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
Options
Replies
-
If I eat somehing very high in carbs, like a few candies, grapes or a muffin, then I wil be fighting cravings/hunger/compulsion/whatever it is for the next 24-48 hours or so. If I don't eat more, eventually my carb cravings fade again.
So the physical part is there. Those high carbs do cause a spike in blood sugar, causing a spike in insulin, causing a
crash in blood sugar, causing hunger. (Simplified but mostly true) The choice to eat a donut, or jelly beans, or taffy, or candy, when hungry is a result of a psychological issue. There isn't a physiological demand by your body to have sugar. There is a hormonal, chemical demand for increased food consumption at that point, but the choice to meet that demand with more sugar is a psychological one.
Once you go "off" sugar for a few days, those blood sugar, and insulin spikes go away, getting rid of the demand for more food. Once the demand is gone there's no reason for you to chose sugar, and so, to you, it looks like the addiction is physical because, at that point, your able to chose what to eat without the addiction coming into play.
And now I see why we're arguing about weather it's a physical or psychological addiction . . .
A large oversimplification. So people who have problems have those problems because of a psychological issue?
People who never start gambling will never have a gambling problem. Smokers who never smoke will never have a smoking problem. Employees who don't slack off are less likely to have an unemplyment problem. People who never eat sugar are less likely to have a sugar problem.... The problem with that is most people are introduced to sugar in infancy.
So we should just never start? That would have worked but I had little choice in the matter.
I now know that sugar and carbs are a problm for me. When I first identified the problem, I tried to moderate my intake. I failed repeatedly because (I believe) the smaller amounts of sugar still created a physical problem for me. If I cut sugar to almost nothing, I am successful and no longer struggle. Not eating the sweet thing becomes an easy choice rather than an uphill battle that I eventually lose (in hours or days).
And again, NOT an addiction for me.1 -
paulgads82 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »Sugar does something physical to some people. It may not be a true addiction, or maybe it is similar to nicotine - I dunno, but there is a physical component to it. When I quit sugar, as much as is possible without abstaining from all veggies, my sugar cravings went WAY down (along with my appetite) within days. Within a week I was able to not buy and eat candy or soda, not to mention baked goods. As long as I didn't touch the stuff, I was fine.
And yes, for me, if I did eat more carbs it increased my cravings. I tend to eat carbs later in the day because if I have a "higher" carb meal (15g carbs) I will crave more carbs. If I have carbs at breakfast It is very difficult to keep my carbs at keto levels because I want/crave/hunger for more. If I eat somehing very high in carbs, like a few candies, grapes or a muffin, then I wil be fighting cravings/hunger/compulsion/whatever it is for the next 24-48 hours or so. If I don't eat more, eventually my carb cravings fade again.
There's no way that could have been a psychological issue. A psychological addiction/behaviour/compulsion/habit that is gone within days of changing a behaviour? I don't think so. Now a physical change within days of removing an unhealthy substance (for that individual)? That is believable.
As a celiac, that's how it worked for me when I gave up gluten. I started feeling relief of some symptoms within days, after a few months I was quite a bit better, and after about 18 months I was healed. Like giving up sugar, at first I felt worse. I had headaches, pain, fatigue, moodiness and it triggered a pretty bad autoimmune arthritis flare-up. When I cut carbs very low, even while increasing salt, I had fatigue, moodiness, headaches, felt fluish and it triggered an autoimmune flare-up too. But within a week I had better energy, after a month my skin cleared up and my cognitive function improved enough that my family noticed, and improvements continued for a few months.... It was NOT in my head.
It may not be an addiction, but it IS something physical for some of us, and I find the comments that imply it is just in our heads to be very insulting. As someone said up thread, I bet those with NAFLD, PCOS, T2D and Alzheimer's complications (blindness, infertility, limb amputation), who still suffer those complications because it is hard to stop eating foods with high carb contents, may find it insulting too.
I don't know how this turned into another debate on the semantics of addiction thread. Some use addiction as a metaphor, some use it literally, some are insulted by the use of the word... This isn't going to change anytime soon.
You're insulted by having a psychological problem? Why? Are they inferior? Psychological illnesses have physical components. Nobody uses the phrase "in your head" to describe psychological issues or illnesses. Certainly not "just in your head". I am starting to wonder if there's a certaina amount of stigma and prejudice towards mental health and this may explain why people desire a physical explanation.
I was told that my autoimmune diseases were in my head (in so many words) by doctors, for many years (decades). I eventually understood that statement to mean that they couldn't figure out what was wrong so there was NOTHING wrong - they implied that it was all in my head. They were wrong. They just did not have an answer and were still looking for a way to be right about that fact.
Eventually I self diagnosed myself and had them run the tests to prove it. I was right on everything and it wasn't in my head. I even figured out my reactive hypoglycemia before getting tested.
Don't twist my words. Just because my sugar problem is not psychological does not mean that psychological problems are infererior to physical problems. I never said that.
So why is it insulting?
Because it is implied that the problem doesn't exist. It was made up.2 -
Saying something is psychological, and saying something is all in your head, are two very different things.
"All in your head" usually means you are imagining it.
A psychological or behavioral issue is a real thing. Those in the thread saying issues with sugar are psychological or behavioral are not saying they are all in your head. Psychological and behavioral issues can be treated using therapeutic and habit-changing strategies. They are not so much about the substance or activity as they are about the person's thought process and behavior.
Physical addictions are about the substance (although they obviously lead to related psychological and behavioral issues as well), they often require some type of medical intervention and physical discomfort as your body detoxes from the substance's effects and detox from stronger addictive substances can cause great pain, permanent physical injury, and even death.
Despite the fact that sugar has been consumed by humans in myriad forms over many centuries, there is no definitive scientific research showing sugar is "addictive". Nothing about that is an insult to people who struggle to limit sugar consumption.13 -
paulgads82 wrote: »Sugar does something physical to some people. It may not be a true addiction, or maybe it is similar to nicotine - I dunno, but there is a physical component to it. When I quit sugar, as much as is possible without abstaining from all veggies, my sugar cravings went WAY down (along with my appetite) within days. Within a week I was able to not buy and eat candy or soda, not to mention baked goods. As long as I didn't touch the stuff, I was fine.
And yes, for me, if I did eat more carbs it increased my cravings. I tend to eat carbs later in the day because if I have a "higher" carb meal (15g carbs) I will crave more carbs. If I have carbs at breakfast It is very difficult to keep my carbs at keto levels because I want/crave/hunger for more. If I eat somehing very high in carbs, like a few candies, grapes or a muffin, then I wil be fighting cravings/hunger/compulsion/whatever it is for the next 24-48 hours or so. If I don't eat more, eventually my carb cravings fade again.
There's no way that could have been a psychological issue. A psychological addiction/behaviour/compulsion/habit that is gone within days of changing a behaviour? I don't think so. Now a physical change within days of removing an unhealthy substance (for that individual)? That is believable.
As a celiac, that's how it worked for me when I gave up gluten. I started feeling relief of some symptoms within days, after a few months I was quite a bit better, and after about 18 months I was healed. Like giving up sugar, at first I felt worse. I had headaches, pain, fatigue, moodiness and it triggered a pretty bad autoimmune arthritis flare-up. When I cut carbs very low, even while increasing salt, I had fatigue, moodiness, headaches, felt fluish and it triggered an autoimmune flare-up too. But within a week I had better energy, after a month my skin cleared up and my cognitive function improved enough that my family noticed, and improvements continued for a few months.... It was NOT in my head.
It may not be an addiction, but it IS something physical for some of us, and I find the comments that imply it is just in our heads to be very insulting. As someone said up thread, I bet those with NAFLD, PCOS, T2D and Alzheimer's complications (blindness, infertility, limb amputation), who still suffer those complications because it is hard to stop eating foods with high carb contents, may find it insulting too.
I don't know how this turned into another debate on the semantics of addiction thread. Some use addiction as a metaphor, some use it literally, some are insulted by the use of the word... This isn't going to change anytime soon.
You're insulted by having a psychological problem? Why? Are they inferior? Psychological illnesses have physical components. Nobody uses the phrase "in your head" to describe psychological issues or illnesses. Certainly not "just in your head". I am starting to wonder if there's a certaina amount of stigma and prejudice towards mental health and this may explain why people desire a physical explanation.
I was told that my autoimmune diseases were in my head (in so many words) by doctors, for many years (decades). I eventually understood that statement to mean that they couldn't figure out what was wrong so there was NOTHING wrong - they implied that it was all in my head. They were wrong. They just did not have an answer and were still looking for a way to be right about that fact.
Eventually I self diagnosed myself and had them run the tests to prove it. I was right on everything and it wasn't in my head. I even figured out my reactive hypoglycemia before getting tested.
Don't twist my words. Just because my sugar problem is not psychological does not mean that psychological problems are infererior to physical problems. I never said that.
Honestly, the doctors ignoring you may be a result of being a woman. I cannot find the better article I read recently on it, but here's an interesting anecdote with some other good stuff thrown in. Apparently, doctors are pretty dismissive of women as hysterical. This has been my experience in the ER as well.
That could be part of it.0 -
paulgads82 wrote: »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.0 -
paulgads82 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »Sugar does something physical to some people. It may not be a true addiction, or maybe it is similar to nicotine - I dunno, but there is a physical component to it. When I quit sugar, as much as is possible without abstaining from all veggies, my sugar cravings went WAY down (along with my appetite) within days. Within a week I was able to not buy and eat candy or soda, not to mention baked goods. As long as I didn't touch the stuff, I was fine.
And yes, for me, if I did eat more carbs it increased my cravings. I tend to eat carbs later in the day because if I have a "higher" carb meal (15g carbs) I will crave more carbs. If I have carbs at breakfast It is very difficult to keep my carbs at keto levels because I want/crave/hunger for more. If I eat somehing very high in carbs, like a few candies, grapes or a muffin, then I wil be fighting cravings/hunger/compulsion/whatever it is for the next 24-48 hours or so. If I don't eat more, eventually my carb cravings fade again.
There's no way that could have been a psychological issue. A psychological addiction/behaviour/compulsion/habit that is gone within days of changing a behaviour? I don't think so. Now a physical change within days of removing an unhealthy substance (for that individual)? That is believable.
As a celiac, that's how it worked for me when I gave up gluten. I started feeling relief of some symptoms within days, after a few months I was quite a bit better, and after about 18 months I was healed. Like giving up sugar, at first I felt worse. I had headaches, pain, fatigue, moodiness and it triggered a pretty bad autoimmune arthritis flare-up. When I cut carbs very low, even while increasing salt, I had fatigue, moodiness, headaches, felt fluish and it triggered an autoimmune flare-up too. But within a week I had better energy, after a month my skin cleared up and my cognitive function improved enough that my family noticed, and improvements continued for a few months.... It was NOT in my head.
It may not be an addiction, but it IS something physical for some of us, and I find the comments that imply it is just in our heads to be very insulting. As someone said up thread, I bet those with NAFLD, PCOS, T2D and Alzheimer's complications (blindness, infertility, limb amputation), who still suffer those complications because it is hard to stop eating foods with high carb contents, may find it insulting too.
I don't know how this turned into another debate on the semantics of addiction thread. Some use addiction as a metaphor, some use it literally, some are insulted by the use of the word... This isn't going to change anytime soon.
You're insulted by having a psychological problem? Why? Are they inferior? Psychological illnesses have physical components. Nobody uses the phrase "in your head" to describe psychological issues or illnesses. Certainly not "just in your head". I am starting to wonder if there's a certaina amount of stigma and prejudice towards mental health and this may explain why people desire a physical explanation.
I was told that my autoimmune diseases were in my head (in so many words) by doctors, for many years (decades). I eventually understood that statement to mean that they couldn't figure out what was wrong so there was NOTHING wrong - they implied that it was all in my head. They were wrong. They just did not have an answer and were still looking for a way to be right about that fact.
Eventually I self diagnosed myself and had them run the tests to prove it. I was right on everything and it wasn't in my head. I even figured out my reactive hypoglycemia before getting tested.
Don't twist my words. Just because my sugar problem is not psychological does not mean that psychological problems are infererior to physical problems. I never said that.
So why is it insulting?
Because it is implied that the problem doesn't exist. It was made up.
After all my comments I don't know anyone could say I think psychological addiction is made up.4 -
pcoslady83 wrote: »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
Also imgaine you're a rodent. You get the choice between tons of calories that taste great or tons of calories that taste like crap, which do you choose? You have no concept of proper nutrition.
I once again wonder if people put their cognitive abilities on par with rodents in this sort of thing. Rodents aren't dumb but they have quite limited abilities to think about things like proper macronutrient breakdown or even how energy rich something is. It's basically good tasting water to them, they don't know it's gonna make them fat if they slurp it in addition to their normal diet.7 -
stevencloser wrote: »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.0 -
pcoslady83 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »
It's a scientific debate, semantics are important. I think we are all just geeks who like debating
But its also important in the context of the idea of a sugar conspiracy, or whatever. Are corporate interests feeding us an addictive substance or is sugar just really tasty and some of us develop unhealthy relationships with it? Obviously i support the latter explanation.
I believe refined sugar is addictive to many people and at the minimum an appetite stimulant which interferes with normal brain functionality. So I think corporations are using these attributes of sugar to increase profits.
Aaaaannnnnndddddddd...I don't like debating at all. I used to though, but when I started understanding that different people experience different realities when faced with an objectively same situation, debating became less interesting and learning about different experiences and perspective became more interesting.
Experiences do not negate reality. If I start seeing unicorns, the unicorns are not there. It's me. The fact that I saw unicorns is real, the existence of unicorns is not. If someone believes they are physically addicted to sugar the only way to determine if this is true is through science.
Sure science will determine that...eventually. Till then, it is good to have an open mind.
I do. It's open to evidence.
Then..let us just wait and respect people's experiences rather than dismissing them as willpower problem.
I hope I've been clear that I think it's more nuanced than just a willpower problem and calling something psychological is in no way a dismissal. If someone tells me they really struggle with sugar I am in no position to say "No you don't get a grip" but can discuss how to categorise it or whether it's the substance itself.
A simple google search will point you to papers. Here is the first link that turned up and I have copied the conclusion.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2235907/
The reviewed evidence supports the theory that, in some circumstances, intermittent access to sugar can lead to behavior and neurochemical changes that resemble the effects of a substance of abuse. According to the evidence in rats, intermittent access to sugar and chow is capable of producing a “dependency”. This was operationally defined by tests for bingeing, withdrawal, craving and cross-sensitization to amphetamine and alcohol. The correspondence to some people with binge eating disorder or bulimia is striking, but whether or not it is a good idea to call this a “food addiction” in people is both a scientific and societal question that has yet to be answered. What this review demonstrates is that rats with intermittent access to food and a sugar solution can show both a constellation of behaviors and parallel brain changes that are characteristic of rats that voluntarily self-administer addictive drugs. In the aggregrate, this is evidence that sugar can be addictive.
Now..please don't tell me that the study was in rats and not applicable to humans.
Why would I not tell you that? The study is literally on rats. This has been discussed already. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/brainwaves/is-sugar-really-toxic-sifting-through-the-evidence/ Rat study dealt with in this article.
Sure..I did go through the article. I found two places where it mentions rat study.
A. A more compelling criticism is that concern about fructose is based primarily on studies in which rodents and people consumed huge amounts of the molecule—up to 300 grams of fructose each day, which is nearly equivalent to the total sugar in eight cans of Coke—or a diet in which the vast majority of sugars were pure fructose. The reality is that most people consume far less fructose than used in such studies and rarely eat fructose without glucose.
AND
B. Not only do many worrying fructose studies use unrealistic doses of the sugar unaccompanied by glucose, it also turns out that the rodents researchers have studied metabolize fructose in a very different way than people do—far more different than originally anticipated. Studies that have traced fructose's fantastic voyage through the human body suggest that the liver converts as much as 50 percent of fructose into glucose, around 30 percent of fructose into lactate and less than one percent into fats. In contrast, mice and rats turn more than 50 percent of fructose into fats, so experiments with these animals would exaggerate the significance of fructose's proposed detriments for humans, especially clogged arteries, fatty livers and insulin resistance.
Let us first see A: Study was conducted on rodents which consumed huge amounts of sugar. What drove them to consume huge amounts of sugar? Did they force feed the rodents and people so that they can see impact of such high levels of sugar consumption? Rodents were just offered sugar solution as an option along with their regular food and rodents displayed addiction traits (both behavioral and neurochemical).
Now..for B. Sure liver converts 50% of fructose into glucose..if that glucose is in excess of what body needs (which is the problem in addiction like behavior with sugar causes), it gets converted to fat. I have a hard time understanding what is the point the author is trying to make here.
Excess glucose is first and foremost turned to glycogen.
Also your body upregulates the carb oxidation to meet the increased supply, because burning it off is less work than converting it to fat. Efficiency, yo.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10365981
Sure..some people may have excellent metabolism which burns off excess sugar. It is not true for everyone on this planet. If all our bodies were identical and excellent, then we would not have issues like obesity today.
If your energy expenditure is above your intake, you burn it off.
If you overeat, it matters nothing if it was sugar or anything else.9 -
Saying something is psychological, and saying something is all in your head, are two very different things.
"All in your head" usually means you are imagining it.
A psychological or behavioral issue is a real thing. Those in the thread saying issues with sugar are psychological or behavioral are not saying they are all in your head. Psychological and behavioral issues can be treated using therapeutic and habit-changing strategies. They are not so much about the substance or activity as they are about the person's thought process and behavior.
Physical addictions are about the substance (although they obviously lead to related psychological and behavioral issues as well), they often require some type of medical intervention and physical discomfort as your body detoxes from the substance's effects and detox from stronger addictive substances can cause great pain, permanent physical injury, and even death.
Despite the fact that sugar has been consumed by humans in myriad forms over many centuries, there is no definitive scientific research showing sugar is "addictive". Nothing about that is an insult to people who struggle to limit sugar consumption.
Very well said.1 -
stevencloser wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »
It's a scientific debate, semantics are important. I think we are all just geeks who like debating
But its also important in the context of the idea of a sugar conspiracy, or whatever. Are corporate interests feeding us an addictive substance or is sugar just really tasty and some of us develop unhealthy relationships with it? Obviously i support the latter explanation.
I believe refined sugar is addictive to many people and at the minimum an appetite stimulant which interferes with normal brain functionality. So I think corporations are using these attributes of sugar to increase profits.
Aaaaannnnnndddddddd...I don't like debating at all. I used to though, but when I started understanding that different people experience different realities when faced with an objectively same situation, debating became less interesting and learning about different experiences and perspective became more interesting.
Experiences do not negate reality. If I start seeing unicorns, the unicorns are not there. It's me. The fact that I saw unicorns is real, the existence of unicorns is not. If someone believes they are physically addicted to sugar the only way to determine if this is true is through science.
Sure science will determine that...eventually. Till then, it is good to have an open mind.
I do. It's open to evidence.
Then..let us just wait and respect people's experiences rather than dismissing them as willpower problem.
I hope I've been clear that I think it's more nuanced than just a willpower problem and calling something psychological is in no way a dismissal. If someone tells me they really struggle with sugar I am in no position to say "No you don't get a grip" but can discuss how to categorise it or whether it's the substance itself.
A simple google search will point you to papers. Here is the first link that turned up and I have copied the conclusion.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2235907/
The reviewed evidence supports the theory that, in some circumstances, intermittent access to sugar can lead to behavior and neurochemical changes that resemble the effects of a substance of abuse. According to the evidence in rats, intermittent access to sugar and chow is capable of producing a “dependency”. This was operationally defined by tests for bingeing, withdrawal, craving and cross-sensitization to amphetamine and alcohol. The correspondence to some people with binge eating disorder or bulimia is striking, but whether or not it is a good idea to call this a “food addiction” in people is both a scientific and societal question that has yet to be answered. What this review demonstrates is that rats with intermittent access to food and a sugar solution can show both a constellation of behaviors and parallel brain changes that are characteristic of rats that voluntarily self-administer addictive drugs. In the aggregrate, this is evidence that sugar can be addictive.
Now..please don't tell me that the study was in rats and not applicable to humans.
Why would I not tell you that? The study is literally on rats. This has been discussed already. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/brainwaves/is-sugar-really-toxic-sifting-through-the-evidence/ Rat study dealt with in this article.
Sure..I did go through the article. I found two places where it mentions rat study.
A. A more compelling criticism is that concern about fructose is based primarily on studies in which rodents and people consumed huge amounts of the molecule—up to 300 grams of fructose each day, which is nearly equivalent to the total sugar in eight cans of Coke—or a diet in which the vast majority of sugars were pure fructose. The reality is that most people consume far less fructose than used in such studies and rarely eat fructose without glucose.
AND
B. Not only do many worrying fructose studies use unrealistic doses of the sugar unaccompanied by glucose, it also turns out that the rodents researchers have studied metabolize fructose in a very different way than people do—far more different than originally anticipated. Studies that have traced fructose's fantastic voyage through the human body suggest that the liver converts as much as 50 percent of fructose into glucose, around 30 percent of fructose into lactate and less than one percent into fats. In contrast, mice and rats turn more than 50 percent of fructose into fats, so experiments with these animals would exaggerate the significance of fructose's proposed detriments for humans, especially clogged arteries, fatty livers and insulin resistance.
Let us first see A: Study was conducted on rodents which consumed huge amounts of sugar. What drove them to consume huge amounts of sugar? Did they force feed the rodents and people so that they can see impact of such high levels of sugar consumption? Rodents were just offered sugar solution as an option along with their regular food and rodents displayed addiction traits (both behavioral and neurochemical).
Now..for B. Sure liver converts 50% of fructose into glucose..if that glucose is in excess of what body needs (which is the problem in addiction like behavior with sugar causes), it gets converted to fat. I have a hard time understanding what is the point the author is trying to make here.
Excess glucose is first and foremost turned to glycogen.
Also your body upregulates the carb oxidation to meet the increased supply, because burning it off is less work than converting it to fat. Efficiency, yo.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10365981
Sure..some people may have excellent metabolism which burns off excess sugar. It is not true for everyone on this planet. If all our bodies were identical and excellent, then we would not have issues like obesity today.
If your energy expenditure is above your intake, you burn it off.
If you overeat, it matters nothing if it was sugar or anything else.
Of course, the only point I am differing with you is sugar makes people over eat and it is not purely in their control and matter of will power. As ketomom said, there is a physical component to it for many people. Hence it is a major contributor to obesity problem.1 -
Yes, foods low in nutrients (including high in processed sugars) can make one "fat". My friend is a perfect example. She's very health conscious about her weight so she strictly counts calories while eating high processed food (i.e. 1200 calories a day of pizza). The result? She lost weight but looks like a skinny soft mess and complains about feeling constantly tired, almost how I used to look/feel when I was anorexic. I currently eat around 1800 calories a day and very clean. Am solid/lean, energized, lift, etc.1
-
paulgads82 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »Sugar does something physical to some people. It may not be a true addiction, or maybe it is similar to nicotine - I dunno, but there is a physical component to it. When I quit sugar, as much as is possible without abstaining from all veggies, my sugar cravings went WAY down (along with my appetite) within days. Within a week I was able to not buy and eat candy or soda, not to mention baked goods. As long as I didn't touch the stuff, I was fine.
And yes, for me, if I did eat more carbs it increased my cravings. I tend to eat carbs later in the day because if I have a "higher" carb meal (15g carbs) I will crave more carbs. If I have carbs at breakfast It is very difficult to keep my carbs at keto levels because I want/crave/hunger for more. If I eat somehing very high in carbs, like a few candies, grapes or a muffin, then I wil be fighting cravings/hunger/compulsion/whatever it is for the next 24-48 hours or so. If I don't eat more, eventually my carb cravings fade again.
There's no way that could have been a psychological issue. A psychological addiction/behaviour/compulsion/habit that is gone within days of changing a behaviour? I don't think so. Now a physical change within days of removing an unhealthy substance (for that individual)? That is believable.
As a celiac, that's how it worked for me when I gave up gluten. I started feeling relief of some symptoms within days, after a few months I was quite a bit better, and after about 18 months I was healed. Like giving up sugar, at first I felt worse. I had headaches, pain, fatigue, moodiness and it triggered a pretty bad autoimmune arthritis flare-up. When I cut carbs very low, even while increasing salt, I had fatigue, moodiness, headaches, felt fluish and it triggered an autoimmune flare-up too. But within a week I had better energy, after a month my skin cleared up and my cognitive function improved enough that my family noticed, and improvements continued for a few months.... It was NOT in my head.
It may not be an addiction, but it IS something physical for some of us, and I find the comments that imply it is just in our heads to be very insulting. As someone said up thread, I bet those with NAFLD, PCOS, T2D and Alzheimer's complications (blindness, infertility, limb amputation), who still suffer those complications because it is hard to stop eating foods with high carb contents, may find it insulting too.
I don't know how this turned into another debate on the semantics of addiction thread. Some use addiction as a metaphor, some use it literally, some are insulted by the use of the word... This isn't going to change anytime soon.
You're insulted by having a psychological problem? Why? Are they inferior? Psychological illnesses have physical components. Nobody uses the phrase "in your head" to describe psychological issues or illnesses. Certainly not "just in your head". I am starting to wonder if there's a certaina amount of stigma and prejudice towards mental health and this may explain why people desire a physical explanation.
I was told that my autoimmune diseases were in my head (in so many words) by doctors, for many years (decades). I eventually understood that statement to mean that they couldn't figure out what was wrong so there was NOTHING wrong - they implied that it was all in my head. They were wrong. They just did not have an answer and were still looking for a way to be right about that fact.
Eventually I self diagnosed myself and had them run the tests to prove it. I was right on everything and it wasn't in my head. I even figured out my reactive hypoglycemia before getting tested.
Don't twist my words. Just because my sugar problem is not psychological does not mean that psychological problems are infererior to physical problems. I never said that.
So why is it insulting?
Because it is implied that the problem doesn't exist. It was made up.
After all my comments I don't know anyone could say I think psychological addiction is made up.
Again, that's not what I said. I meant the phrase "it is all in your head" means it is not real or it is made up.
After being told stomach aches, arthritis and such were "in my head", I was not sent for psychological treatment or counselling. I was just sent home.0 -
FeedMeFish wrote: »Yes, foods low in nutrients (including high in processed sugars) can make one "fat". My friend is a perfect example. She's very health conscious about her weight so she strictly counts calories while eating high processed food (i.e. 1200 calories a day of pizza). The result? She lost weight but looks like a skinny soft mess and complains about feeling constantly tired, almost how I used to look/feel when I was anorexic. I currently eat around 1800 calories a day and very clean. Am solid/lean, energized, lift, etc.
It's likely that she's undereating.2 -
paulgads82 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »Sugar does something physical to some people. It may not be a true addiction, or maybe it is similar to nicotine - I dunno, but there is a physical component to it. When I quit sugar, as much as is possible without abstaining from all veggies, my sugar cravings went WAY down (along with my appetite) within days. Within a week I was able to not buy and eat candy or soda, not to mention baked goods. As long as I didn't touch the stuff, I was fine.
And yes, for me, if I did eat more carbs it increased my cravings. I tend to eat carbs later in the day because if I have a "higher" carb meal (15g carbs) I will crave more carbs. If I have carbs at breakfast It is very difficult to keep my carbs at keto levels because I want/crave/hunger for more. If I eat somehing very high in carbs, like a few candies, grapes or a muffin, then I wil be fighting cravings/hunger/compulsion/whatever it is for the next 24-48 hours or so. If I don't eat more, eventually my carb cravings fade again.
There's no way that could have been a psychological issue. A psychological addiction/behaviour/compulsion/habit that is gone within days of changing a behaviour? I don't think so. Now a physical change within days of removing an unhealthy substance (for that individual)? That is believable.
As a celiac, that's how it worked for me when I gave up gluten. I started feeling relief of some symptoms within days, after a few months I was quite a bit better, and after about 18 months I was healed. Like giving up sugar, at first I felt worse. I had headaches, pain, fatigue, moodiness and it triggered a pretty bad autoimmune arthritis flare-up. When I cut carbs very low, even while increasing salt, I had fatigue, moodiness, headaches, felt fluish and it triggered an autoimmune flare-up too. But within a week I had better energy, after a month my skin cleared up and my cognitive function improved enough that my family noticed, and improvements continued for a few months.... It was NOT in my head.
It may not be an addiction, but it IS something physical for some of us, and I find the comments that imply it is just in our heads to be very insulting. As someone said up thread, I bet those with NAFLD, PCOS, T2D and Alzheimer's complications (blindness, infertility, limb amputation), who still suffer those complications because it is hard to stop eating foods with high carb contents, may find it insulting too.
I don't know how this turned into another debate on the semantics of addiction thread. Some use addiction as a metaphor, some use it literally, some are insulted by the use of the word... This isn't going to change anytime soon.
You're insulted by having a psychological problem? Why? Are they inferior? Psychological illnesses have physical components. Nobody uses the phrase "in your head" to describe psychological issues or illnesses. Certainly not "just in your head". I am starting to wonder if there's a certaina amount of stigma and prejudice towards mental health and this may explain why people desire a physical explanation.
I was told that my autoimmune diseases were in my head (in so many words) by doctors, for many years (decades). I eventually understood that statement to mean that they couldn't figure out what was wrong so there was NOTHING wrong - they implied that it was all in my head. They were wrong. They just did not have an answer and were still looking for a way to be right about that fact.
Eventually I self diagnosed myself and had them run the tests to prove it. I was right on everything and it wasn't in my head. I even figured out my reactive hypoglycemia before getting tested.
Don't twist my words. Just because my sugar problem is not psychological does not mean that psychological problems are infererior to physical problems. I never said that.
So why is it insulting?
Because it is implied that the problem doesn't exist. It was made up.
After all my comments I don't know anyone could say I think psychological addiction is made up.
Again, that's not what I said. I meant the phrase "it is all in your head" means it is not real or it is made up.
After being told stomach aches, arthritis and such were "in my head", I was not sent for psychological treatment or counselling. I was just sent home.
Who here has said sugar addiction is "all in the head" ?3 -
paulgads82 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »Sugar does something physical to some people. It may not be a true addiction, or maybe it is similar to nicotine - I dunno, but there is a physical component to it. When I quit sugar, as much as is possible without abstaining from all veggies, my sugar cravings went WAY down (along with my appetite) within days. Within a week I was able to not buy and eat candy or soda, not to mention baked goods. As long as I didn't touch the stuff, I was fine.
And yes, for me, if I did eat more carbs it increased my cravings. I tend to eat carbs later in the day because if I have a "higher" carb meal (15g carbs) I will crave more carbs. If I have carbs at breakfast It is very difficult to keep my carbs at keto levels because I want/crave/hunger for more. If I eat somehing very high in carbs, like a few candies, grapes or a muffin, then I wil be fighting cravings/hunger/compulsion/whatever it is for the next 24-48 hours or so. If I don't eat more, eventually my carb cravings fade again.
There's no way that could have been a psychological issue. A psychological addiction/behaviour/compulsion/habit that is gone within days of changing a behaviour? I don't think so. Now a physical change within days of removing an unhealthy substance (for that individual)? That is believable.
As a celiac, that's how it worked for me when I gave up gluten. I started feeling relief of some symptoms within days, after a few months I was quite a bit better, and after about 18 months I was healed. Like giving up sugar, at first I felt worse. I had headaches, pain, fatigue, moodiness and it triggered a pretty bad autoimmune arthritis flare-up. When I cut carbs very low, even while increasing salt, I had fatigue, moodiness, headaches, felt fluish and it triggered an autoimmune flare-up too. But within a week I had better energy, after a month my skin cleared up and my cognitive function improved enough that my family noticed, and improvements continued for a few months.... It was NOT in my head.
It may not be an addiction, but it IS something physical for some of us, and I find the comments that imply it is just in our heads to be very insulting. As someone said up thread, I bet those with NAFLD, PCOS, T2D and Alzheimer's complications (blindness, infertility, limb amputation), who still suffer those complications because it is hard to stop eating foods with high carb contents, may find it insulting too.
I don't know how this turned into another debate on the semantics of addiction thread. Some use addiction as a metaphor, some use it literally, some are insulted by the use of the word... This isn't going to change anytime soon.
You're insulted by having a psychological problem? Why? Are they inferior? Psychological illnesses have physical components. Nobody uses the phrase "in your head" to describe psychological issues or illnesses. Certainly not "just in your head". I am starting to wonder if there's a certaina amount of stigma and prejudice towards mental health and this may explain why people desire a physical explanation.
I was told that my autoimmune diseases were in my head (in so many words) by doctors, for many years (decades). I eventually understood that statement to mean that they couldn't figure out what was wrong so there was NOTHING wrong - they implied that it was all in my head. They were wrong. They just did not have an answer and were still looking for a way to be right about that fact.
Eventually I self diagnosed myself and had them run the tests to prove it. I was right on everything and it wasn't in my head. I even figured out my reactive hypoglycemia before getting tested.
Don't twist my words. Just because my sugar problem is not psychological does not mean that psychological problems are infererior to physical problems. I never said that.
So why is it insulting?
Because it is implied that the problem doesn't exist. It was made up.
After all my comments I don't know anyone could say I think psychological addiction is made up.
Again, that's not what I said. I meant the phrase "it is all in your head" means it is not real or it is made up.
After being told stomach aches, arthritis and such were "in my head", I was not sent for psychological treatment or counselling. I was just sent home.
I fail to see how a doctor failing to diagnose your condition has any bearing on the argument over whether addiction to sugar as a substance is a real thing or if those who have self diagnosed as such are actually suffering from a behavioral addiction to eating, an eating disorder or some other psychological issue.5 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »Sugar does something physical to some people. It may not be a true addiction, or maybe it is similar to nicotine - I dunno, but there is a physical component to it. When I quit sugar, as much as is possible without abstaining from all veggies, my sugar cravings went WAY down (along with my appetite) within days. Within a week I was able to not buy and eat candy or soda, not to mention baked goods. As long as I didn't touch the stuff, I was fine.
And yes, for me, if I did eat more carbs it increased my cravings. I tend to eat carbs later in the day because if I have a "higher" carb meal (15g carbs) I will crave more carbs. If I have carbs at breakfast It is very difficult to keep my carbs at keto levels because I want/crave/hunger for more. If I eat somehing very high in carbs, like a few candies, grapes or a muffin, then I wil be fighting cravings/hunger/compulsion/whatever it is for the next 24-48 hours or so. If I don't eat more, eventually my carb cravings fade again.
There's no way that could have been a psychological issue. A psychological addiction/behaviour/compulsion/habit that is gone within days of changing a behaviour? I don't think so. Now a physical change within days of removing an unhealthy substance (for that individual)? That is believable.
As a celiac, that's how it worked for me when I gave up gluten. I started feeling relief of some symptoms within days, after a few months I was quite a bit better, and after about 18 months I was healed. Like giving up sugar, at first I felt worse. I had headaches, pain, fatigue, moodiness and it triggered a pretty bad autoimmune arthritis flare-up. When I cut carbs very low, even while increasing salt, I had fatigue, moodiness, headaches, felt fluish and it triggered an autoimmune flare-up too. But within a week I had better energy, after a month my skin cleared up and my cognitive function improved enough that my family noticed, and improvements continued for a few months.... It was NOT in my head.
It may not be an addiction, but it IS something physical for some of us, and I find the comments that imply it is just in our heads to be very insulting. As someone said up thread, I bet those with NAFLD, PCOS, T2D and Alzheimer's complications (blindness, infertility, limb amputation), who still suffer those complications because it is hard to stop eating foods with high carb contents, may find it insulting too.
I don't know how this turned into another debate on the semantics of addiction thread. Some use addiction as a metaphor, some use it literally, some are insulted by the use of the word... This isn't going to change anytime soon.
You're insulted by having a psychological problem? Why? Are they inferior? Psychological illnesses have physical components. Nobody uses the phrase "in your head" to describe psychological issues or illnesses. Certainly not "just in your head". I am starting to wonder if there's a certaina amount of stigma and prejudice towards mental health and this may explain why people desire a physical explanation.
I was told that my autoimmune diseases were in my head (in so many words) by doctors, for many years (decades). I eventually understood that statement to mean that they couldn't figure out what was wrong so there was NOTHING wrong - they implied that it was all in my head. They were wrong. They just did not have an answer and were still looking for a way to be right about that fact.
Eventually I self diagnosed myself and had them run the tests to prove it. I was right on everything and it wasn't in my head. I even figured out my reactive hypoglycemia before getting tested.
Don't twist my words. Just because my sugar problem is not psychological does not mean that psychological problems are infererior to physical problems. I never said that.
So why is it insulting?
Because it is implied that the problem doesn't exist. It was made up.
After all my comments I don't know anyone could say I think psychological addiction is made up.
Again, that's not what I said. I meant the phrase "it is all in your head" means it is not real or it is made up.
After being told stomach aches, arthritis and such were "in my head", I was not sent for psychological treatment or counselling. I was just sent home.
I fail to see how a doctor failing to diagnose your condition has any bearing on the argument over whether addiction to sugar as a substance is a real thing or if those who have self diagnosed as such are actually suffering from a behavioral addiction to eating, an eating disorder or some other psychological issue.
Me neither. I've had it happen to me too, but it has no bearing on this debate.2 -
It was a personal comparison between two situations where I was told the same thing. The same incorrect thing. LOL Nevermind then.
0 -
eveandqsmom wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Once upon a time, a man decided to deal sugar to his community. His home became one of the most frequented sugar houses in the city.
His daughter became a sugar addict and was so hooked that she began doing anything she could for a sugar fix. She stole, prostituted herself...she was serving a prison sentence when she gave birth to her little girl.
Because she couldn't raise her daughter in prison, her sugar dealing parents raised her in their sugar house. The little girl saw all the things you'd expect to see in a sugar house. Robberies, prostitution, sugar abuse...
The little girl's mom never stayed out of prison for long, always going back after getting caught prostituting herself or robbing others to get more sugar money.
At the age of just nine years old, the little girl was the responsible one in the house, watching the addicts to make sure no one overdosed on sugar.
Then one day the police came in a series of raids. In the fifth raid they found the sugar they were looking for.
Because the little girl was in the home when the grandparents were busted with the sugar, she was removed from their custody.
By God's grace, a series of circumstances brought the little girl to a small local church. God placed it in the hearts of a family in that church to take that little girl in as their own.
Her past life in the sugar world is just a distant memory now, a whole different world.
With a lot of help, discipline, prayer and love, she's become a permanent member of her new family and grown into a balanced, well adjusted, beautiful young lady.
This story has a happy ending but the pain that sugar caused this little girl is still very real and the sad truth is that most little girls trapped in the world of sugar don't get such a happy ending.
Sounds completely ridiculous and absurd doesn't it?
That's because it is.
Now exchange the word "sugar" for "heroin."
Not absurd anymore.
That's why the ridiculous claims that sugar is addictive like drugs and just as hard to quit, blah blah blah, just make me want to scream and punch a hole in the wall.
Btw,
The little girl is my adopted baby sister.
I'm really sorry to hear this story, it is heartbreaking. The differences in the story, however, is the legality and availability of the substance. Of course it would be ridiculous to prostitute yourself for sugar when it is readily available in your own cupboards.
People do steal food/sugar/starchy shite, they do great harm to themselves with it. People lose limbs, eyesight, go into comas and still can't stop themselves. If that's not an addiction, I don't know what is.
I've been doing my best to avoid this thread, but this particular comment is sticking with me. Heroin is illegal precisely because of its addictive nature and deleterious societal effects. It is the degree of harm to individuals and to society that makes it different. Even if we were to agree that sugar addition is real (I don't subscribe to this belief, but I do believe that there are behavioural/emotional components at play here and that food/eating addiction is real), the reality is no one is out hijacking cars or robbing stores to get a sugar fix. I have never seen anyone unable to control their bowels or have hallucinations going through sugar withdrawal. I have never heard of anyone needed to be placed into a medically induced coma to get through sugar withdrawal.
The comparison, in my mind, is absurd. There are very specific withdrawal protocols which are in place for withdrawals from drugs and alcohol, and there are teams who are consulted to support patients experiencing these things. I will be meeting with one of these teams next month, I will be happy to ask them what they do for people experiencing sugar addiction at that time (after the meeting is over and everyone else is out of the room, because I can't even imagine the embarrassment of asking about it in a professional setting), and report back to you.
When people are stealing food, it is because they have none, not because they want a sugar fix. They don't generally care about the type and quality of food, they are hungry. I once saw a guy guzzling down containers of ketchup at McDs one morning. I suspect he was hungry, broke, and homeless. I didn't ask him. I'm sure he would have told me to *babysloth* off if I asked him about his sugar addiction. When people are losing limbs and vision due to damage caused by uncontrolled diabetes, there are many factors involved in this, some lack education, some lack concern for self, some don't believe it will happen to them until it's too late, some attempt to control things, but their body is just so out of whack it is fruitless (I have seen some very brittle diabetics, and some people who are palliative and still require insulin despite never eating). To say it is about addiction without considering the complicating factors is an oversimplification. In absence of medical conditions, people don't need to have their limbs amputated because they had pie last night. Do you see how much of a stretch that comparison is?
15 -
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 395 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 960 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions