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
-
Nobody is playing addiction top trumps on my part!0
-
paulgads82 wrote: »
You're insulted by having a psychological problem? Why? Are they inferior? Psychological illnesses have physical components. Nobody uses the phrase "in your head" to describe psychological issues or illnesses. Certainly not "just in your head". I am starting to wonder if there's a certaina amount of stigma and prejudice towards mental health and this may explain why people desire a physical explanation.
I think you've hit the nail on the head, here. There is a huge stigma around mental illness in the US and I wouldn't be surprised if it's similar in other places. Mental health is as important and physical health, so I really wish the stigma would go away.5 -
If I eat somehing very high in carbs, like a few candies, grapes or a muffin, then I wil be fighting cravings/hunger/compulsion/whatever it is for the next 24-48 hours or so. If I don't eat more, eventually my carb cravings fade again.
So the physical part is there. Those high carbs do cause a spike in blood sugar, causing a spike in insulin, causing a
crash in blood sugar, causing hunger. (Simplified but mostly true) The choice to eat a donut, or jelly beans, or taffy, or candy, when hungry is a result of a psychological issue. There isn't a physiological demand by your body to have sugar. There is a hormonal, chemical demand for increased food consumption at that point, but the choice to meet that demand with more sugar is a psychological one.
Once you go "off" sugar for a few days, those blood sugar, and insulin spikes go away, getting rid of the demand for more food. Once the demand is gone there's no reason for you to chose sugar, and so, to you, it looks like the addiction is physical because, at that point, your able to chose what to eat without the addiction coming into play.
And now I see why we're arguing about weather it's a physical or psychological addiction . . .4 -
I think you've hit the nail on the head, here. There is a huge stigma around mental illness in the US and I wouldn't be surprised if it's similar in other places. Mental health is as important and physical health, so I really wish the stigma would go away.
In many ways the stigma in our society is changing. It's become more acceptable for people to talk about depression and other diagnosed conditions, which is so important to reduce marginalization of people who are suffering. I typed in a whole lot more here, about my personal reaction to the overuse of words that are diagnoses, but used to describe quirky behaviours (such as OCD being used to refer to keeping things organized), but kept erasing it, because I'm not sure how to explain my thoughts without coming off as a *babysloth*.3 -
paulgads82 wrote: »
You're insulted by having a psychological problem? Why? Are they inferior? Psychological illnesses have physical components. Nobody uses the phrase "in your head" to describe psychological issues or illnesses. Certainly not "just in your head". I am starting to wonder if there's a certaina amount of stigma and prejudice towards mental health and this may explain why people desire a physical explanation.
I was told that my autoimmune diseases were in my head (in so many words) by doctors, for many years (decades). I eventually understood that statement to mean that they couldn't figure out what was wrong so there was NOTHING wrong - they implied that it was all in my head. They were wrong. They just did not have an answer and were still looking for a way to be right about that fact.
Eventually I self diagnosed myself and had them run the tests to prove it. I was right on everything and it wasn't in my head. I even figured out my reactive hypoglycemia before getting tested.
Don't twist my words. Just because my sugar problem is not psychological does not mean that psychological problems are infererior to physical problems. I never said that.4 -
Why are we arguing about weather its a physical or psychological addiction? Are psychological addictions not "real" addictions? Are people who are psychological addicted only addicted because they lack the will power to quit and are therefore weak willed morons that blame sugar for everything?
It can be an addiction for some people. End of discussion. My addiction is worse than your addiction is a meaningless idiotic debate.
Alcohol in and of itself isn't a bad thing, the addiction to it that causes over consumption is. Sugar in and of itself isn't a bad thing. If you're psychologically addicted to it, causing you to consume an unhealthy amount of calories from it, then by all means avoid sugar. But recognize that a handful of jelly beans for someone who doesn't have a problem with sugar is not going to cause them to suddenly gain 30 lbs anymore than a glass of wine will give an unaddicted person cirrhosis.
The point I was trying to get across (I guess I failed) is that we should leave the word addiction out of this.
Sugar is not just a bad choice or habit for some. There is a physical component to the problem that people are denying. That's what I am debating.3 -
I agree with this. I work one-on-one with an addict and have done so for years. It's effin heartbreaking.stevencloser wrote: »
If someone says sugar is more addictive than heroin, then yes, that is very insulting to anyone who had the pleasure of dealing directly or indirectly with that.
It's like comparing a papercut to an amputation.
I once thought I was addicted to sugar, but it turns out that my body was seeking fuel for energy. Once I started fueling my body appropriately (I also increased chromium in my diet), I was and am fine.0 -
I was told that my autoimmune diseases were in my head (in so many words) by doctors, for many years (decades). I eventually understood that statement to mean that they couldn't figure out what was wrong so there was NOTHING wrong - they implied that it was all in my head. They were wrong. They just did not have an answer and were still looking for a way to be right about that fact.
Eventually I self diagnosed myself and had them run the tests to prove it. I was right on everything and it wasn't in my head. I even figured out my reactive hypoglycemia before getting tested.
Don't twist my words. Just because my sugar problem is not psychological does not mean that psychological problems are infererior to physical problems. I never said that.
So why is it insulting?2 -
I was told that my autoimmune diseases were in my head (in so many words) by doctors, for many years (decades). I eventually understood that statement to mean that they couldn't figure out what was wrong so there was NOTHING wrong - they implied that it was all in my head. They were wrong. They just did not have an answer and were still looking for a way to be right about that fact.
Eventually I self diagnosed myself and had them run the tests to prove it. I was right on everything and it wasn't in my head. I even figured out my reactive hypoglycemia before getting tested.
Don't twist my words. Just because my sugar problem is not psychological does not mean that psychological problems are infererior to physical problems. I never said that.
Honestly, the doctors ignoring you may be a result of being a woman. I cannot find the better article I read recently on it, but here's an interesting anecdote with some other good stuff thrown in. Apparently, doctors are pretty dismissive of women as hysterical. This has been my experience in the ER as well.3 -
I have an illness where people face similar issues and the worst experiences seem to be had by women. The cause being unknown doesn't help much either. I still get the occasional comment from certain doctors.1
-
So the physical part is there. Those high carbs do cause a spike in blood sugar, causing a spike in insulin, causing a
crash in blood sugar, causing hunger. (Simplified but mostly true) The choice to eat a donut, or jelly beans, or taffy, or candy, when hungry is a result of a psychological issue. There isn't a physiological demand by your body to have sugar. There is a hormonal, chemical demand for increased food consumption at that point, but the choice to meet that demand with more sugar is a psychological one.
Once you go "off" sugar for a few days, those blood sugar, and insulin spikes go away, getting rid of the demand for more food. Once the demand is gone there's no reason for you to chose sugar, and so, to you, it looks like the addiction is physical because, at that point, your able to chose what to eat without the addiction coming into play.
And now I see why we're arguing about weather it's a physical or psychological addiction . . .
A large oversimplification. So people who have problems have those problems because of a psychological issue?
People who never start gambling will never have a gambling problem. Smokers who never smoke will never have a smoking problem. Employees who don't slack off are less likely to have an unemplyment problem. People who never eat sugar are less likely to have a sugar problem.... The problem with that is most people are introduced to sugar in infancy.
So we should just never start? That would have worked but I had little choice in the matter.
I now know that sugar and carbs are a problm for me. When I first identified the problem, I tried to moderate my intake. I failed repeatedly because (I believe) the smaller amounts of sugar still created a physical problem for me. If I cut sugar to almost nothing, I am successful and no longer struggle. Not eating the sweet thing becomes an easy choice rather than an uphill battle that I eventually lose (in hours or days).
And again, NOT an addiction for me.1 -
paulgads82 wrote: »
So why is it insulting?
Because it is implied that the problem doesn't exist. It was made up.2 -
Saying something is psychological, and saying something is all in your head, are two very different things.
"All in your head" usually means you are imagining it.
A psychological or behavioral issue is a real thing. Those in the thread saying issues with sugar are psychological or behavioral are not saying they are all in your head. Psychological and behavioral issues can be treated using therapeutic and habit-changing strategies. They are not so much about the substance or activity as they are about the person's thought process and behavior.
Physical addictions are about the substance (although they obviously lead to related psychological and behavioral issues as well), they often require some type of medical intervention and physical discomfort as your body detoxes from the substance's effects and detox from stronger addictive substances can cause great pain, permanent physical injury, and even death.
Despite the fact that sugar has been consumed by humans in myriad forms over many centuries, there is no definitive scientific research showing sugar is "addictive". Nothing about that is an insult to people who struggle to limit sugar consumption.13 -
Honestly, the doctors ignoring you may be a result of being a woman. I cannot find the better article I read recently on it, but here's an interesting anecdote with some other good stuff thrown in. Apparently, doctors are pretty dismissive of women as hysterical. This has been my experience in the ER as well.
That could be part of it.0 -
paulgads82 wrote: »
Why would I not tell you that? The study is literally on rats. This has been discussed already. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/brainwaves/is-sugar-really-toxic-sifting-through-the-evidence/ Rat study dealt with in this article.
Sure..I did go through the article. I found two places where it mentions rat study.
A. A more compelling criticism is that concern about fructose is based primarily on studies in which rodents and people consumed huge amounts of the molecule—up to 300 grams of fructose each day, which is nearly equivalent to the total sugar in eight cans of Coke—or a diet in which the vast majority of sugars were pure fructose. The reality is that most people consume far less fructose than used in such studies and rarely eat fructose without glucose.
AND
B. Not only do many worrying fructose studies use unrealistic doses of the sugar unaccompanied by glucose, it also turns out that the rodents researchers have studied metabolize fructose in a very different way than people do—far more different than originally anticipated. Studies that have traced fructose's fantastic voyage through the human body suggest that the liver converts as much as 50 percent of fructose into glucose, around 30 percent of fructose into lactate and less than one percent into fats. In contrast, mice and rats turn more than 50 percent of fructose into fats, so experiments with these animals would exaggerate the significance of fructose's proposed detriments for humans, especially clogged arteries, fatty livers and insulin resistance.
Let us first see A: Study was conducted on rodents which consumed huge amounts of sugar. What drove them to consume huge amounts of sugar? Did they force feed the rodents and people so that they can see impact of such high levels of sugar consumption? Rodents were just offered sugar solution as an option along with their regular food and rodents displayed addiction traits (both behavioral and neurochemical).
Now..for B. Sure liver converts 50% of fructose into glucose..if that glucose is in excess of what body needs (which is the problem in addiction like behavior with sugar causes), it gets converted to fat. I have a hard time understanding what is the point the author is trying to make here.0 -
Because it is implied that the problem doesn't exist. It was made up.
After all my comments I don't know anyone could say I think psychological addiction is made up.4 -
pcoslady83 wrote: »
Sure..I did go through the article. I found two places where it mentions rat study.
A. A more compelling criticism is that concern about fructose is based primarily on studies in which rodents and people consumed huge amounts of the molecule—up to 300 grams of fructose each day, which is nearly equivalent to the total sugar in eight cans of Coke—or a diet in which the vast majority of sugars were pure fructose. The reality is that most people consume far less fructose than used in such studies and rarely eat fructose without glucose.
AND
B. Not only do many worrying fructose studies use unrealistic doses of the sugar unaccompanied by glucose, it also turns out that the rodents researchers have studied metabolize fructose in a very different way than people do—far more different than originally anticipated. Studies that have traced fructose's fantastic voyage through the human body suggest that the liver converts as much as 50 percent of fructose into glucose, around 30 percent of fructose into lactate and less than one percent into fats. In contrast, mice and rats turn more than 50 percent of fructose into fats, so experiments with these animals would exaggerate the significance of fructose's proposed detriments for humans, especially clogged arteries, fatty livers and insulin resistance.
Let us first see A: Study was conducted on rodents which consumed huge amounts of sugar. What drove them to consume huge amounts of sugar? Did they force feed the rodents and people so that they can see impact of such high levels of sugar consumption? Rodents were just offered sugar solution as an option along with their regular food and rodents displayed addiction traits (both behavioral and neurochemical).
Now..for B. Sure liver converts 50% of fructose into glucose..if that glucose is in excess of what body needs (which is the problem in addiction like behavior with sugar causes), it gets converted to fat. I have a hard time understanding what is the point the author is trying to make here.
Excess glucose is first and foremost turned to glycogen.
Also your body upregulates the carb oxidation to meet the increased supply, because burning it off is less work than converting it to fat. Efficiency, yo.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10365981
Also imgaine you're a rodent. You get the choice between tons of calories that taste great or tons of calories that taste like crap, which do you choose? You have no concept of proper nutrition.
I once again wonder if people put their cognitive abilities on par with rodents in this sort of thing. Rodents aren't dumb but they have quite limited abilities to think about things like proper macronutrient breakdown or even how energy rich something is. It's basically good tasting water to them, they don't know it's gonna make them fat if they slurp it in addition to their normal diet.7 -
stevencloser wrote: »
Excess glucose is first and foremost turned to glycogen.
Also your body upregulates the carb oxidation to meet the increased supply, because burning it off is less work than converting it to fat. Efficiency, yo.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10365981
Sure..some people may have excellent metabolism which burns off excess sugar. It is not true for everyone on this planet. If all our bodies were identical and excellent, then we would not have issues like obesity today.0 -
pcoslady83 wrote: »
Sure..some people may have excellent metabolism which burns off excess sugar. It is not true for everyone on this planet. If all our bodies were identical and excellent, then we would not have issues like obesity today.
If your energy expenditure is above your intake, you burn it off.
If you overeat, it matters nothing if it was sugar or anything else.9 -
Saying something is psychological, and saying something is all in your head, are two very different things.
"All in your head" usually means you are imagining it.
A psychological or behavioral issue is a real thing. Those in the thread saying issues with sugar are psychological or behavioral are not saying they are all in your head. Psychological and behavioral issues can be treated using therapeutic and habit-changing strategies. They are not so much about the substance or activity as they are about the person's thought process and behavior.
Physical addictions are about the substance (although they obviously lead to related psychological and behavioral issues as well), they often require some type of medical intervention and physical discomfort as your body detoxes from the substance's effects and detox from stronger addictive substances can cause great pain, permanent physical injury, and even death.
Despite the fact that sugar has been consumed by humans in myriad forms over many centuries, there is no definitive scientific research showing sugar is "addictive". Nothing about that is an insult to people who struggle to limit sugar consumption.
Very well said.1 -
stevencloser wrote: »
If your energy expenditure is above your intake, you burn it off.
If you overeat, it matters nothing if it was sugar or anything else.
Of course, the only point I am differing with you is sugar makes people over eat and it is not purely in their control and matter of will power. As ketomom said, there is a physical component to it for many people. Hence it is a major contributor to obesity problem.1 -
Yes, foods low in nutrients (including high in processed sugars) can make one "fat". My friend is a perfect example. She's very health conscious about her weight so she strictly counts calories while eating high processed food (i.e. 1200 calories a day of pizza). The result? She lost weight but looks like a skinny soft mess and complains about feeling constantly tired, almost how I used to look/feel when I was anorexic. I currently eat around 1800 calories a day and very clean. Am solid/lean, energized, lift, etc.1
-
paulgads82 wrote: »
After all my comments I don't know anyone could say I think psychological addiction is made up.
Again, that's not what I said. I meant the phrase "it is all in your head" means it is not real or it is made up.
After being told stomach aches, arthritis and such were "in my head", I was not sent for psychological treatment or counselling. I was just sent home.0 -
FeedMeFish wrote: »Yes, foods low in nutrients (including high in processed sugars) can make one "fat". My friend is a perfect example. She's very health conscious about her weight so she strictly counts calories while eating high processed food (i.e. 1200 calories a day of pizza). The result? She lost weight but looks like a skinny soft mess and complains about feeling constantly tired, almost how I used to look/feel when I was anorexic. I currently eat around 1800 calories a day and very clean. Am solid/lean, energized, lift, etc.
It's likely that she's undereating.2 -
Again, that's not what I said. I meant the phrase "it is all in your head" means it is not real or it is made up.
After being told stomach aches, arthritis and such were "in my head", I was not sent for psychological treatment or counselling. I was just sent home.
Who here has said sugar addiction is "all in the head" ?3 -
Again, that's not what I said. I meant the phrase "it is all in your head" means it is not real or it is made up.
After being told stomach aches, arthritis and such were "in my head", I was not sent for psychological treatment or counselling. I was just sent home.
I fail to see how a doctor failing to diagnose your condition has any bearing on the argument over whether addiction to sugar as a substance is a real thing or if those who have self diagnosed as such are actually suffering from a behavioral addiction to eating, an eating disorder or some other psychological issue.5 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »
I fail to see how a doctor failing to diagnose your condition has any bearing on the argument over whether addiction to sugar as a substance is a real thing or if those who have self diagnosed as such are actually suffering from a behavioral addiction to eating, an eating disorder or some other psychological issue.
Me neither. I've had it happen to me too, but it has no bearing on this debate.2 -
It was a personal comparison between two situations where I was told the same thing. The same incorrect thing. LOL Nevermind then.
0 -
eveandqsmom wrote: »
I'm really sorry to hear this story, it is heartbreaking. The differences in the story, however, is the legality and availability of the substance. Of course it would be ridiculous to prostitute yourself for sugar when it is readily available in your own cupboards.
People do steal food/sugar/starchy shite, they do great harm to themselves with it. People lose limbs, eyesight, go into comas and still can't stop themselves. If that's not an addiction, I don't know what is.
I've been doing my best to avoid this thread, but this particular comment is sticking with me. Heroin is illegal precisely because of its addictive nature and deleterious societal effects. It is the degree of harm to individuals and to society that makes it different. Even if we were to agree that sugar addition is real (I don't subscribe to this belief, but I do believe that there are behavioural/emotional components at play here and that food/eating addiction is real), the reality is no one is out hijacking cars or robbing stores to get a sugar fix. I have never seen anyone unable to control their bowels or have hallucinations going through sugar withdrawal. I have never heard of anyone needed to be placed into a medically induced coma to get through sugar withdrawal.
The comparison, in my mind, is absurd. There are very specific withdrawal protocols which are in place for withdrawals from drugs and alcohol, and there are teams who are consulted to support patients experiencing these things. I will be meeting with one of these teams next month, I will be happy to ask them what they do for people experiencing sugar addiction at that time (after the meeting is over and everyone else is out of the room, because I can't even imagine the embarrassment of asking about it in a professional setting), and report back to you.
When people are stealing food, it is because they have none, not because they want a sugar fix. They don't generally care about the type and quality of food, they are hungry. I once saw a guy guzzling down containers of ketchup at McDs one morning. I suspect he was hungry, broke, and homeless. I didn't ask him. I'm sure he would have told me to *babysloth* off if I asked him about his sugar addiction. When people are losing limbs and vision due to damage caused by uncontrolled diabetes, there are many factors involved in this, some lack education, some lack concern for self, some don't believe it will happen to them until it's too late, some attempt to control things, but their body is just so out of whack it is fruitless (I have seen some very brittle diabetics, and some people who are palliative and still require insulin despite never eating). To say it is about addiction without considering the complicating factors is an oversimplification. In absence of medical conditions, people don't need to have their limbs amputated because they had pie last night. Do you see how much of a stretch that comparison is?
15 -
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.8K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 428 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 15 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions