nutrient ( or as the scapegoat) today. It IS a problem for some.
Looking within myself did not help me lose weight. The minute I dropped sugar and reduced my carbs I lost weight. Easily and lots of it. You bet I was eating too many calories but I was eating too much because of sugar (and partially due to those carbs which are readily converted to sugar). I didn't have to do any soul searching or suddenly develop great will power in order to lose weight; all I had to do was cut sugar out of my diet and I was much less hungry, I lost my cravings, and the slight thermogenic poperties of a very LCHF diet helped a bit too.
I also love cheese and nuts and overeat those pretty regularly but that's not what made me fat either. Candy, soda, muffins, and unneeded carby plate fillers made me fat. I cut those and replaced them with other macro nutrients (at a slight caloric deficit) and lost weight. Simply cutting calories was not sustainable for more that a week or two for me. Cut sugar too? Suddenly it was easy to lose. It may not be true for all, but it was for me and it is true for many, especially those of us with IR issues (known and undiagnosed). I am not a special snowflake here.
Sure, many people are fine with eating sugar but many aren't. I was fine with sugar until I approached 40, when suddenly I was not. Stating sugar is a problem for all is wrong, and Lustig should stop it. Staing that sugar is NOT a problem for all is just as wrong - claiming it is a scapegoat is incorrect. A better statement might be that sugar is not a problem for some people, although it may become a problem for some of them later, and that it is indeed a problem for some people right now (somewhere between 1/3 to 1/2 it appears to me based on those affected with IR issues like NAFLD, T2D, PCOS, prediabetes, Alzheimer's, as well as some of those who find weight loss difficult without sugar reduction - not a tiny group).
... This thread should probably be moved to the debate section.
"Readily converted to sugar" is another of those phrases that is used to fear monger against it, as if that makes it bad somehow.
You're outright denying in your post that things apart from carbs made you fat. "Oh, I've been overeating this and that and X and Y and Z regularly too but that wasn't the problem, no.". I call BS. If you've been overeating you've been overeating them and they were part of the problem.
I used to eat lots of sugar.
And lots of fat.
And probably protein too.
Like 4+ ham and cheese sandwiches as a single meal? Check.
Wieners with a bunch of fries? Yeah, did that.
Pizza and whatnot? Yup. All lots of it and not a single gram of added sugar. Cutting out sugar would have changed nothing at all, because I like eating. I would have just eaten something else instead.
Yeah no. I can still each 4 oz of cheese in a day and not gain weight. I do it often. Too often, but I can cut other foods from my diet when I do it. I had 4oz of cheese for lunch? Okay, I'll eat less at dinner. No problem. I had a cup of macadamia nuts with coconut for an afternoon "snack". I'll skip dinner. I had a large soda or a bag of jelly bellies? I'm still hungry and I find it harder to regulate my food intake. I can be sure that I'll be hungry for dinner even after a family sized bag of candy.
I tend to overeat cheese more now since I eat lower carb. I don't eat candy or soda any longer. Even though I overeat in one food it does not mean I overeat my caloric totals for the day. I consider it to be overeating in cheese when it slows my bms for day. LOL
Pizza? If I eat 4 pieces I am quite full and I stop. Angel food cake? I can eat the whole thing and look for more. We react differently to different foods. Sugar isn't a problem for you. Great. It's egocentric to assume one's experience is true for everyone.
All of that being said doesn't make sugar evil or a problem. All it means that you have a weakness for it. I can overeat on meat... easily. I don't tend to go for sugary stuff, but I got fat on a lot of proteins, fats, and other carbs including fruits and vegetables.
To label a nutrient/food as evil isn't helping either. If you individually have issues that is something you have to deal with, but it isn't the fault of sugar, fat, protein, white foods, meat, carbs, etc.
My biggest problem is that I just didn't monitor what I ate. Now I count my calories and am cognizant of how many calories I am consuming. I eat anything I want, just less. You are right that it is egocentric to assume one's experience is true for everyone, that is why the sugar conspiracy myth is so wrong.
At best, I see sugar as neutral in terms of health. At worst, I see it as contributing to health problems. Same thing goes for weight management. I doubt there are many out there who can lose weight with relative ease while eating a high sugar diet. It can be be neutral for some who are at a good weight, but it can also be a problem for some.
I don't see sugar as evil. I have never labelled it as evil. Food cannot be evil, but it can contribute to problems. For me, someone with minor IR, reactive hypoglycemia, and autoimmune issues that benefit from avoid inflammatory sugars, sugar is a problem. It's only benefit for me is good taste... perhaps as an appetite stimulant if I needed my appetite increased.
You don't have problems with sugar (leading to overeating of health issues). You're lucky. Some do.
What counts as a "high sugar" diet? I likely qualify, and I'm down by about 110 lb so far.
Per MFP and my trained averaging eyeball I eat around 225g carbs / 100g sugars per day. Some of that is milk (I drink a lot of the stuff) but I also have plenty of foods with a lot of added sugars too.
And some smokers/alcoholics/drug addicts can get down to just a few a day and make sure it doesn't affect their livelihoods...doesn't make those things good for you.
Maybe, but when's the last time you blew all your rent money on Snickers?2 -
I see people on that 600 pound show all the time that I cannot for the life of me figure out how they afford all that food.3
-
I also know a guy who can do coke once or twice a year and never think of it in between. Cocaine is not good for you1
-
This content has been removed.
-
Have you ever heard the term "pick your poison"? Just because sugar isn't your poison (wine is mine) doesn't mean it's not poison. One glass of wine a day may or may not have health benefits for some people...or send others into a spiral from hell.
It's nice that sugar isn't your poison but stop pretending you know what is happening in other people's bodies.6 -
This content has been removed.
-
I've quit smoking; it's exactly the same. Others have made similar comparisons.I am a recovering alcoholic, drug addict and former smoker who has been in 6 rehabs. I’ve been sober for almost 8 years now.
I struggled with addiction for a long time… and a few years after I became sober I started developing an addiction to unhealthy foods.
After a while, I realized that the thought processes and symptoms were the same as when I was addicted to drugs… exactly the same.
The truth is, there is no fundamental difference between junk food addiction and drug addiction. It’s just a different substance of abuse and the social consequences aren’t as severe.
I have since spoken to many former addicts who also had problems with sugar and junk food.
They agree that the symptoms are not just similar, but downright identical. Source3 -
Spotted_Cow wrote: »eveandqsmom wrote: »Have you ever heard the term "pick your poison"? Just because sugar isn't your poison (wine is mine) doesn't mean it's not poison. One glass of wine a day may or may not have health benefits for some people...or send others into a spiral from hell.
It's nice that sugar isn't your poison but stop pretending you know what is happening in other people's bodies.
I'm not pretending anything. Sugar is nowhere near as bad for you as cocaine or smoking. If you want to argue drinking, that may be a closer comparison, because as you said, moderation can actually be sustainable. However, that argument falls apart because sugar is not an addictive substance. If you think you are addicted to sugar, go to a recovery center and admit yourself. Explain to the heroin and alcohol addicts how tough sugar withdrawal is. Then get back to me. Then go to people who are trying to quit smoking and explain the addictiveness of sugar.
Addiction is a *kitten* and when someone claims they have a sugar addiction is insulting. Quitting a real drug addiction does not compare.6 -
queenliz99 wrote: »Spotted_Cow wrote: »eveandqsmom wrote: »Have you ever heard the term "pick your poison"? Just because sugar isn't your poison (wine is mine) doesn't mean it's not poison. One glass of wine a day may or may not have health benefits for some people...or send others into a spiral from hell.
It's nice that sugar isn't your poison but stop pretending you know what is happening in other people's bodies.
I'm not pretending anything. Sugar is nowhere near as bad for you as cocaine or smoking. If you want to argue drinking, that may be a closer comparison, because as you said, moderation can actually be sustainable. However, that argument falls apart because sugar is not an addictive substance. If you think you are addicted to sugar, go to a recovery center and admit yourself. Explain to the heroin and alcohol addicts how tough sugar withdrawal is. Then get back to me. Then go to people who are trying to quit smoking and explain the addictiveness of sugar.
Addiction is a *kitten* and when someone claims they have a sugar addiction is insulting. Quitting a real drug addiction does not compare.
Especially since quitting a drug/alcohol addiction can kill you, as those are substances with physical dependencies.5 -
This content has been removed.
-
Spotted_Cow wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »Spotted_Cow wrote: »eveandqsmom wrote: »Have you ever heard the term "pick your poison"? Just because sugar isn't your poison (wine is mine) doesn't mean it's not poison. One glass of wine a day may or may not have health benefits for some people...or send others into a spiral from hell.
It's nice that sugar isn't your poison but stop pretending you know what is happening in other people's bodies.
I'm not pretending anything. Sugar is nowhere near as bad for you as cocaine or smoking. If you want to argue drinking, that may be a closer comparison, because as you said, moderation can actually be sustainable. However, that argument falls apart because sugar is not an addictive substance. If you think you are addicted to sugar, go to a recovery center and admit yourself. Explain to the heroin and alcohol addicts how tough sugar withdrawal is. Then get back to me. Then go to people who are trying to quit smoking and explain the addictiveness of sugar.
Addiction is a *kitten* and when someone claims they have a sugar addiction is insulting. Quitting a real drug addiction does not compare.
I agree. But as it stands, opinions are like anal canals, everybody has one. I find it pretty ridiculous too. But the sugar shot my dog argument is like discussing politics or religion. I say to all the sugar "addicts", good luck with all that. If you tell someone you are a recovering sugar addict, don't be surprised if people don't give you the same reaction as if you had a real addiction. Or they may laugh in your face as well.
I get all stabby2 -
queenliz99 wrote: »Spotted_Cow wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »Spotted_Cow wrote: »eveandqsmom wrote: »Have you ever heard the term "pick your poison"? Just because sugar isn't your poison (wine is mine) doesn't mean it's not poison. One glass of wine a day may or may not have health benefits for some people...or send others into a spiral from hell.
It's nice that sugar isn't your poison but stop pretending you know what is happening in other people's bodies.
I'm not pretending anything. Sugar is nowhere near as bad for you as cocaine or smoking. If you want to argue drinking, that may be a closer comparison, because as you said, moderation can actually be sustainable. However, that argument falls apart because sugar is not an addictive substance. If you think you are addicted to sugar, go to a recovery center and admit yourself. Explain to the heroin and alcohol addicts how tough sugar withdrawal is. Then get back to me. Then go to people who are trying to quit smoking and explain the addictiveness of sugar.
Addiction is a *kitten* and when someone claims they have a sugar addiction is insulting. Quitting a real drug addiction does not compare.
I agree. But as it stands, opinions are like anal canals, everybody has one. I find it pretty ridiculous too. But the sugar shot my dog argument is like discussing politics or religion. I say to all the sugar "addicts", good luck with all that. If you tell someone you are a recovering sugar addict, don't be surprised if people don't give you the same reaction as if you had a real addiction. Or they may laugh in your face as well.
I get all stabby
Sugar will do that to you.2 -
It's not remotely the same, it's dumb people want to pretend it's the same.
Sure, some people might benefit from cutting out added sugar or low carbing. Others find they do better getting over the idea that some foods are "bad."4 -
well.. lol.. After reading the article and all the comments here I just don't know where to start. I do love this community 0
-
queenliz99 wrote: »Spotted_Cow wrote: »eveandqsmom wrote: »Have you ever heard the term "pick your poison"? Just because sugar isn't your poison (wine is mine) doesn't mean it's not poison. One glass of wine a day may or may not have health benefits for some people...or send others into a spiral from hell.
It's nice that sugar isn't your poison but stop pretending you know what is happening in other people's bodies.
I'm not pretending anything. Sugar is nowhere near as bad for you as cocaine or smoking. If you want to argue drinking, that may be a closer comparison, because as you said, moderation can actually be sustainable. However, that argument falls apart because sugar is not an addictive substance. If you think you are addicted to sugar, go to a recovery center and admit yourself. Explain to the heroin and alcohol addicts how tough sugar withdrawal is. Then get back to me. Then go to people who are trying to quit smoking and explain the addictiveness of sugar.
Addiction is a *kitten* and when someone claims they have a sugar addiction is insulting. Quitting a real drug addiction does not compare.
Agreed 100%. It pisses me off.2 -
Once upon a time, a man decided to deal sugar to his community. His home became one of the most frequented sugar houses in the city.
His daughter became a sugar addict and was so hooked that she began doing anything she could for a sugar fix. She stole, prostituted herself...she was serving a prison sentence when she gave birth to her little girl.
Because she couldn't raise her daughter in prison, her sugar dealing parents raised her in their sugar house. The little girl saw all the things you'd expect to see in a sugar house. Robberies, prostitution, sugar abuse...
The little girl's mom never stayed out of prison for long, always going back after getting caught prostituting herself or robbing others to get more sugar money.
At the age of just nine years old, the little girl was the responsible one in the house, watching the addicts to make sure no one overdosed on sugar.
Then one day the police came in a series of raids. In the fifth raid they found the sugar they were looking for.
Because the little girl was in the home when the grandparents were busted with the sugar, she was removed from their custody.
By God's grace, a series of circumstances brought the little girl to a small local church. God placed it in the hearts of a family in that church to take that little girl in as their own.
Her past life in the sugar world is just a distant memory now, a whole different world.
With a lot of help, discipline, prayer and love, she's become a permanent member of her new family and grown into a balanced, well adjusted, beautiful young lady.
This story has a happy ending but the pain that sugar caused this little girl is still very real and the sad truth is that most little girls trapped in the world of sugar don't get such a happy ending.
Sounds completely ridiculous and absurd doesn't it?
That's because it is.
Now exchange the word "sugar" for "heroin."
Not absurd anymore.
That's why the ridiculous claims that sugar is addictive like drugs and just as hard to quit, blah blah blah, just make me want to scream and punch a hole in the wall.
Btw,
The little girl is my adopted baby sister.30 -
pcoslady83 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »It's not remotely the same, it's dumb people want to pretend it's the same.
Sure, some people might benefit from cutting out added sugar or low carbing. Others find they do better getting over the idea that some foods are "bad."
What is dumb is your absolute belief that only you are correct and every one else who think otherwise are stupid.
You'll notice that she didn't call anyone dumb, like you did. She said the belief that sugar is addictive is dumb.2 -
pcoslady83 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »It's not remotely the same, it's dumb people want to pretend it's the same.
Sure, some people might benefit from cutting out added sugar or low carbing. Others find they do better getting over the idea that some foods are "bad."
What is dumb is your absolute belief that only you are correct and every one else who think otherwise are stupid.
You'll notice that she didn't call anyone dumb, like you did. She said the belief that sugar is addictive is dumb.
I didn't call her dumb. I called her belief dumb.2 -
I honestly don't know what to say to drive my point home..
Send a "Sugar addict" into a rehab facility full of heroin addicts and alcoholics. Watch them climbing the walls, vomiting profusely, the feelings of bugs crawling under their skin, the days and days and days of NO sleep,see their total mental and physical torture and the fact that they would do ANYTHING in that moment to get a fix..
Then come back and tell me your sugar cravings are comparable to what these people are going through!!14 -
Christine_72 wrote: »I honestly don't know what to say to drive my point home..
Send a "Sugar addict" into a rehab facility full of heroin addicts and alcoholics. Watch them climbing the walls, vomiting profusely, the feelings of bugs crawling under their skin, the days and days and days of NO sleep,see their total mental and physical torture and the fact that they would do ANYTHING in that moment to get a fix..
Then come back and tell me your sugar cravings are comparable to what these people are going through!!
What is your opinion on smoking? Is that addictive? I have seen people trying to quit smoking having a hard time but definitely not as hard as you are explaining here. But it is still considered an addiction.1 -
pcoslady83 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »I honestly don't know what to say to drive my point home..
Send a "Sugar addict" into a rehab facility full of heroin addicts and alcoholics. Watch them climbing the walls, vomiting profusely, the feelings of bugs crawling under their skin, the days and days and days of NO sleep,see their total mental and physical torture and the fact that they would do ANYTHING in that moment to get a fix..
Then come back and tell me your sugar cravings are comparable to what these people are going through!!
What is your opinion on smoking? Is that addictive? I have seen people trying to quit smoking having a hard time but definitely not as hard as you are explaining here. But it is still considered an addiction.
I've quit smoking too. I got a bit snappy and impatient and really really craved a cigarette every minute of the day, but it was bearable. Mind over matter and extreme willpower, pretty much the same way i deal with sweet cravings.
And no, quitting smoking is nothing like coming off of narcotics.
9 -
Christine_72 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »I honestly don't know what to say to drive my point home..
Send a "Sugar addict" into a rehab facility full of heroin addicts and alcoholics. Watch them climbing the walls, vomiting profusely, the feelings of bugs crawling under their skin, the days and days and days of NO sleep,see their total mental and physical torture and the fact that they would do ANYTHING in that moment to get a fix..
Then come back and tell me your sugar cravings are comparable to what these people are going through!!
What is your opinion on smoking? Is that addictive? I have seen people trying to quit smoking having a hard time but definitely not as hard as you are explaining here. But it is still considered an addiction.
I've quit smoking too. I got a bit snappy and impatient and really really craved a cigarette every minute of the day, but it was bearable. Mind over matter and extreme willpower, pretty much the same way i deal with sweet cravings.
And no, quitting smoking is nothing like coming off of narcotics.
Sure..quitting cigarettes may not come close to quitting narcotics. But is smoking still considered an addiction?
You had enough will power to quit smoking and control your sugar cravings, the same can be extended and said that if some one had enough will power they could have come off narcotics or alcohol too.
At least for me, sugar triggers addictive behaviors. I have had nights where I couldn't sleep until I ate the last cookie, I have felt bad while eating that cookie and I have wept after eating that because I knew that I shouldn't eat it. Your experience may be different with sugar. As per the severity, it may not come close to narcotics, nicotine or even alcohol, but it is still more than just will power (for me).
I have seen a person who had addiction to lemons of all things. Her teeth got eroded with acid exposure and had to get dentures and had to be in therapy to stop the behavior. Now, I don't know if citric acid is proven as addictive. But I cannot just dismiss her experience as a matter of willpower.
3 -
pcoslady83 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »It's not remotely the same, it's dumb people want to pretend it's the same.
Sure, some people might benefit from cutting out added sugar or low carbing. Others find they do better getting over the idea that some foods are "bad."
What is dumb is your absolute belief that only you are correct and every one else who think otherwise are stupid.
You'll notice that she didn't call anyone dumb, like you did. She said the belief that sugar is addictive is dumb.
I didn't call her dumb. I called her belief dumb.
Then I misread you.
I will never understand people who have decided that food has this much power over them, and it certainly isn't for lack of trying.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K 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
- 424 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