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
-
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?
Nope, sadly he's just a Guy
3 -
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.
When the comparison to heroin comes out (as it inevitably does) then absolutely I have seen people make the comment that comparing giving up sugar to heroin withdrawals is offensive to addicts and those who have watched loved ones go through that. I agree.
I can honestly say I don't remember a string of sentences as blunt and directly confrontational as your first example, in any of these threads so maybe you can point me to some actual quotes? I took time to consider what comments I have actually seen from people who believe that sugar is addictive when I compiled my hypothetical response. My example was not negative toward the people who do believe they are addicted to sugar. Those are all things that people in this very thread have said. I'm not sure you took the same care in drafting your hypothetical response as it is clearly intended to portray people who don't feel sugar is addictive as mean bullies who think that those who struggle are weak.
That is simply not true, for the vast majority of people on the "sugar isn't addictive" side.. Many of us have struggled with the same cravings. Many of us have had to learn moderation through a series of setbacks. Many of us offer suggestions about trying to look at the behavioral and habitual triggers driving those feelings. Many of us had to be directly confronted with the science before we had our"aha"moment.
If it is stated hundreds of times it should be easy to find some of those examples of confrontational hostility toward posters who believe they are addicted to sugar.8 -
WinoGelato wrote: »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.
When the comparison to heroin comes out (as it inevitably does) then absolutely I have seen people make the comment that comparing giving up sugar to heroin withdrawals is offensive to addicts and those who have watched loved ones go through that. I agree.
I can honestly say I don't remember a string of sentences as blunt and directly confrontational as your first example, in any of these threads so maybe you can point me to some actual quotes? I took time to consider what comments I have actually seen from people who believe that sugar is addictive when I compiled my hypothetical response. My example was not negative toward the people who do believe they are addicted to sugar. Those are all things that people in this very thread have said. I'm not sure you took the same care in drafting your hypothetical response as it is clearly intended to portray people who don't feel sugar is addictive as mean bullies who think that those who struggle are weak.
That is simply not true, for the vast majority of people on the "sugar isn't addictive" side.. Many of us have struggled with the same cravings. Many of us have had to learn moderation through a series of setbacks. Many of us offer suggestions about trying to look at the behavioral and habitual triggers driving those feelings. Many of us had to be directly confronted with the science before we had our"aha"moment.
If it is stated hundreds of times it should be easy to find some of those examples of confrontational hostility toward posters who believe they are addicted to sugar.
Here are some examples of what I got in this very thread:
So once again someone tries to claim that she is not responsible for gaining weight, unlike the rest if us.
Sorry, your weight issues are NOT different from those of others. If it's willpower for us, it's willpower for you.
Anything to deny responsibility for weight gain, I guess. Sad.
5 -
@masterwilde, I apologize for the role I played in derailing this thread (it was substantial).
My thoughts on the article are that it basically shows how absurdly political this subject is. I do believe that people tend to discount by default the mavericks of any popular belief. I don't think there is necessarily a conspiracy at play, but politics in general. In my opinion, as with all political conflicts, there seems to be a great many people who advocate for either side but very few who are agnostic. In a perfect world, all suggestions would be taken seriously and fully and adequately tested. However, most of the time these studies come from one side or the other and usually do not provide definitive conclusions either way.2 -
I can't say I see this as two opposing sides, we are all on the same side. That is we want to understand human behaviour and find ways of dealing with obesity and associated issues.2
-
pcoslady83 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »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.
When the comparison to heroin comes out (as it inevitably does) then absolutely I have seen people make the comment that comparing giving up sugar to heroin withdrawals is offensive to addicts and those who have watched loved ones go through that. I agree.
I can honestly say I don't remember a string of sentences as blunt and directly confrontational as your first example, in any of these threads so maybe you can point me to some actual quotes? I took time to consider what comments I have actually seen from people who believe that sugar is addictive when I compiled my hypothetical response. My example was not negative toward the people who do believe they are addicted to sugar. Those are all things that people in this very thread have said. I'm not sure you took the same care in drafting your hypothetical response as it is clearly intended to portray people who don't feel sugar is addictive as mean bullies who think that those who struggle are weak.
That is simply not true, for the vast majority of people on the "sugar isn't addictive" side.. Many of us have struggled with the same cravings. Many of us have had to learn moderation through a series of setbacks. Many of us offer suggestions about trying to look at the behavioral and habitual triggers driving those feelings. Many of us had to be directly confronted with the science before we had our"aha"moment.
If it is stated hundreds of times it should be easy to find some of those examples of confrontational hostility toward posters who believe they are addicted to sugar.
Here are some examples of what I got in this very thread:
So once again someone tries to claim that she is not responsible for gaining weight, unlike the rest if us.
Sorry, your weight issues are NOT different from those of others. If it's willpower for us, it's willpower for you.
Anything to deny responsibility for weight gain, I guess. Sad.
Weren't you all up in a huff a page ago about me taking your posts out of context and now you take other people's posts out of context to show your point?6 -
pcoslady83 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »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.
When the comparison to heroin comes out (as it inevitably does) then absolutely I have seen people make the comment that comparing giving up sugar to heroin withdrawals is offensive to addicts and those who have watched loved ones go through that. I agree.
I can honestly say I don't remember a string of sentences as blunt and directly confrontational as your first example, in any of these threads so maybe you can point me to some actual quotes? I took time to consider what comments I have actually seen from people who believe that sugar is addictive when I compiled my hypothetical response. My example was not negative toward the people who do believe they are addicted to sugar. Those are all things that people in this very thread have said. I'm not sure you took the same care in drafting your hypothetical response as it is clearly intended to portray people who don't feel sugar is addictive as mean bullies who think that those who struggle are weak.
That is simply not true, for the vast majority of people on the "sugar isn't addictive" side.. Many of us have struggled with the same cravings. Many of us have had to learn moderation through a series of setbacks. Many of us offer suggestions about trying to look at the behavioral and habitual triggers driving those feelings. Many of us had to be directly confronted with the science before we had our"aha"moment.
If it is stated hundreds of times it should be easy to find some of those examples of confrontational hostility toward posters who believe they are addicted to sugar.
Here are some examples of what I got in this very thread:
So once again someone tries to claim that she is not responsible for gaining weight, unlike the rest if us.
Sorry, your weight issues are NOT different from those of others. If it's willpower for us, it's willpower for you.
Anything to deny responsibility for weight gain, I guess. Sad.
The last was related to your claim about metabolism, not sugar addiction. You had asserted that metabolism could make you fat.
The first was not intended to suggest that someone who struggles has weak willpower. I don't actually think it is all willpower -- there's a lot more to it, like habit, and people can make it easier or harder on themselves. My point was that the same factors apply for you as for us.
What I was expressing frustration with (again) was this notion that certain people who get overweight couldn't help it or faced hardships that the rest of us (who don't self identify as sugar or food addicts) did not. Essentially, that the rest of us just were greedy and ate too much, whereas the "addicts" did not -- they couldn't help it.
I do think a lot of things make a difference to how difficult it is to avoid overeating. I just get annoyed with the idea (that was throughout your posts) that if we reject the notion of food addiction or point out the logical flaws (it's specific foods and not all that share the same basic chemical makeup) that we can't possibility understand how hard it is.5 -
As for:
"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."
I wouldn't say it, and have said many things directly to the contrary, throughout the thread, including support for a strategy of abstinence from trigger foods or low carbing.
What seems to be a bigger misunderstanding, though -- and related to the idea that it's so easy for the rest of us -- is the notion that those rejecting the "addiction" label are always able to moderate perfectly and have no struggles, that it's easy for us to maintain perfect discipline, we just don't understand.6 -
Sorry in advance for the wall of text; getting caught up here.
1) I'm going to repost this link in case some missed it. It reviews a range of rodent and human studies concerning sugar, explaining what evidence is available and applicable from both.
The plausibility of sugar addiction and its role in obesity and eating disorders
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261561409002398
Some highlights:
2. Sugar and reward mechanisms
Summary
•Addictive drugs and palatable food both release dopamine from the nucleus accumbens.
•The nucleus accumbens has different populations of neurones that are activated by natural and drug reinforcement. The release of dopamine by natural rewards, unlike drugs of abuse, undergoes rapid habituation.
•Although the food-induced release of dopamine is markedly inhibited by pre-exposure to visual and olfactory stimuli that have been conditioned to food, similar visual and olfactory stimuli that had previously been conditioned to drugs of abuse strongly potentiate the dopaminergic reaction.
•The suggestion, based on the animal evidence, is not that palatable foods are physically addictive but rather that a particular style of eating can produce a reaction to food that is similar to the response to drugs of abuse.
3. Is sugar addictive in humans?
Summary
•If physical addiction plays a role in the consumption of sugar then various phenomena associated with addiction, for example craving and tolerance, would be predicted to be observed.
•Most people experience food cravings at one time or another, most commonly for items high in fat or containing a mixture of fat and sugar.
•Fasting leads to a decline in craving and not an increase as the addiction model predicts.
•Food cravings occur to a greater extent later in the day while the addiction model predicts, as occurs with drugs of abuse, that they should also occur early in the morning.
•Food craving, particularly for chocolate, occurs more towards the end of the menstrual cycle, whereas the menstrual cycle does not influence the reaction to drugs of abuse.
•Exposure to sweet tastes may increase food preference although the phenomenon is associated with a particular form of a particular food. Rather than tolerance it is probable that we develop expectations about the taste of specific food items.
•Children like intensely sweet tastes, a preference that declines during adolescence, a finding inconsistent with the development of tolerance.
2) The "willpower vs. addiction" argument is officially under my skin, so here goes a rant on MY personal experience (after all, that's all that matters the great sugar debate, right? /sarcasm):
I am recovering from an eating disorder, and have been "in recovery" for years. I will never consider myself "recovered" because I don't see myself being in a place where reverting to these habits when I'm upset or stressed isn't tempting. I struggle with purging, and sometimes binging and purging. Purging is something I learned, and the routine initially went like this:
-I am in a bad place mentally
-I unintentionally or intentionally eat too much
-I purge
Over time, it changed to:
-I am in a bad place mentally, so I purge
-I overate, so I purge
I trained myself to think of purging as the correct response to either of those situations. To this day, I have a desire to purge any time I feel overfull, even if I didn't overeat per my calories. Yes, ok, that's great, what does this have to do with what we're talking about? I personally would not call my compulsive behavior of purging an addiction (though maybe some would; defining addiction is probably best left to the other sugar thread), but it took much more than willpower for me to stop. I had to develop a set of tools, including a support system and calorie counting, to either avoid getting to a place where my brain was screaming at me and utterly consuming all my thoughts and not letting me sleep until I threw up, or to handle it healthily when I was in that place.
There are steps between "I have willpower, so I can moderate how much sugar I eat" and "I absolutely cannot moderate, so therefore I must be addicted to jelly beans." Compulsive behavior does not mean there is something physically wrong with you, but it also doesn't mean that just because you can't moderate you're weak-willed. It means you need to try something other than moderation. Which is fine. If abstinence is what works for you, do that.
Scientific evidence still does not show sugar as a physically addictive substance, ever. If a very small portion of the population do have some sort of completely abnormal, as of yet scientifically inexplicable mechanism that makes jelly beans truly addictive, this still does not make sugar a major cause of obesity. The major causes of obesity are overconsumption in general, sedentary lifestyles, lack of nutrition education, and shift in culture toward convenience foods. Not a single, demonized food type.
3) I think this article, and the response lemur posted to it back on page 1, illustrate how society and politics get tunnel vision about science relating to nutrition. The Seven Countries Study gathered and published a lot of data, with varied statistical correlations. Somehow all of that got reduced down to "fat is bad, don't eat it!" and studies upon studies looking for ways to show how bad fat is for you. Now we've got a whole bunch of rat studies and brain scans and the word "dopamine," so therefore SUGAR IS A DRUG AAAAAAH, and the same thing is happening again. We could be focusing our energy and money on combating our tendencies to overeat and our sedentary lifestyles, but we'd rather find a scapegoat.14 -
Great post. Thank you.1
-
Great post. And I definitely agree with the points on compulsion.1
-
Carlos_421 wrote: »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!!!!
He must be...Sarah Palin would not debate him
3 -
I've been following this thread since it started. I'm going to skip right on past the back and forth about sugar addiction, and just drop this article here: http://www.ibtimes.com/fda-cracking-down-added-sugars-how-will-big-food-companies-respond-2221019. I went looking for info on why sugars are added to products (as a result of this thread, btw), and found the aforementioned article. It applies mostly to people in the US, as it's about the FDA's proposed changes to nutrition labels, where "added sugars" will be required as a called out item. What I found particularly fascinating was toward the end of the article when they were talking about milk solids being used in products to boost protein. The fact that milk has naturally occurring sugars was being questioned. Will the companies then have to list those "natural" sugars as "added" sugars because the milk solids were added to the product? I couldn't find anything that gave a definitive answer on that, but I fail to see how listing lactose as an added sugar in Yoplait Original yogurt, for instance, would be a helpful indicator of "added sugars" in the product, especially since the original purpose of it was to reduce the amount of sugar.
Honestly, I don't give a rat's *kitten* about my sugar intake - even when I've specifically looked at it, the only time I hit even 100g total is when I'm over my calorie goal (and that includes fruit/veg sugars, not just added). For me, this new information and design is mostly unhelpful. However, I'm curious for those who do say they have issues with sugars, would having nutrition labels that specifically enumerate added sugar be helpful to you (and, if you're not in the US, does your country already do this)?
And, fwiw, I did read the original article posted. It just didn't make much logical sense to me. There is a world of difference between scientific studies and popular/prevailing nutritional advice. Are scientists infallible? Of course not. However, the article seemed to make out that a few "popular" scientists had some sort of emotional/personal stake in not being proven wrong. From what I understand, that happens all the time for scientists - a study is done that seems to support a hypothesis being tested, another study comes along that does not support that same hypothesis. I feel like the article was placing the burden of the obesity epidemic on some vast scientific conspiracy to hide "the truth," when in reality it seems more like the blame should be on the lack of overall nutritional education in the US. As the article mentioned fat has been vilified in the past, and it did nothing to diminish the prevalence of obesity. Now that we understand that it's not necessary to eat a low-fat diet to maintain health, we have "popular" nutrition advice telling us of the "deleterious effects of sugar on our bodies." All of this obfuscates the likelihood that many (most?) people don't read nutrition labels or know of what a healthy diet consists.4 -
mskessler89 wrote: »Sorry in advance for the wall of text; getting caught up here.
1) I'm going to repost this link in case some missed it. It reviews a range of rodent and human studies concerning sugar, explaining what evidence is available and applicable from both.
The plausibility of sugar addiction and its role in obesity and eating disorders
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261561409002398
Some highlights:
2. Sugar and reward mechanisms
Summary
•Addictive drugs and palatable food both release dopamine from the nucleus accumbens.
•The nucleus accumbens has different populations of neurones that are activated by natural and drug reinforcement. The release of dopamine by natural rewards, unlike drugs of abuse, undergoes rapid habituation.
•Although the food-induced release of dopamine is markedly inhibited by pre-exposure to visual and olfactory stimuli that have been conditioned to food, similar visual and olfactory stimuli that had previously been conditioned to drugs of abuse strongly potentiate the dopaminergic reaction.
•The suggestion, based on the animal evidence, is not that palatable foods are physically addictive but rather that a particular style of eating can produce a reaction to food that is similar to the response to drugs of abuse.
3. Is sugar addictive in humans?
Summary
•If physical addiction plays a role in the consumption of sugar then various phenomena associated with addiction, for example craving and tolerance, would be predicted to be observed.
•Most people experience food cravings at one time or another, most commonly for items high in fat or containing a mixture of fat and sugar.
•Fasting leads to a decline in craving and not an increase as the addiction model predicts.
•Food cravings occur to a greater extent later in the day while the addiction model predicts, as occurs with drugs of abuse, that they should also occur early in the morning.
•Food craving, particularly for chocolate, occurs more towards the end of the menstrual cycle, whereas the menstrual cycle does not influence the reaction to drugs of abuse.
•Exposure to sweet tastes may increase food preference although the phenomenon is associated with a particular form of a particular food. Rather than tolerance it is probable that we develop expectations about the taste of specific food items.
•Children like intensely sweet tastes, a preference that declines during adolescence, a finding inconsistent with the development of tolerance.
2) The "willpower vs. addiction" argument is officially under my skin, so here goes a rant on MY personal experience (after all, that's all that matters the great sugar debate, right? /sarcasm):
I am recovering from an eating disorder, and have been "in recovery" for years. I will never consider myself "recovered" because I don't see myself being in a place where reverting to these habits when I'm upset or stressed isn't tempting. I struggle with purging, and sometimes binging and purging. Purging is something I learned, and the routine initially went like this:
-I am in a bad place mentally
-I unintentionally or intentionally eat too much
-I purge
Over time, it changed to:
-I am in a bad place mentally, so I purge
-I overate, so I purge
I trained myself to think of purging as the correct response to either of those situations. To this day, I have a desire to purge any time I feel overfull, even if I didn't overeat per my calories. Yes, ok, that's great, what does this have to do with what we're talking about? I personally would not call my compulsive behavior of purging an addiction (though maybe some would; defining addiction is probably best left to the other sugar thread), but it took much more than willpower for me to stop. I had to develop a set of tools, including a support system and calorie counting, to either avoid getting to a place where my brain was screaming at me and utterly consuming all my thoughts and not letting me sleep until I threw up, or to handle it healthily when I was in that place.
There are steps between "I have willpower, so I can moderate how much sugar I eat" and "I absolutely cannot moderate, so therefore I must be addicted to jelly beans." Compulsive behavior does not mean there is something physically wrong with you, but it also doesn't mean that just because you can't moderate you're weak-willed. It means you need to try something other than moderation. Which is fine. If abstinence is what works for you, do that.
Scientific evidence still does not show sugar as a physically addictive substance, ever. If a very small portion of the population do have some sort of completely abnormal, as of yet scientifically inexplicable mechanism that makes jelly beans truly addictive, this still does not make sugar a major cause of obesity. The major causes of obesity are overconsumption in general, sedentary lifestyles, lack of nutrition education, and shift in culture toward convenience foods. Not a single, demonized food type.
3) I think this article, and the response lemur posted to it back on page 1, illustrate how society and politics get tunnel vision about science relating to nutrition. The Seven Countries Study gathered and published a lot of data, with varied statistical correlations. Somehow all of that got reduced down to "fat is bad, don't eat it!" and studies upon studies looking for ways to show how bad fat is for you. Now we've got a whole bunch of rat studies and brain scans and the word "dopamine," so therefore SUGAR IS A DRUG AAAAAAH, and the same thing is happening again. We could be focusing our energy and money on combating our tendencies to overeat and our sedentary lifestyles, but we'd rather find a scapegoat.
Here. These are all the hugs I have.3 -
Thanks for the hugs and kind comments. It really is appreciated.1
-
Carlos_421 wrote: »all_in_the_game wrote: »Sugar and fat both are harmful in excess, the key question is whether or not they have been tested simultaneously in a randomized and controlled double-blind study.
Water and oxygen are both harmful in excess.
I may have entered into a cliche territory but the point I was trying to make was that it is not the question of pitting one against the other[sugar vs. fat]. But, taking a holistic approach to confirm and mitigate the effects, if any, by the overconsumption of food.0 -
all_in_the_game wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »all_in_the_game wrote: »Sugar and fat both are harmful in excess, the key question is whether or not they have been tested simultaneously in a randomized and controlled double-blind study.
Water and oxygen are both harmful in excess.
I may have entered into a cliche territory but the point I was trying to make was that it is not the question of pitting one against the other[sugar vs. fat]. But, taking a holistic approach to confirm and mitigate the effects, if any, by the overconsumption of food.
i.e. CICO0 -
I agree with labeling added sugars. I don't live in USA. I can taste the sweetness of sugar though. So to me anyway its pretty evident when something is sweetened vs unsweetened.0
-
Are we going around and around in circles over sugar on this thread?0
-
-
-
I agree with labeling added sugars. I don't live in USA. I can taste the sweetness of sugar though. So to me anyway its pretty evident when something is sweetened vs unsweetened.
I'd definitely be interested in seeing if any of our MFPers who have problems with added sugars are surprised by foods with labels that indicate added sugars where they thought none existed. I don't know if any will exist, but I'm actually quite interested in seeing if there are foods that have added sugars that no one really would have guessed contain them. Of course, all that depends on exactly how they are going to define added sugars (milk solids?).Are we going around and around in circles over sugar on this thread?
Of course, it's MPF.
2 -
You will know who is on which side of the debate when you see what concession stand everyone lines up in front of... cotton candy vs corn dogs! Or better yet - deep fried butter! 3 -
WinoGelato wrote: »
You will know who is on which side of the debate when you see what concession stand everyone lines up in front of... cotton candy vs corn dogs! Or better yet - deep fried butter!
I'm looking for donuts for Lemurcat, so far all I can find is funnel cakes and fried oreos.3 -
WinoGelato wrote: »
I am, so I at least have an excuse.1 -
paulgads82 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »
I am, so I at least have an excuse.
Stick around - you've got potential kid. 1 -
WinoGelato wrote: »
You will know who is on which side of the debate when you see what concession stand everyone lines up in front of... cotton candy vs corn dogs! Or better yet - deep fried butter!
I'm looking for donuts for Lemurcat, so far all I can find is funnel cakes and fried oreos.
This is all you need.1 -
WinoGelato wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »
I am, so I at least have an excuse.
Stick around - you've got potential kid.
I like him too.1 -
I agree with labeling added sugars. I don't live in USA. I can taste the sweetness of sugar though. So to me anyway its pretty evident when something is sweetened vs unsweetened.
I'd definitely be interested in seeing if any of our MFPers who have problems with added sugars are surprised by foods with labels that indicate added sugars where they thought none existed. I don't know if any will exist, but I'm actually quite interested in seeing if there are foods that have added sugars that no one really would have guessed contain them. Of course, all that depends on exactly how they are going to define added sugars (milk solids?).Are we going around and around in circles over sugar on this thread?
Of course, it's MPF.
I will not be surprised as the calorie count will stay the same. And the grams of sugar will be the same.0 -
Me three.Carlos_421 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »
I am, so I at least have an excuse.
Stick around - you've got potential kid.
I like him too.
I like all of you.
You're all wrong most of the time, but that's cool.Just kidding. Just kidding.But seriously though...just kidding again, jeezmade you look.6
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