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
-
pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »Let's assume the rat experiment is applicable, which virtually nobody does in science, but let's assume it does. One study is not enough. What's next? A human study?
This is totally me talking out of my *kitten*, but my assumption is rat studies are always pointed to in these arguments because human studies have never managed to prove the point. I mean, sugar is not a new product. Added sugar is not a new product. It's not like there hasn't been enough time for the powers of added sugar to be tested and trialed. They've done countless studies on the effects (or lack thereof) of artificial sweeteners, so I assume they've done the same and more with sugar. And if any of those studies actually supported any actual causative relationship between sugar and the slew of things it's supposed to cause (other than just what the excess calories cause), I think someone would have posted it by now. At least that's what my little brain assumes
A few studies are linked and explained in that scientific American article as well as an explanation of why rats aren't applicable. Through all the debate it could be decided immediately with a simple link to a robust peer reviewed study that has been further validated. There aren't any so far.
And it doesn't sound like the poster you're debating with would change her mind anyway. So, debate over, I guess
Exactly...this debate is over. I am not going to change my mind, neither the people whom I am debating with.
I don't mean to be rude but I've given enough opportunities for people to provide scientific evidence. I've given some, you've provided a belief. That's not how science works and its clear this is not going to be scientific debate but one based on belief and a misunderstanding of the scientific process.
I am sorry..the scientific evidence you provided was not convincing enough for me (the same way the references I provided were not convincing for you). It shows how biased you are with your opinions. If you provide something, it is scientific, if others provide something, it is not scientific.
And it is never favours science when one is so dogmatic and just dismiss people's experiences. Science has to explain what I am experiencing, I don't have to fit my experience to whatever explanation science has already provided. If nothing that science provides fits my experience, I will just wait till it does.
Again, I am not dismissing your experience, I am saying personal experience is not scientific evidence that sugar itself is addictive. This is literally why we have science, to remove human bias, faulty reasoning and subjectivity. There is no way for an individual to demonstrate a substance is physically addictive. Your experiences are valid, they are prone to misinterpretation and this is not a criticism or an insult, it's just how the human mind works. This is an interesting debate but its fast becoming How to Science 101 which I have little interest in doing.6 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »@kinny72 you might want to read the about page on that site and consider the source.
That's fair, although I think the individual scientists cited are more what I was paying attention to, but point well taken. And I appreciate the link you provided. From my point of view, the studies pointing to sugar being a direct cause of these issues are at best "plausible" and cannot be easily replicated, so I'm not convinced, but I might be as entrenched in my opinion as anyone else!
Nobody is entrenched, we are just waiting for actual evidence.4 -
pcoslady83 wrote: »pcoslady83 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.
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.
Very true. But if you are weighing yourself you could catch the slow gain and reverse/prevent it by cutting out a can of soda (or its equivalent) or walking some more each day. It's not difficult to eliminate 250 Cal/day through a combination of watching what you eat and conscientiously moving some more.
In this case it wouldn't be the differences in metabolism that contributed to obesity, it would be mindlessness and/or neglectfulness.
Well..you can constantly move the goal post. I specifically answered to your point that metabolism doesn't contribute to obesity because the difference in metabolism is insignificant.
I just showed that is not the case. All things being equal, even exercise being equal, modest difference in metabolism can contribute to significant weight gain.
Now you are saying it is not metabolism, it is mindlessness.
Metabolism alone cannot contribute to weight gain. Overeating despite one's metabolism does.
For example, when I gained weight, it was because I had been very active and stopped being active and yet did not adjust my eating (I was also depressed). My lack of activity lowered my metabolism. Yet it wasn't my metabolism that caused me to gain weight, it was that I was overeating.7 -
The implication was that food addicts (or people claiming to be) don't exhibit this type of behavior in the absence of economic difficulties. I am aware of instances (although rare) in which people shop lifted food as a means to avoid the stigma of being overweight and purchasing something like a box of donuts or cupcakes.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?
Other incidents would include people who shoplift for the thrill or compulsion. In any of these cases, it's still not a drive specifically for sugar.2 -
pcoslady83 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.
<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.
Let us consider you argument and take a can of classic coke which is just sugar (so that we don't have fat or any protein or complex carbohydrates coming into equation and a can of coke is something many people consume). Google says it has 39 grams of sugar. Let us say 25% of that get converted to fat which is roughly 10 grams fat per day which is 8 pounds per year and I don't think it is less.
Also, again I restate my my point that many people may not stop at one coke or one cookie or one slice of cake because sugar makes you eat more of it.
Sugar can't make you do anything.8 -
-
pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »Let's assume the rat experiment is applicable, which virtually nobody does in science, but let's assume it does. One study is not enough. What's next? A human study? I am convinced by rat study and effect on my health by cutting out all added sugar and grains. I don't consider removing added sugars have huge human cost which necessitates endless studies like in case of some drugs where rats are not sufficient and we need human subjects.
We evolved not eating refined sugars, we have seen obesity raise to the point where it has become a public health crisis, we have seen the positive effects on health by cutting out sugar and we will do just fine without added sugar.
And as I said, I have a case study of one, which is myself and I know from personal experience how sugar is appetite stimulant, how it brings out addictive traits in me which has nothing to do with just will power.
More evidence is welcome but not necessary for me.
Ok just so we are clear. Rat studies, N=1 anecdotal experience, articles that have been debunked by the scientific community and viral videos are sufficient evidence for your stance. Is that right?
13 -
Anything to deny responsibility for weight gain, I guess. Sad.7
-
Back to the original OP, I truly believe the Sugar Conspiracy is a valid title for this thread, but not in the way that was originally suggested in the post and article provided. It is about flooding consumers with just enough sciencey sounding jargon and speculous studies based on animal models that aren't reproducible in humans, as well as quotable sound bites and click bait titles to convince people that sugar is singularly responsible for every possible negative health situation: obesity, diabetes, PCOS, NAFLD, etc. The claims in these articles support what the individual is feeling, and what they want to believe. The average individual just doesn't have the scientific background or interest in using critical thinking to sufficiently vet these wild claims, and the counter points are difficult to follow peer reviewed scientific journals. It convinces people that what they are reading IS the science and that what everyone else is posting is just their belief.
10 -
It's strange, as I've lost weight whilst virtually bed bound through illness and still eating sugar. If the response to this is that sugar is only addictive or encourages you to eat more for some people, then how can it be a physical attribute of sugar? This is the plausibility aspect I can't get round.3
-
WinoGelato wrote: »Back to the original OP, I truly believe the Sugar Conspiracy is a valid title for this thread, but not in the way that was originally suggested in the post and article provided. It is about flooding consumers with just enough sciencey sounding jargon and speculous studies based on animal models that aren't reproducible in humans, as well as quotable sound bites and click bait titles to convince people that sugar is singularly responsible for every possible negative health situation: obesity, diabetes, PCOS, NAFLD, etc. The claims in these articles support what the individual is feeling, and what they want to believe. The average individual just doesn't have the scientific background or interest in using critical thinking to sufficiently vet these wild claims, and the counter points are difficult to follow peer reviewed scientific journals. It convinces people that what they are reading IS the science and that what everyone else is posting is just their belief.
Pretty much.1 -
paulgads82 wrote: »It's strange, as I've lost weight whilst virtually bed bound through illness and still eating sugar. If the response to this is that sugar is only addictive or encourages you to eat more for some people, then how can it be a physical attribute of sugar? This is the plausibility aspect I can't get round.
Me too. And not only that it was on Prednisone and because of my illness I am low fibre and can't eat most fruits and vegetables (still like this but not bed bound and now off Prednisone) so my diet was sugary foods, white carbs, and white meat.2 -
paulgads82 wrote: »It's strange, as I've lost weight whilst virtually bed bound through illness and still eating sugar. If the response to this is that sugar is only addictive or encourages you to eat more for some people, then how can it be a physical attribute of sugar? This is the plausibility aspect I can't get round.
And I've been in enough of these threads to know that the response that you are likely to get is something like,
"Well all I can comment on is how it works FOR ME. When I eat sugar, I feel out of control, like an addict. I can't stop eating it, there is nothing I can do to control it. I tried moderation and it didn't work, but when I tried eliminating sugar, it suddenly clicked for me, and suddenly I was able to lose weight, improve my health, etc etc etc. Maybe sugar isn't addictive for everyone, but it is addictive FOR ME."
- disclaimer, that is not me responding to your question and not representative of my point of view, but rather a compilation of responses I have seen hundreds of times6 -
Sugar in and of itself isn't evil. However, if you have diabetes, prediabetes, or metabolic syndrome, watch your sugar intake carefully. If you don't have those things, just count the calories and don't sweat it too much.5
-
pcoslady83 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »pcoslady83 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.
<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.
Let us consider you argument and take a can of classic coke which is just sugar (so that we don't have fat or any protein or complex carbohydrates coming into equation and a can of coke is something many people consume). Google says it has 39 grams of sugar. Let us say 25% of that get converted to fat which is roughly 10 grams fat per day which is 8 pounds per year and I don't think it is less.
Also, again I restate my my point that many people may not stop at one coke or one cookie or one slice of cake because sugar makes you eat more of it.
Right. But a rat study could potentially show that those 39 grams of sugar (let's say it's all fructose to keep it consistent) convert to as much as 19.5 grams of fat or more because, as the article said, "mice and rats turn more than 50 percent of fructose into fats"; whereas a human " liver converts as much as 50 percent of fructose into glucose", (in the case of the Coke, 19.5 grams or less which then may or may not turn into fat).
This highlights why it can be inaccurate to extrapolate and apply data gathered from rat studies to humans. The author said "experiments with these animals would exaggerate the significance of fructose's proposed detriments for humans, especially clogged arteries, fatty livers and insulin resistance." And you said you had a hard time understanding why that would be, and I've attempted to explain.
Again, I agree with your point that many people may not stop after just one because of many reasons. That is unhealthy no matter how you look at it and I'd like to see more help available to people who display compulsive eating habits.
Sure...we applied a correction to compensate for the exaggeration that the article claims and we see it is still a huge impact. So just because he is claiming that differences are exaggerated, it still doesn't mean the impact of sugar on human beings is insignificant. So that argument is not worth much.
You completely made up your numbers to claim it is still a huge impact. Also like in literally every situation talked about: no surplus, no fat gain. Surplus, fat gain, sugar or not.
Again, you are quoting this out of context. @Jane Snow gave me an example, I plugged in the numbers.
I said this to prove that the author's claim in Scientific American the differences in results between rats and human beings are exaggerated has no value because as you correctly noticed I could plug in a value that Jane Snow and arrive at the any conclusion. Jane Snow assumed a conservative estimate that less than 50% of glucose (which comes fructose) gets converted to glucose. If I follow what Scientific American says (less than 50% of fructose gets converted to glucose) , I can claim that 99.99% of that of that glucose will get converted to fat and give an even bigger number than what I arrived at using Jane Snow's number. If Scientific American author provided a data that 1% of fructose gets converted to fat (the way he provided 50% number for rats), then we could arrive at some conclusion. But he compared apples and oranges. So whatever he claimed has little to no value.
This is where I get lost. Isn't comparing rats to humans comparing apples to oranges? Wasn't that the whole point being made in those particular sentences in Scientific American?7 -
pcoslady83 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »pcoslady83 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.
<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.
Let us consider you argument and take a can of classic coke which is just sugar (so that we don't have fat or any protein or complex carbohydrates coming into equation and a can of coke is something many people consume). Google says it has 39 grams of sugar. Let us say 25% of that get converted to fat which is roughly 10 grams fat per day which is 8 pounds per year and I don't think it is less.
Also, again I restate my my point that many people may not stop at one coke or one cookie or one slice of cake because sugar makes you eat more of it.
Right. But a rat study could potentially show that those 39 grams of sugar (let's say it's all fructose to keep it consistent) convert to as much as 19.5 grams of fat or more because, as the article said, "mice and rats turn more than 50 percent of fructose into fats"; whereas a human " liver converts as much as 50 percent of fructose into glucose", (in the case of the Coke, 19.5 grams or less which then may or may not turn into fat).
This highlights why it can be inaccurate to extrapolate and apply data gathered from rat studies to humans. The author said "experiments with these animals would exaggerate the significance of fructose's proposed detriments for humans, especially clogged arteries, fatty livers and insulin resistance." And you said you had a hard time understanding why that would be, and I've attempted to explain.
Again, I agree with your point that many people may not stop after just one because of many reasons. That is unhealthy no matter how you look at it and I'd like to see more help available to people who display compulsive eating habits.
Sure...we applied a correction to compensate for the exaggeration that the article claims and we see it is still a huge impact. So just because he is claiming that differences are exaggerated, it still doesn't mean the impact of sugar on human beings is insignificant. So that argument is not worth much.
You completely made up your numbers to claim it is still a huge impact. Also like in literally every situation talked about: no surplus, no fat gain. Surplus, fat gain, sugar or not.
Again, you are quoting this out of context. @Jane Snow gave me an example, I plugged in the numbers.
I said this to prove that the author's claim in Scientific American the differences in results between rats and human beings are exaggerated has no value because as you correctly noticed I could plug in a value that Jane Snow and arrive at the any conclusion. Jane Snow assumed a conservative estimate that less than 50% of glucose (which comes fructose) gets converted to glucose. If I follow what Scientific American says (less than 50% of fructose gets converted to glucose) , I can claim that 99.99% of that of that glucose will get converted to fat and give an even bigger number than what I arrived at using Jane Snow's number. If Scientific American author provided a data that 1% of fructose gets converted to fat (the way he provided 50% number for rats), then we could arrive at some conclusion. But he compared apples and oranges. So whatever he claimed has little to no value.
This is where I get lost. Isn't comparing rats to humans comparing apples to oranges? Wasn't that the whole point being made in those particular sentences in Scientific American?
Yup2 -
pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »Let's assume the rat experiment is applicable, which virtually nobody does in science, but let's assume it does. One study is not enough. What's next? A human study?
This is totally me talking out of my *kitten*, but my assumption is rat studies are always pointed to in these arguments because human studies have never managed to prove the point. I mean, sugar is not a new product. Added sugar is not a new product. It's not like there hasn't been enough time for the powers of added sugar to be tested and trialed. They've done countless studies on the effects (or lack thereof) of artificial sweeteners, so I assume they've done the same and more with sugar. And if any of those studies actually supported any actual causative relationship between sugar and the slew of things it's supposed to cause (other than just what the excess calories cause), I think someone would have posted it by now. At least that's what my little brain assumes
A few studies are linked and explained in that scientific American article as well as an explanation of why rats aren't applicable. Through all the debate it could be decided immediately with a simple link to a robust peer reviewed study that has been further validated. There aren't any so far.
And it doesn't sound like the poster you're debating with would change her mind anyway. So, debate over, I guess
Exactly...this debate is over. I am not going to change my mind (at least with evidence provided here and the kind of absolute statements made as if they have experienced every thing about sugar and so know everything about sugar), neither the people whom I am debating with.
I'm not here to initiate debate or even to win arguments. I think that's why we butted heads over metabolism--I wasn't debating but I know it probably looked that way at first.
I am here to see other viewpoints, ones that I perhaps haven't thought about yet, and weigh them to see if I should change my way of thinking. I will contribute to the discussion if I believe I have something of value to someone else, but my motive is NOT simply to debate or even to win..If I'm proven wrong, I have learned something and I welcome that.
Maybe that makes me a unicorn, but I would absolutely change my mind....But I have yet to understand why a rat study applies to humans. I'm not being purposely dense. I honestly didn't see your point about how we applied a correction. I thought what we did was show that studying rats has plenty of potential to provide data in a higher range than would ever occur in a human body. (And of course drinking a can of Coke is going to provide a sugar is going to have a huge impact--39 grams of sugar is a lot! I'm all for reducing sugar consumption.)0 -
paulgads82 wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »@kinny72 you might want to read the about page on that site and consider the source.
That's fair, although I think the individual scientists cited are more what I was paying attention to, but point well taken. And I appreciate the link you provided. From my point of view, the studies pointing to sugar being a direct cause of these issues are at best "plausible" and cannot be easily replicated, so I'm not convinced, but I might be as entrenched in my opinion as anyone else!
Nobody is entrenched, we are just waiting for actual evidence.
Oh, ITA. I was just hedging my bets
1 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »
The implication was that food addicts (or people claiming to be) don't exhibit this type of behavior in the absence of economic difficulties. I am aware of instances (although rare) in which people shop lifted food as a means to avoid the stigma of being overweight and purchasing something like a box of donuts or cupcakes.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?
Other incidents would include people who shoplift for the thrill or compulsion. In any of these cases, it's still not a drive specifically for sugar.
I don't know about it being only sugar per se, but the drive in the case that I described would be the desire for the taste of the food and the fact that that desire, while attenuated by the fear of humiliation, outweighed risk of incarceration.
The drive in your examples is hunger and thrill.
But if your point is to suggest that sugar (or other specific foods) does not create a dependency, then I agree.0 -
The implication was that food addicts (or people claiming to be) don't exhibit this type of behavior in the absence of economic difficulties. I am aware of instances (although rare) in which people shop lifted food as a means to avoid the stigma of being overweight and purchasing something like a box of donuts or cupcakes.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?
I personally feel that I have no choice but to take them seriously. It doesn't matter if they are claiming only a sugar addiction or all foods or even only specific foods like Lemur's donuts. I'll usually tell them that if they feel they have an addiction, they should get help by seeking out groups and physicians familiar with food issues. I usually do this in a PM as it can get lost or debated among the other posts. Sometimes, I suspect that the suggestion that the problem might be serious is enough for them to take a deeper look at themselves. I don't know how many of them actually seek help, but I feel it is important for them to know that there are groups and physicians which recognize and specialize in these types of problems.
ETA: To clarify, when I say "treat", I mean they lay term as in "react" or "interact". I am not a doctor and do not claim to "treat" people in that sense.
Thank you for answering me. I appreciate that you took the time! Your approach probably could not be more helpful to people who say they have problems with certain foods.1 -
WinoGelato wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »It's strange, as I've lost weight whilst virtually bed bound through illness and still eating sugar. If the response to this is that sugar is only addictive or encourages you to eat more for some people, then how can it be a physical attribute of sugar? This is the plausibility aspect I can't get round.
And I've been in enough of these threads to know that the response that you are likely to get is something like,
"Well all I can comment on is how it works FOR ME. When I eat sugar, I feel out of control, like an addict. I can't stop eating it, there is nothing I can do to control it. I tried moderation and it didn't work, but when I tried eliminating sugar, it suddenly clicked for me, and suddenly I was able to lose weight, improve my health, etc etc etc. Maybe sugar isn't addictive for everyone, but it is addictive FOR ME."
- disclaimer, that is not me responding to your question and not representative of my point of view, but rather a compilation of responses I have seen hundreds of times
I am quickly learning that this is precisely the case.
0 -
Sugar in and of itself isn't evil. However, if you have diabetes, prediabetes, or metabolic syndrome, watch your sugar intake carefully. If you don't have those things, just count the calories and don't sweat it too much.
+1000
Look at you, being all reasonable and stuff in this madhouse!
The only thing I could add to your post is </thread>
1 -
WinoGelato wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »It's strange, as I've lost weight whilst virtually bed bound through illness and still eating sugar. If the response to this is that sugar is only addictive or encourages you to eat more for some people, then how can it be a physical attribute of sugar? This is the plausibility aspect I can't get round.
And I've been in enough of these threads to know that the response that you are likely to get is something like,
"Well all I can comment on is how it works FOR ME. When I eat sugar, I feel out of control, like an addict. I can't stop eating it, there is nothing I can do to control it. I tried moderation and it didn't work, but when I tried eliminating sugar, it suddenly clicked for me, and suddenly I was able to lose weight, improve my health, etc etc etc. Maybe sugar isn't addictive for everyone, but it is addictive FOR ME."
- disclaimer, that is not me responding to your question and not representative of my point of view, but rather a compilation of responses I have seen hundreds of times
Goes both ways.
"Well I can moderate any foods just fine. You just need willpower. Where is your self control? I know you are talking about your own experience but I take each post here personally and think you are saying all overweight people are addicts."
Oh and of course the "oh you are offending drug addicts" always comes out at the end.
All of this is stated hundreds of times too.5 -
Eating is addictive but sugar, fat are not like drugs, study says
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/09/140909093617.htm
Date:
September 9, 2014
Source:
University of Edinburgh
Summary:
People can become addicted to eating for its own sake but not to consuming specific foods such as those high in sugar or fat, research suggests. An international team of scientists has found no strong evidence for people being addicted to the chemical substances in certain foods.6 -
What I get from reading all this is that people here are very passionate about sugar in one way or another.4
-
pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »Let's assume the rat experiment is applicable, which virtually nobody does in science, but let's assume it does. One study is not enough. What's next? A human study?
This is totally me talking out of my *kitten*, but my assumption is rat studies are always pointed to in these arguments because human studies have never managed to prove the point. I mean, sugar is not a new product. Added sugar is not a new product. It's not like there hasn't been enough time for the powers of added sugar to be tested and trialed. They've done countless studies on the effects (or lack thereof) of artificial sweeteners, so I assume they've done the same and more with sugar. And if any of those studies actually supported any actual causative relationship between sugar and the slew of things it's supposed to cause (other than just what the excess calories cause), I think someone would have posted it by now. At least that's what my little brain assumes
A few studies are linked and explained in that scientific American article as well as an explanation of why rats aren't applicable. Through all the debate it could be decided immediately with a simple link to a robust peer reviewed study that has been further validated. There aren't any so far.
And it doesn't sound like the poster you're debating with would change her mind anyway. So, debate over, I guess
Exactly...this debate is over. I am not going to change my mind, neither the people whom I am debating with.
I don't mean to be rude but I've given enough opportunities for people to provide scientific evidence. I've given some, you've provided a belief. That's not how science works and its clear this is not going to be scientific debate but one based on belief and a misunderstanding of the scientific process.
I am sorry..the scientific evidence you provided was not convincing enough for me (the same way the references I provided were not convincing for you). It shows how biased you are with your opinions. If you provide something, it is scientific, if others provide something, it is not scientific.
And it is never favours science when one is so dogmatic and just dismiss people's experiences. Science has to explain what I am experiencing, I don't have to fit my experience to whatever explanation science has already provided. If nothing that science provides fits my experience, I will just wait till it does.
You showed a rat model.
We told you it's not applicable to humans because the liver of a rat functions differently than a human's (links were provided).
You said "Well, yeah but the glucose the human liver makes instead is turned to fat!"
We told you it's not readily turned to fat, instead substrate use changes towards using more glucose because it's more efficient than creating fat out of glucose (links were provided).
You said "Well, yeah, but not everyone has a super metabolism [actually a normal metabolism that works as intended] that can do that!"
It looks to me like you'd not even be convinced if the King of Science (if such a person were to exist) personally knocked on your door with a moving truck full of evidence, if it isn't the kind of evidence that reassures your opinion.16 -
Another study on that site, pertinent to the point I made a while back and explained by others is herehttps://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/07/140711153327.htm?trendmd-shared=0 Notice how physical changes doesn't make something a physically addictive stimulus. So when people say "But look our brain changes on sugar" it seems right to point out that many things change our brain, porn in this case.3
-
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.
People do the same with all kinds of foods. High protein and high potassium foods for someone with kidney disease causes heart attacks, can put them on dialysis, leads to death, yet people with kidney disease still eat foods on the no-no list.
People with gout often have trigger foods that lead to an attack that can leave them in excruciating pain. Yet many eat foods they know can trigger an attack.
There are even people with life-threatening allergies who will knowingly still eat the foods that trigger those allergies and go through the extremely unpleasant symptoms and trust that an epi-pen will save their life although that's far from a certainty.
People self-harm all the time. It's not the best litmus test for whether something is an addiction or not.7 -
stevencloser wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »Let's assume the rat experiment is applicable, which virtually nobody does in science, but let's assume it does. One study is not enough. What's next? A human study?
This is totally me talking out of my *kitten*, but my assumption is rat studies are always pointed to in these arguments because human studies have never managed to prove the point. I mean, sugar is not a new product. Added sugar is not a new product. It's not like there hasn't been enough time for the powers of added sugar to be tested and trialed. They've done countless studies on the effects (or lack thereof) of artificial sweeteners, so I assume they've done the same and more with sugar. And if any of those studies actually supported any actual causative relationship between sugar and the slew of things it's supposed to cause (other than just what the excess calories cause), I think someone would have posted it by now. At least that's what my little brain assumes
A few studies are linked and explained in that scientific American article as well as an explanation of why rats aren't applicable. Through all the debate it could be decided immediately with a simple link to a robust peer reviewed study that has been further validated. There aren't any so far.
And it doesn't sound like the poster you're debating with would change her mind anyway. So, debate over, I guess
Exactly...this debate is over. I am not going to change my mind, neither the people whom I am debating with.
I don't mean to be rude but I've given enough opportunities for people to provide scientific evidence. I've given some, you've provided a belief. That's not how science works and its clear this is not going to be scientific debate but one based on belief and a misunderstanding of the scientific process.
I am sorry..the scientific evidence you provided was not convincing enough for me (the same way the references I provided were not convincing for you). It shows how biased you are with your opinions. If you provide something, it is scientific, if others provide something, it is not scientific.
And it is never favours science when one is so dogmatic and just dismiss people's experiences. Science has to explain what I am experiencing, I don't have to fit my experience to whatever explanation science has already provided. If nothing that science provides fits my experience, I will just wait till it does.
You showed a rat model.
We told you it's not applicable to humans because the liver of a rat functions differently than a human's (links were provided).
You said "Well, yeah but the glucose the human liver makes instead is turned to fat!"
We told you it's not readily turned to fat, instead substrate use changes towards using more glucose because it's more efficient than creating fat out of glucose (links were provided).
You said "Well, yeah, but not everyone has a super metabolism [actually a normal metabolism that works as intended] that can do that!"
It looks to me like you'd not even be convinced if the King of Science (if such a person were to exist) personally knocked on your door with a moving truck full of evidence, if it isn't the kind of evidence that reassures your opinion.
Bill Nye isn't the King of Science?5 -
stevencloser wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »Let's assume the rat experiment is applicable, which virtually nobody does in science, but let's assume it does. One study is not enough. What's next? A human study?
This is totally me talking out of my *kitten*, but my assumption is rat studies are always pointed to in these arguments because human studies have never managed to prove the point. I mean, sugar is not a new product. Added sugar is not a new product. It's not like there hasn't been enough time for the powers of added sugar to be tested and trialed. They've done countless studies on the effects (or lack thereof) of artificial sweeteners, so I assume they've done the same and more with sugar. And if any of those studies actually supported any actual causative relationship between sugar and the slew of things it's supposed to cause (other than just what the excess calories cause), I think someone would have posted it by now. At least that's what my little brain assumes
A few studies are linked and explained in that scientific American article as well as an explanation of why rats aren't applicable. Through all the debate it could be decided immediately with a simple link to a robust peer reviewed study that has been further validated. There aren't any so far.
And it doesn't sound like the poster you're debating with would change her mind anyway. So, debate over, I guess
Exactly...this debate is over. I am not going to change my mind, neither the people whom I am debating with.
I don't mean to be rude but I've given enough opportunities for people to provide scientific evidence. I've given some, you've provided a belief. That's not how science works and its clear this is not going to be scientific debate but one based on belief and a misunderstanding of the scientific process.
I am sorry..the scientific evidence you provided was not convincing enough for me (the same way the references I provided were not convincing for you). It shows how biased you are with your opinions. If you provide something, it is scientific, if others provide something, it is not scientific.
And it is never favours science when one is so dogmatic and just dismiss people's experiences. Science has to explain what I am experiencing, I don't have to fit my experience to whatever explanation science has already provided. If nothing that science provides fits my experience, I will just wait till it does.
You showed a rat model.
We told you it's not applicable to humans because the liver of a rat functions differently than a human's (links were provided).
You said "Well, yeah but the glucose the human liver makes instead is turned to fat!"
We told you it's not readily turned to fat, instead substrate use changes towards using more glucose because it's more efficient than creating fat out of glucose (links were provided).
You said "Well, yeah, but not everyone has a super metabolism [actually a normal metabolism that works as intended] that can do that!"
It looks to me like you'd not even be convinced if the King of Science (if such a person were to exist) personally knocked on your door with a moving truck full of evidence, if it isn't the kind of evidence that reassures your opinion.
Bill Nye isn't the King of Science?
lol!!!!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