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
-
Just to clear something up... I'm not saying people don't have issues with sweet cravings and i'm not discounting that strong urge for a donut or whatever, I mean I have to have something sweet after dinner most nights. It's a habit I've gotten into over the years and it's like my brain expects that sweet fix every night, but it doesn't rule my life and if I apply a bit of willpower, which admittedly, is NOT my greatest strength, I can forgo dessert if i really wanted to.
What I take issue with is the comparison to a full blown drug addiction. If I don't have sweets in the house then I don't have any and get over it. The same can not be said for a Heroin addict.
8 -
pcoslady83 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »
It's a scientific debate, semantics are important. I think we are all just geeks who like debating
But its also important in the context of the idea of a sugar conspiracy, or whatever. Are corporate interests feeding us an addictive substance or is sugar just really tasty and some of us develop unhealthy relationships with it? Obviously i support the latter explanation.
I believe refined sugar is addictive to many people and at the minimum an appetite stimulant which interferes with normal brain functionality. So I think corporations are using these attributes of sugar to increase profits.
Aaaaannnnnndddddddd...I don't like debating at all. I used to though, but when I started understanding that different people experience different realities when faced with an objectively same situation, debating became less interesting and learning about different experiences and perspective became more interesting.
Experiences do not negate reality. If I start seeing unicorns, the unicorns are not there. It's me. The fact that I saw unicorns is real, the existence of unicorns is not. If someone believes they are physically addicted to sugar the only way to determine if this is true is through science.
Sure science will determine that...eventually. Till then, it is good to have an open mind.
I do. It's open to evidence.
Then..let us just wait and respect people's experiences rather than dismissing them as willpower problem.
I hope I've been clear that I think it's more nuanced than just a willpower problem and calling something psychological is in no way a dismissal. If someone tells me they really struggle with sugar I am in no position to say "No you don't get a grip" but can discuss how to categorise it or whether it's the substance itself.
A simple google search will point you to papers. Here is the first link that turned up and I have copied the conclusion.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2235907/
The reviewed evidence supports the theory that, in some circumstances, intermittent access to sugar can lead to behavior and neurochemical changes that resemble the effects of a substance of abuse. According to the evidence in rats, intermittent access to sugar and chow is capable of producing a “dependency”. This was operationally defined by tests for bingeing, withdrawal, craving and cross-sensitization to amphetamine and alcohol. The correspondence to some people with binge eating disorder or bulimia is striking, but whether or not it is a good idea to call this a “food addiction” in people is both a scientific and societal question that has yet to be answered. What this review demonstrates is that rats with intermittent access to food and a sugar solution can show both a constellation of behaviors and parallel brain changes that are characteristic of rats that voluntarily self-administer addictive drugs. In the aggregrate, this is evidence that sugar can be addictive.
Now..please don't tell me that the study was in rats and not applicable to humans.
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.
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.
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.
I disagree with there being a distinct physical component that's just for sugar or that sugar as itself has any of the effects.
A distinction has to be made if sugar (or rather certain food items containing sugar) for the people who have these issues was the cause or just a trigger for an already existant problem. It's an important distinction to be made, as it is like the difference between saying "eating peanuts triggers my allergies" and "eating peanuts is the reason I have allergies" for example.
I believe it is simply the first of the two, and many reports of other people having huge problems with binging on highly palatable foods that do not contain any sugar, added or not, supports that idea.5 -
paulgads82 wrote: »
It's a shame because the article in the original post had a lot of potential for debate about the more political side of things, academic procedure, peer review, etc. I'm beginning to think there's a universal law here at MFP. As any sugar thread grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving heroin or alcoholism approaches 1.5 -
diannethegeek wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »
It's a shame because the article in the original post had a lot of potential for debate about the more political side of things, academic procedure, peer review, etc. I'm beginning to think there's a universal law here at MFP. As any sugar thread grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving heroin or alcoholism approaches 1.
Actually, I prefer this discussion to talking about Lustig. It was Lustig, right?0 -
Man, you guys have been busy.
So where are we now? Are the sugar-addiction-isnt-a-thing people now saying that it is a thing but only as a behavioral addiction? I could have sworn I made that suggestion a while ago at least on one of these threads and met with an equal amount of friction. Maybe I misread that.
1 -
Man, you guys have been busy.
So where are we now? Are the sugar-addiction-isnt-a-thing people now saying that it is a thing but only as a behavioral addiction? I could have sworn I made that suggestion a while ago at least on one of these threads and met with an equal amount of friction. Maybe I misread that.
We are not a homogeneous entity
4 -
stevencloser wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »
It's a scientific debate, semantics are important. I think we are all just geeks who like debating
But its also important in the context of the idea of a sugar conspiracy, or whatever. Are corporate interests feeding us an addictive substance or is sugar just really tasty and some of us develop unhealthy relationships with it? Obviously i support the latter explanation.
I believe refined sugar is addictive to many people and at the minimum an appetite stimulant which interferes with normal brain functionality. So I think corporations are using these attributes of sugar to increase profits.
Aaaaannnnnndddddddd...I don't like debating at all. I used to though, but when I started understanding that different people experience different realities when faced with an objectively same situation, debating became less interesting and learning about different experiences and perspective became more interesting.
Experiences do not negate reality. If I start seeing unicorns, the unicorns are not there. It's me. The fact that I saw unicorns is real, the existence of unicorns is not. If someone believes they are physically addicted to sugar the only way to determine if this is true is through science.
Sure science will determine that...eventually. Till then, it is good to have an open mind.
I do. It's open to evidence.
Then..let us just wait and respect people's experiences rather than dismissing them as willpower problem.
I hope I've been clear that I think it's more nuanced than just a willpower problem and calling something psychological is in no way a dismissal. If someone tells me they really struggle with sugar I am in no position to say "No you don't get a grip" but can discuss how to categorise it or whether it's the substance itself.
A simple google search will point you to papers. Here is the first link that turned up and I have copied the conclusion.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2235907/
The reviewed evidence supports the theory that, in some circumstances, intermittent access to sugar can lead to behavior and neurochemical changes that resemble the effects of a substance of abuse. According to the evidence in rats, intermittent access to sugar and chow is capable of producing a “dependency”. This was operationally defined by tests for bingeing, withdrawal, craving and cross-sensitization to amphetamine and alcohol. The correspondence to some people with binge eating disorder or bulimia is striking, but whether or not it is a good idea to call this a “food addiction” in people is both a scientific and societal question that has yet to be answered. What this review demonstrates is that rats with intermittent access to food and a sugar solution can show both a constellation of behaviors and parallel brain changes that are characteristic of rats that voluntarily self-administer addictive drugs. In the aggregrate, this is evidence that sugar can be addictive.
Now..please don't tell me that the study was in rats and not applicable to humans.
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.
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.
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.
I disagree with there being a distinct physical component that's just for sugar or that sugar as itself has any of the effects.
A distinction has to be made if sugar (or rather certain food items containing sugar) for the people who have these issues was the cause or just a trigger for an already existant problem. It's an important distinction to be made, as it is like the difference between saying "eating peanuts triggers my allergies" and "eating peanuts is the reason I have allergies" for example.
I believe it is simply the first of the two, and many reports of other people having huge problems with binging on highly palatable foods that do not contain any sugar, added or not, supports that idea.
Even I agree with the first. Just like peanuts triggers allergies for some people, eating sugar changes brain chemistry that leads me to over eating which in turn causes obesity. I am not saying eat sugar causes obesity.
And I believe in CICO, A calorie is a calorie (the energy needed to raise the temperature of 1 gram of water through 1 °C) whether it comes from sugar, fats or protein. But when it comes sugar in large doses (like the way it happens when one drinks soda, eat candies and for some people it can be very sweet fruits), for some people, it can be addictive leading to excess consumption of sugar which makes maintaining calorie balance extremely difficult to impossible.2 -
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.
Humiliation is a big motivator for those who steal food when they have the ability to afford it.
I agree though, the consequences of addiction pale in comparison to those of dependence.0 -
True. True.paulgads82 wrote: »Man, you guys have been busy.
So where are we now? Are the sugar-addiction-isnt-a-thing people now saying that it is a thing but only as a behavioral addiction? I could have sworn I made that suggestion a while ago at least on one of these threads and met with an equal amount of friction. Maybe I misread that.
We are not a homogeneous entity
0 -
paulgads82 wrote: »
You're right. I wish people would quit focusing on arguing if sugar is addictive or not. It changes nothing.1 -
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.
Humiliation is a big motivator for those who steal food when they have the ability to afford it.
I agree though, the consequences of addiction pale in comparison to those of dependence.
Absolutely, there are other contexts than the one I presented, but that just reinforces the multifaceted nature of the debate. It's not just "sugar is addictive" or "no it's not."1 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »eveandqsmom wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »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.
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?
So. Amazingly. Well. Said.
It's also worth noting that alcohol is just as legal as sugar (for those over 21) and yet some become so addicted to alcohol as a substance that they waste their entire livelihood and will go to extreme measures to get another drink, whether it's stealing, drinking hairspray off the store shelves or whatever.
I've never seen anyone blow a paycheck at the candy store or eat handfuls of sugar out of the bag right in the aisle at Walmart.6 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »eveandqsmom wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »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.
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?
So. Amazingly. Well. Said.
It's also worth noting that alcohol is just as legal as sugar (for those over 21) and yet some become so addicted to alcohol as a substance that they waste their entire livelihood and will go to extreme measures to get another drink, whether it's stealing, drinking hairspray off the store shelves or whatever.
I've never seen anyone blow a paycheck at the candy store or eat handfuls of sugar out of the bag right in the aisle at Walmart.
Thank you!
Yes, I've seen people drinking hand sanitizer because of the alcohol content. Withdrawal from substances that have a physiological dependence is a horrifying thing to watch.
I hadn't thought about this before, but it's interesting that no one seems to face the same shame or worry about being stigmatized for sugar addition as what is faced by drug, alcohol, sex, and gambling addicts. The secrecy of sneaking drinks and drugs, that lack of willingness to disclose the depth of the problem.2 -
pcoslady83 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »
It's a scientific debate, semantics are important. I think we are all just geeks who like debating
But its also important in the context of the idea of a sugar conspiracy, or whatever. Are corporate interests feeding us an addictive substance or is sugar just really tasty and some of us develop unhealthy relationships with it? Obviously i support the latter explanation.
I believe refined sugar is addictive to many people and at the minimum an appetite stimulant which interferes with normal brain functionality. So I think corporations are using these attributes of sugar to increase profits.
Aaaaannnnnndddddddd...I don't like debating at all. I used to though, but when I started understanding that different people experience different realities when faced with an objectively same situation, debating became less interesting and learning about different experiences and perspective became more interesting.
Experiences do not negate reality. If I start seeing unicorns, the unicorns are not there. It's me. The fact that I saw unicorns is real, the existence of unicorns is not. If someone believes they are physically addicted to sugar the only way to determine if this is true is through science.
Sure science will determine that...eventually. Till then, it is good to have an open mind.
I do. It's open to evidence.
Then..let us just wait and respect people's experiences rather than dismissing them as willpower problem.
I hope I've been clear that I think it's more nuanced than just a willpower problem and calling something psychological is in no way a dismissal. If someone tells me they really struggle with sugar I am in no position to say "No you don't get a grip" but can discuss how to categorise it or whether it's the substance itself.
A simple google search will point you to papers. Here is the first link that turned up and I have copied the conclusion.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2235907/
The reviewed evidence supports the theory that, in some circumstances, intermittent access to sugar can lead to behavior and neurochemical changes that resemble the effects of a substance of abuse. According to the evidence in rats, intermittent access to sugar and chow is capable of producing a “dependency”. This was operationally defined by tests for bingeing, withdrawal, craving and cross-sensitization to amphetamine and alcohol. The correspondence to some people with binge eating disorder or bulimia is striking, but whether or not it is a good idea to call this a “food addiction” in people is both a scientific and societal question that has yet to be answered. What this review demonstrates is that rats with intermittent access to food and a sugar solution can show both a constellation of behaviors and parallel brain changes that are characteristic of rats that voluntarily self-administer addictive drugs. In the aggregrate, this is evidence that sugar can be addictive.
Now..please don't tell me that the study was in rats and not applicable to humans.
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.
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.
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.
I disagree with there being a distinct physical component that's just for sugar or that sugar as itself has any of the effects.
A distinction has to be made if sugar (or rather certain food items containing sugar) for the people who have these issues was the cause or just a trigger for an already existant problem. It's an important distinction to be made, as it is like the difference between saying "eating peanuts triggers my allergies" and "eating peanuts is the reason I have allergies" for example.
I believe it is simply the first of the two, and many reports of other people having huge problems with binging on highly palatable foods that do not contain any sugar, added or not, supports that idea.
Even I agree with the first. Just like peanuts triggers allergies for some people, eating sugar changes brain chemistry that leads me to over eating which in turn causes obesity. I am not saying eat sugar causes obesity.
And I believe in CICO, A calorie is a calorie (the energy needed to raise the temperature of 1 gram of water through 1 °C) whether it comes from sugar, fats or protein. But when it comes sugar in large doses (like the way it happens when one drinks soda, eat candies and for some people it can be very sweet fruits), for some people, it can be addictive leading to excess consumption of sugar which makes maintaining calorie balance extremely difficult to impossible.
Well, my stance is that it's not sugar changing your brain chemistry, because for that it would need to have an inherent effect it just doesn't have since you're never "off" sugars because your blood sugar needs to always be present, but rather your brain chemistry being inherently different so you have difficulties with sugary things from the eating perspective, where other's have problems with bacon, or cheese, or chips, or none at all.
Like, imagine you were always high 24/7, would some extra weed drastically change its effects on your body? Nope, it would be the same effects just stronger for a while until the concentration in your blood goes down again.2 -
Man, you guys have been busy.
So where are we now? Are the sugar-addiction-isnt-a-thing people now saying that it is a thing but only as a behavioral addiction? I could have sworn I made that suggestion a while ago at least on one of these threads and met with an equal amount of friction. Maybe I misread that.
Never in any of these threads has it been argued that behavioral addictions involving eating sugary foods do not exist.
In fact, the argument all along has been that any such issues are indeed behavioral addictions, eating disorders and/or other psychological issues.
It's the claim that sugar as a substance is physically addictive that has been contested.8 -
Many addiction groups recognize both a physical and a psychological component to addiction (not counting physical dependencies). This is the development of an abnormal craving once the substance is ingested. Once the craving is induced it cannot be satisfied no matter how much of the substance is consumed. The other component is the existence of a mental obsession of which the afflicted cannot overcome to prevent the triggering of the craving through ingesting the substance.
Basically, they can't stop once they've started and they can't stop themselves from starting.
This is a core concept behind the reason that many recovered alcoholics (or other recovered addicts) will not attempt moderation. While free from any physical dependencies, they are not free from the condition which caused the craving in the first place. Their recovery comes on the mental obsession side of the problem.
I believe there are many compounds which carry a potential to cause such a reaction. Food is one of these. Sugary foods seem to be the most commonly cited, but I am aware of plenty who cite fatty meats and other things like salt, and starchy foods...or any mixture of them.
I think a lot of people say they are addicted to sugar as a way of describing their fondness for it. They might have heard about it before, but aren't quite as out of control as the statement would indicate. To them, it might be more of a metaphor. Others are struggling with crippling desperation. On these forums, I can't tell one type from the other, so I treat them the same.
It's like that riddle where there are two tribes, one filled cannible liars (as in they never tell the truth) and one friendly honest (as in they never tell a lie). They look the same. You approach a fork in the road and see one tribesman standing there. The two paths will take you to either village. Given a single question, what do you ask the tribesman?Which way to your village?
In either case, the answer is the same.4 -
pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »
It's a scientific debate, semantics are important. I think we are all just geeks who like debating
But its also important in the context of the idea of a sugar conspiracy, or whatever. Are corporate interests feeding us an addictive substance or is sugar just really tasty and some of us develop unhealthy relationships with it? Obviously i support the latter explanation.
I believe refined sugar is addictive to many people and at the minimum an appetite stimulant which interferes with normal brain functionality. So I think corporations are using these attributes of sugar to increase profits.
Aaaaannnnnndddddddd...I don't like debating at all. I used to though, but when I started understanding that different people experience different realities when faced with an objectively same situation, debating became less interesting and learning about different experiences and perspective became more interesting.
I wish to address only what I've highlighted, keeping in mind that you possibly agree with what I am about to say: If that is true, then it's an example of corporations doing what corporations do, and I can't fault them for that. Whether or not it needs to change is a political discussion that doesn't belong in these forums.
I know this is a tad off topic but I just had to say it.
ETA: Before I'm misunderstood, I know no one is actually making any type of political argument here.2 -
It was a personal comparison between two situations where I was told the same thing. The same incorrect thing. LOL Nevermind then.
Was one of those situations in regard to how sugar affects you? A friend of mine also suffered for years while being told her problems were all in her head. She finally found a doctor that identified the problem (fibromyalgia) and she now knows how to handle it better. I'm sorry that you had a similar experience. I know it sucks.
The reason I ask if a doctor has told you that your experience with sugar is all in your head is because, as far as I can see, you were the first one to introduce the idea in this thread. I'm pretty sure no one here is saying that whatever leads to overconsumption of sugar is imaginary.
I tend to agree with you that the word "addiction" should be left out, but I'm not sure what should be used instead to describe it. Curious about your thoughts?0 -
diannethegeek wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »
It's a shame because the article in the original post had a lot of potential for debate about the more political side of things, academic procedure, peer review, etc. I'm beginning to think there's a universal law here at MFP. As any sugar thread grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving heroin or alcoholism approaches 1.
Can we call this Diannes's Law?
4 -
pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »
It's a scientific debate, semantics are important. I think we are all just geeks who like debating
But its also important in the context of the idea of a sugar conspiracy, or whatever. Are corporate interests feeding us an addictive substance or is sugar just really tasty and some of us develop unhealthy relationships with it? Obviously i support the latter explanation.
I believe refined sugar is addictive to many people and at the minimum an appetite stimulant which interferes with normal brain functionality. So I think corporations are using these attributes of sugar to increase profits.
Aaaaannnnnndddddddd...I don't like debating at all. I used to though, but when I started understanding that different people experience different realities when faced with an objectively same situation, debating became less interesting and learning about different experiences and perspective became more interesting.
I wish to address only what I've highlighted, keeping in mind that you possibly agree with what I am about to say: If that is true, then it's an example of corporations doing what corporations do, and I can't fault them for that. Whether or not it needs to change is a political discussion that doesn't belong in these forums.
I know this is a tad off topic but I just had to say it.
ETA: Before I'm misunderstood, I know no one is actually making any type of political argument here.pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »
It's a scientific debate, semantics are important. I think we are all just geeks who like debating
But its also important in the context of the idea of a sugar conspiracy, or whatever. Are corporate interests feeding us an addictive substance or is sugar just really tasty and some of us develop unhealthy relationships with it? Obviously i support the latter explanation.
I believe refined sugar is addictive to many people and at the minimum an appetite stimulant which interferes with normal brain functionality. So I think corporations are using these attributes of sugar to increase profits.
Aaaaannnnnndddddddd...I don't like debating at all. I used to though, but when I started understanding that different people experience different realities when faced with an objectively same situation, debating became less interesting and learning about different experiences and perspective became more interesting.
I wish to address only what I've highlighted, keeping in mind that you possibly agree with what I am about to say: If that is true, then it's an example of corporations doing what corporations do, and I can't fault them for that. Whether or not it needs to change is a political discussion that doesn't belong in these forums.
I know this is a tad off topic but I just had to say it.
ETA: Before I'm misunderstood, I know no one is actually making any type of political argument here.
I don't fault corporations. But I think educating people about the amount of refined sugar that gets added to the food and its ill effects is extremely important. I welcome the addition of added sugar on the nutrition labels.1 -
pcoslady83 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »
It's a scientific debate, semantics are important. I think we are all just geeks who like debating
But its also important in the context of the idea of a sugar conspiracy, or whatever. Are corporate interests feeding us an addictive substance or is sugar just really tasty and some of us develop unhealthy relationships with it? Obviously i support the latter explanation.
I believe refined sugar is addictive to many people and at the minimum an appetite stimulant which interferes with normal brain functionality. So I think corporations are using these attributes of sugar to increase profits.
Aaaaannnnnndddddddd...I don't like debating at all. I used to though, but when I started understanding that different people experience different realities when faced with an objectively same situation, debating became less interesting and learning about different experiences and perspective became more interesting.
I wish to address only what I've highlighted, keeping in mind that you possibly agree with what I am about to say: If that is true, then it's an example of corporations doing what corporations do, and I can't fault them for that. Whether or not it needs to change is a political discussion that doesn't belong in these forums.
I know this is a tad off topic but I just had to say it.
ETA: Before I'm misunderstood, I know no one is actually making any type of political argument here.pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »
It's a scientific debate, semantics are important. I think we are all just geeks who like debating
But its also important in the context of the idea of a sugar conspiracy, or whatever. Are corporate interests feeding us an addictive substance or is sugar just really tasty and some of us develop unhealthy relationships with it? Obviously i support the latter explanation.
I believe refined sugar is addictive to many people and at the minimum an appetite stimulant which interferes with normal brain functionality. So I think corporations are using these attributes of sugar to increase profits.
Aaaaannnnnndddddddd...I don't like debating at all. I used to though, but when I started understanding that different people experience different realities when faced with an objectively same situation, debating became less interesting and learning about different experiences and perspective became more interesting.
I wish to address only what I've highlighted, keeping in mind that you possibly agree with what I am about to say: If that is true, then it's an example of corporations doing what corporations do, and I can't fault them for that. Whether or not it needs to change is a political discussion that doesn't belong in these forums.
I know this is a tad off topic but I just had to say it.
ETA: Before I'm misunderstood, I know no one is actually making any type of political argument here.
I don't fault corporations. But I think educating people about the amount of refined sugar that gets added to the food and its ill effects is extremely important. I welcome the addition of added sugar on the nutrition labels.
+1
I think we're on the same page here. I believe that what's most needed to reverse obesity rates is better nutrition education. (And I figured you don't fault corporations, but I've heard some tin hat things on the interwebz so I just had to springboard off of your post! ) 1 -
paulgads82 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »
It's a scientific debate, semantics are important. I think we are all just geeks who like debating
But its also important in the context of the idea of a sugar conspiracy, or whatever. Are corporate interests feeding us an addictive substance or is sugar just really tasty and some of us develop unhealthy relationships with it? Obviously i support the latter explanation.
I believe refined sugar is addictive to many people and at the minimum an appetite stimulant which interferes with normal brain functionality. So I think corporations are using these attributes of sugar to increase profits.
Aaaaannnnnndddddddd...I don't like debating at all. I used to though, but when I started understanding that different people experience different realities when faced with an objectively same situation, debating became less interesting and learning about different experiences and perspective became more interesting.
Experiences do not negate reality. If I start seeing unicorns, the unicorns are not there. It's me. The fact that I saw unicorns is real, the existence of unicorns is not. If someone believes they are physically addicted to sugar the only way to determine if this is true is through science.
Sure science will determine that...eventually. Till then, it is good to have an open mind.
I do. It's open to evidence.
Then..let us just wait and respect people's experiences rather than dismissing them as willpower problem.
I hope I've been clear that I think it's more nuanced than just a willpower problem and calling something psychological is in no way a dismissal. If someone tells me they really struggle with sugar I am in no position to say "No you don't get a grip" but can discuss how to categorise it or whether it's the substance itself.
A simple google search will point you to papers. Here is the first link that turned up and I have copied the conclusion.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2235907/
The reviewed evidence supports the theory that, in some circumstances, intermittent access to sugar can lead to behavior and neurochemical changes that resemble the effects of a substance of abuse. According to the evidence in rats, intermittent access to sugar and chow is capable of producing a “dependency”. This was operationally defined by tests for bingeing, withdrawal, craving and cross-sensitization to amphetamine and alcohol. The correspondence to some people with binge eating disorder or bulimia is striking, but whether or not it is a good idea to call this a “food addiction” in people is both a scientific and societal question that has yet to be answered. What this review demonstrates is that rats with intermittent access to food and a sugar solution can show both a constellation of behaviors and parallel brain changes that are characteristic of rats that voluntarily self-administer addictive drugs. In the aggregrate, this is evidence that sugar can be addictive.
Now..please don't tell me that the study was in rats and not applicable to humans.
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.
I love this article So. Much. It answered so many questions I had!1 -
It was a personal comparison between two situations where I was told the same thing. The same incorrect thing. LOL Nevermind then.
Was one of those situations in regard to how sugar affects you? A friend of mine also suffered for years while being told her problems were all in her head. She finally found a doctor that identified the problem (fibromyalgia) and she now knows how to handle it better. I'm sorry that you had a similar experience. I know it sucks.
The reason I ask if a doctor has told you that your experience with sugar is all in your head is because, as far as I can see, you were the first one to introduce the idea in this thread. I'm pretty sure no one here is saying that whatever leads to overconsumption of sugar is imaginary.
I tend to agree with you that the word "addiction" should be left out, but I'm not sure what should be used instead to describe it. Curious about your thoughts?
My reactive hypoglycemia was indeed ignored and brushed off but that was not a big deal. The autoimmune issues being ignored was a larger problem....
I let myself get derailed while trying to make myself understood.0 -
You know what kills me? When people say there's "added sugar" in bread. Sure, it is on the ingredients list.. but not because there's actual "added sugar" in bread. The yeast almost certainly used it up unless the bread is specifically a sweet bread (such as King's Hawaiian -- which has pineapple juice, incidentally). Yeast grows on sugar, and expels carbon dioxide, which makes bread rise. You don't have sugar in your bread, you have air bubbles, thanks to sugar having been an ingredient with yeast. There's little to no sugar left if the baker worked things out correctly.13
-
You know what kills me? When people say there's "added sugar" in bread. Sure, it is on the ingredients list.. but not because there's actual "added sugar" in bread. The yeast almost certainly used it up unless the bread is specifically a sweet bread (such as King's Hawaiian -- which has pineapple juice, incidentally). Yeast grows on sugar, and expels carbon dioxide, which makes bread rise. You don't have sugar in your bread, you have air bubbles, thanks to sugar having been an ingredient with yeast. There's little to no sugar left if the baker worked things out correctly.
Please stop trying to confuse this issue with facts.
Just kidding, even if it is a sweet bread where they add sugar, so what? Recipes having been doing that for years.5 -
pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »
It's a scientific debate, semantics are important. I think we are all just geeks who like debating
But its also important in the context of the idea of a sugar conspiracy, or whatever. Are corporate interests feeding us an addictive substance or is sugar just really tasty and some of us develop unhealthy relationships with it? Obviously i support the latter explanation.
I believe refined sugar is addictive to many people and at the minimum an appetite stimulant which interferes with normal brain functionality. So I think corporations are using these attributes of sugar to increase profits.
Aaaaannnnnndddddddd...I don't like debating at all. I used to though, but when I started understanding that different people experience different realities when faced with an objectively same situation, debating became less interesting and learning about different experiences and perspective became more interesting.
Experiences do not negate reality. If I start seeing unicorns, the unicorns are not there. It's me. The fact that I saw unicorns is real, the existence of unicorns is not. If someone believes they are physically addicted to sugar the only way to determine if this is true is through science.
Sure science will determine that...eventually. Till then, it is good to have an open mind.
I do. It's open to evidence.
Then..let us just wait and respect people's experiences rather than dismissing them as willpower problem.
I hope I've been clear that I think it's more nuanced than just a willpower problem and calling something psychological is in no way a dismissal. If someone tells me they really struggle with sugar I am in no position to say "No you don't get a grip" but can discuss how to categorise it or whether it's the substance itself.
A simple google search will point you to papers. Here is the first link that turned up and I have copied the conclusion.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2235907/
The reviewed evidence supports the theory that, in some circumstances, intermittent access to sugar can lead to behavior and neurochemical changes that resemble the effects of a substance of abuse. According to the evidence in rats, intermittent access to sugar and chow is capable of producing a “dependency”. This was operationally defined by tests for bingeing, withdrawal, craving and cross-sensitization to amphetamine and alcohol. The correspondence to some people with binge eating disorder or bulimia is striking, but whether or not it is a good idea to call this a “food addiction” in people is both a scientific and societal question that has yet to be answered. What this review demonstrates is that rats with intermittent access to food and a sugar solution can show both a constellation of behaviors and parallel brain changes that are characteristic of rats that voluntarily self-administer addictive drugs. In the aggregrate, this is evidence that sugar can be addictive.
Now..please don't tell me that the study was in rats and not applicable to humans.
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.
<snip>
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.
<snip>
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.
I think your point A has been well covered by other posters. I'd like to address point B.
The paragraph you've quoted here contains two points which go hand in hand in order to reach a conclusion. These are: a human liver would convert as much as 50% of that fructose into glucose; a rat liver would convert more than 50% of it into fat.
We'll add to these facts a third one that you provided:[a human] 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.
Please bear with me as I piece this together.
As you correctly stated, in a human excess glucose is converted to fat; so then at first glance those aforementioned figures of 50% might appear to be equivalent.
However, please pay close attention to the wording here. It is the excess glucose that is converted into fat, and a human liver may convert as much as 50% of fructose into glucose. Let's use 50 grams of straight fructose, ingested by Alice, as an example to illustrate what I'm trying to say. As much as 25 grams of it could be converted to glucose. How much of that is excess? Of course that would depend on how much glucose Alice's body needs, so it is quite possible that less than 25 grams of the recently-converted glucose is re-converted into fat.
As for a rat or mouse liver, again please pay close attention to the wording. "Mice and rats turn more than 50% of fructose into fats." Returning to our illustration, let's say that Bob the lab rat is fed 50 grams of straight fructose (we're keeping Alice's and Bob's amounts the same only for the sake of simplicity & comparison). Over 25 grams could be converted into fat for poor Bob.
Do you see the subtle yet important difference that could make mouse and rat studies unreliable when extrapolated to humans?
Regarding your point that excess glucose is a "problem in addiction like behavior with sugar causes", here we agree. Excess glucose is a problem. No one says it's OK to consume any form of sugar to the point that your liver begins to turn it to fat; and I would like to see more help available for people who, for whatever reason, engage in addiction-like or compulsive behavior when it comes to food.
3 -
pcoslady83 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »
It's a scientific debate, semantics are important. I think we are all just geeks who like debating
But its also important in the context of the idea of a sugar conspiracy, or whatever. Are corporate interests feeding us an addictive substance or is sugar just really tasty and some of us develop unhealthy relationships with it? Obviously i support the latter explanation.
I believe refined sugar is addictive to many people and at the minimum an appetite stimulant which interferes with normal brain functionality. So I think corporations are using these attributes of sugar to increase profits.
Aaaaannnnnndddddddd...I don't like debating at all. I used to though, but when I started understanding that different people experience different realities when faced with an objectively same situation, debating became less interesting and learning about different experiences and perspective became more interesting.
Experiences do not negate reality. If I start seeing unicorns, the unicorns are not there. It's me. The fact that I saw unicorns is real, the existence of unicorns is not. If someone believes they are physically addicted to sugar the only way to determine if this is true is through science.
Sure science will determine that...eventually. Till then, it is good to have an open mind.
I do. It's open to evidence.
Then..let us just wait and respect people's experiences rather than dismissing them as willpower problem.
I hope I've been clear that I think it's more nuanced than just a willpower problem and calling something psychological is in no way a dismissal. If someone tells me they really struggle with sugar I am in no position to say "No you don't get a grip" but can discuss how to categorise it or whether it's the substance itself.
A simple google search will point you to papers. Here is the first link that turned up and I have copied the conclusion.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2235907/
The reviewed evidence supports the theory that, in some circumstances, intermittent access to sugar can lead to behavior and neurochemical changes that resemble the effects of a substance of abuse. According to the evidence in rats, intermittent access to sugar and chow is capable of producing a “dependency”. This was operationally defined by tests for bingeing, withdrawal, craving and cross-sensitization to amphetamine and alcohol. The correspondence to some people with binge eating disorder or bulimia is striking, but whether or not it is a good idea to call this a “food addiction” in people is both a scientific and societal question that has yet to be answered. What this review demonstrates is that rats with intermittent access to food and a sugar solution can show both a constellation of behaviors and parallel brain changes that are characteristic of rats that voluntarily self-administer addictive drugs. In the aggregrate, this is evidence that sugar can be addictive.
Now..please don't tell me that the study was in rats and not applicable to humans.
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.
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.
I agree that not all our bodies are identical and excellent, but the idea that some people's metabolism burns off a great deal more calories that other's isn't exactly true. Here's a good explanation:
https://examine.com/faq/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/
The revelant portion:Metabolic rate does vary, and technically there could be large variance. However, statistically speaking it is unlikely the variance would apply to you. The majority of the population exists in a range of 200-300kcal from each other and do not possess hugely different metabolic rates.
This leaves room for outliers with extremely high or extremely low metabolism, but as you can see the variation in metabolic rates would not contribute greatly to the obesity issues.3 -
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.
This is probably one of the few points that no one in this thread is disputing.
0 -
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.
Humiliation is a big motivator for those who steal food when they have the ability to afford it.
I agree though, the consequences of addiction pale in comparison to those of dependence.
I don't understand your point about humiliation. A little help?Many addiction groups recognize both a physical and a psychological component to addiction (not counting physical dependencies). This is the development of an abnormal craving once the substance is ingested. Once the craving is induced it cannot be satisfied no matter how much of the substance is consumed. The other component is the existence of a mental obsession of which the afflicted cannot overcome to prevent the triggering of the craving through ingesting the substance.
Basically, they can't stop once they've started and they can't stop themselves from starting.
This is a core concept behind the reason that many recovered alcoholics (or other recovered addicts) will not attempt moderation. While free from any physical dependencies, they are not free from the condition which caused the craving in the first place. Their recovery comes on the mental obsession side of the problem.
I believe there are many compounds which carry a potential to cause such a reaction. Food is one of these. Sugary foods seem to be the most commonly cited, but I am aware of plenty who cite fatty meats and other things like salt, and starchy foods...or any mixture of them.
I think a lot of people say they are addicted to sugar as a way of describing their fondness for it. They might have heard about it before, but aren't quite as out of control as the statement would indicate. To them, it might be more of a metaphor. Others are struggling with crippling desperation. On these forums, I can't tell one type from the other, so I treat them the same.
It's like that riddle where there are two tribes, one filled cannible liars (as in they never tell the truth) and one friendly honest (as in they never tell a lie). They look the same. You approach a fork in the road and see one tribesman standing there. The two paths will take you to either village. Given a single question, what do you ask the tribesman?Which way to your village?
In either case, the answer is the same.
I love all of this and it makes me very curious how you treat people who say they are addicted to sugar. Could you give an example?0 -
pcoslady83 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »
It's a scientific debate, semantics are important. I think we are all just geeks who like debating
But its also important in the context of the idea of a sugar conspiracy, or whatever. Are corporate interests feeding us an addictive substance or is sugar just really tasty and some of us develop unhealthy relationships with it? Obviously i support the latter explanation.
I believe refined sugar is addictive to many people and at the minimum an appetite stimulant which interferes with normal brain functionality. So I think corporations are using these attributes of sugar to increase profits.
Aaaaannnnnndddddddd...I don't like debating at all. I used to though, but when I started understanding that different people experience different realities when faced with an objectively same situation, debating became less interesting and learning about different experiences and perspective became more interesting.
Experiences do not negate reality. If I start seeing unicorns, the unicorns are not there. It's me. The fact that I saw unicorns is real, the existence of unicorns is not. If someone believes they are physically addicted to sugar the only way to determine if this is true is through science.
Sure science will determine that...eventually. Till then, it is good to have an open mind.
I do. It's open to evidence.
Then..let us just wait and respect people's experiences rather than dismissing them as willpower problem.
I hope I've been clear that I think it's more nuanced than just a willpower problem and calling something psychological is in no way a dismissal. If someone tells me they really struggle with sugar I am in no position to say "No you don't get a grip" but can discuss how to categorise it or whether it's the substance itself.
A simple google search will point you to papers. Here is the first link that turned up and I have copied the conclusion.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2235907/
The reviewed evidence supports the theory that, in some circumstances, intermittent access to sugar can lead to behavior and neurochemical changes that resemble the effects of a substance of abuse. According to the evidence in rats, intermittent access to sugar and chow is capable of producing a “dependency”. This was operationally defined by tests for bingeing, withdrawal, craving and cross-sensitization to amphetamine and alcohol. The correspondence to some people with binge eating disorder or bulimia is striking, but whether or not it is a good idea to call this a “food addiction” in people is both a scientific and societal question that has yet to be answered. What this review demonstrates is that rats with intermittent access to food and a sugar solution can show both a constellation of behaviors and parallel brain changes that are characteristic of rats that voluntarily self-administer addictive drugs. In the aggregrate, this is evidence that sugar can be addictive.
Now..please don't tell me that the study was in rats and not applicable to humans.
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.
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.
I agree that not all our bodies are identical and excellent, but the idea that some people's metabolism burns off a great deal more calories that other's isn't exactly true. Here's a good explanation:
https://examine.com/faq/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/
The revelant portion:Metabolic rate does vary, and technically there could be large variance. However, statistically speaking it is unlikely the variance would apply to you. The majority of the population exists in a range of 200-300kcal from each other and do not possess hugely different metabolic rates.
This leaves room for outliers with extremely high or extremely low metabolism, but as you can see the variation in metabolic rates would not contribute greatly to the obesity issues.
let us say we are same height and weight to begin with and you burn a modest 125 Cal per day more than me. That means if we eat the same food, I am twelve pounds heavier than you per year. If we consider 250 Cal per day which is what the study you referred to suggests, then I am twenty four pounds heavier than you. That is in one year I can move from healthy weight to nearly obese.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