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
-
At best, I see sugar as neutral in terms of health. At worst, I see it as contributing to health problems. Same thing goes for weight management. I doubt there are many out there who can lose weight with relative ease while eating a high sugar diet.
LOL - I guess I'm that exception! When I was actively losing weight (I'm at goal and have been for over four years). I ate double (sometimes triple) the sugar that MFP recommended. Candy, cupcakes, cookies, ice cream, sweetened yogurt, and fruit were all major players in my day-to-day diet. I just stayed within my calorie goal and the weight came off reliably, steadily, and effortlessly. In the end, I lost about 60 pounds.
I went back and randomly picked a day from 2011 - when I was working on losing weight. Chocolate pastry for breakfast - pineapple, strawberries, candy at lunch - two sugar cookies for a snack. I'd say that was a pretty typical day during my weight loss phase. It came out to 1836 calories and I came fairly close to all my macro goals. I probably eat less sugar and more vegetables now, in my current weight maintenance phase . I'm not sure why - maybe my food preferences have just evolved. I still do 50-55% of my calories from carbs, and I still don't track sugar or carbs in my diary.
In case it matters... I'm 44, 5'9" and weigh somewhere between 135-140lbs. My doctor is very pleased with my health. So... for me, it really all did come down to CICO.
For info purposes, this day it was closer to 32% (probably less since all of your 141 net carbs were probably not sugar)...which is still considerably more than the WHO guideline provided by someone up the thread. I think it was like 10%.
I guess I've never felt compelled to limit carbs or even be exact about macros. Days vary, but my average over my 5 years on MFP is about 50 carbs/15 protein/35 fat. It works for me! :-)
Is there a report that shows this? I'm not doubting you or challenging you to show a report, but if MFP can do this that would be very awesome. I thought it only went up to like 90 days.0 -
At best, I see sugar as neutral in terms of health. At worst, I see it as contributing to health problems. Same thing goes for weight management. I doubt there are many out there who can lose weight with relative ease while eating a high sugar diet.
LOL - I guess I'm that exception! When I was actively losing weight (I'm at goal and have been for over four years). I ate double (sometimes triple) the sugar that MFP recommended. Candy, cupcakes, cookies, ice cream, sweetened yogurt, and fruit were all major players in my day-to-day diet. I just stayed within my calorie goal and the weight came off reliably, steadily, and effortlessly. In the end, I lost about 60 pounds.
I went back and randomly picked a day from 2011 - when I was working on losing weight. Chocolate pastry for breakfast - pineapple, strawberries, candy at lunch - two sugar cookies for a snack. I'd say that was a pretty typical day during my weight loss phase. It came out to 1836 calories and I came fairly close to all my macro goals. I probably eat less sugar and more vegetables now, in my current weight maintenance phase . I'm not sure why - maybe my food preferences have just evolved. I still do 50-55% of my calories from carbs, and I still don't track sugar or carbs in my diary.
In case it matters... I'm 44, 5'9" and weigh somewhere between 135-140lbs. My doctor is very pleased with my health. So... for me, it really all did come down to CICO.
For info purposes, this day it was closer to 32% (probably less since all of your 141 net carbs were probably not sugar)...which is still considerably more than the WHO guideline provided by someone up the thread. I think it was like 10%.
I guess I've never felt compelled to limit carbs or even be exact about macros. Days vary, but my average over my 5 years on MFP is about 50 carbs/15 protein/35 fat. It works for me! :-)
Is there a report that shows this? I'm not doubting you or challenging you to show a report, but if MFP can do this that would be very awesome. I thought it only went up to like 90 days.
I'm a nerd who keeps spreadsheets and data independent of MFP. I've not found that MFP has any good long-term analytics tools.6 -
stevencloser wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I overeat everything (well, if I like it -- I don't like straight sugar or soda or candy, but I do like sugar + fat, just not more than savory items of various sorts and less if they are too sweet, usually). You want to make that into something beyond a taste difference. Instead, because I don't care for jujubes, this means that you are an "addict" and I can't understand the struggles you face. My overeating is of a different kind. That strikes me as pretty strange.
And that's where the disconnect lies, I think. I can't speak for nvmomketo but I can say that there absolutely is a difference between overindulging in a food because it's delicious and convenient and the compulsion to eat and keep eating some experience from carbs/sugar.
However I do see a weird contradiction between having problems controlling sugar to the point where it sounds like you basically eat it against your will and just being able to cut it out completely and be absolutely fine.
ok..this is my first post on MFP.
@stevencloser: Have you heard of people who have no problems totally abstaining from alcohol but they have controlling once they start drinking to the point where they are drinking against their will? It is exactly like that. It is just that you have not found the substance yet which makes you that weak.
The news for all people who are saying that people with weakness to sugar are blaming sugar and not taking responsibility, they are taking responsibility by totally abstaining from the substance that causes them lose control.
I have never heard any body suggesting a heroin addict to consume heroin in moderation and he should be okay, Sugar is just as addictive to many people.0 -
ok..this is my second post on MFP, figuring out how this works. First comment kind of got collapsed.
@stevencloser: Have you heard of people who have no problems totally abstaining from alcohol but they have controlling once they start drinking to the point where they are drinking against their will? It is exactly like that. It is just that you have not found the substance yet which makes you that weak.
The news for all people who are saying that people with weakness to sugar are blaming sugar and not taking responsibility, they are taking responsibility by totally abstaining from the substance that causes them lose control.
I have never heard any body suggesting a heroin addict to consume heroin in moderation and he should be okay, Sugar is just as addictive to many people.5 -
@pcoslady83 For me, I get sugar/sweet cravings that requires every last ounce of willpower to ignore. Sometimes the sugar wins, sometimes I win. In the end I have to take full and total responsility of what I eat. I have the power, not the food!
As for the heroin comment... I've been there unfortunately. And there is no comparison to heroin withdrawal and a sugar craving. It's easy for people to make this comparison when they haven't walked a mile in both sets of shoes...21 -
Christine_72 wrote: »@pcoslady83 For me, I get sugar/sweet cravings that requires every last ounce of willpower to ignore. Sometimes the sugar wins, sometimes I win. In the end I have to take full and total responsility of what I eat. I have the power, not the food!
As for the heroin comment... I've been there unfortunately. And there is no comparison to heroin withdrawal and a sugar craving. It's easy for people to make this comparison when they haven't walked a mile in both sets of shoes...
Brave and awesome of you to share this. My husband has been in recovery/clean for a long time and I spoke to him about this very thread. He craves and eats a lot of sugar. I didn't want to speak to his opinion or experience here before, but what he offered me was fairly identical to what you've said. There is no possibility in his mind that sugar can be compared to heroin.7 -
Christine_72 wrote: »@pcoslady83 For me, I get sugar/sweet cravings that requires every last ounce of willpower to ignore. Sometimes the sugar wins, sometimes I win. In the end I have to take full and total responsility of what I eat. I have the power, not the food!
As for the heroin comment... I've been there unfortunately. And there is no comparison to heroin withdrawal and a sugar craving. It's easy for people to make this comparison when they haven't walked a mile in both sets of shoes...
Sure..I accept that it may not be a fair comparison and sorry if my comment came across as insensitive.
I am saying exactly what you are saying. For people who have never experienced what it is to have no control once they start eating candies, it is easy to say that it is all about will power when in fact it is not. One has to be in those shoes to know what it feels like.3 -
The heroine analogy is a bit much, but her point is to address the seemingly illogical idea that abstinence is more sustainable than moderation. In which case a comparison to addiction in general is more appropriate. Since the idea that sugar as a substance is addictive is very debatable, consider addictions which are not related to a substance. In those cases, moderation is very rarely prescribed.3
-
stevencloser wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »
I got your sarcasm, thanks. I just found your post funny directly after someone had agreed with him.
That's just a sockpuppet account. No one could dislike Ferrero Nutella (TM), the light breakfast spread with the best of milk, hazelnuts and cocoa.
I hate that crap. Detest. Despise. God it is so awful.
Mostly because my kids like it and it's it the nastiest crap to clean off of a plate. It's like friggin spackle. Poop colored spackle. Tastes okay, a bit too sweet, and I prefer PB. But cleaning if? Did I mention I hate that crap?
5 -
The heroine analogy is a bit much, but her point is to address the seemingly illogical idea that abstinence is more sustainable than moderation. In which case a comparison to addiction in general is more appropriate. Since the idea that sugar as a substance is addictive is very debatable, consider addictions which are not related to a substance. In those cases, moderation is very rarely prescribed.
But with eating addiction you (1) can't stop the behavior (we don't have to gamble, but we do have to eat), and (2) in at least many cases restriction itself makes the problem worse, if not actually causing it in the first place (which is why many recovered binge eaters and other ED sufferers (including overeaters) point to restrictive behavior/labeling foods bad and good as an issue. That's why -- even though I think for SOME people more restrictive approaches, like cutting out certain trigger foods or cutting down on carbs (I can't go along with the idea that cutting out all carbs and sugar, including veg, is healthy absent an actual health reason, like Crohn's, for doing so) is a helpful approach. It seems that for many others it's really counterproductive. I do find that the more I demonize foods (and this is something I've been prone to and work against) I have less control with them when I do eat them. Really consciously focusing on taking a logical approach to foods is one reason I think I've mostly managed to get rid of trigger foods. Again, not saying this works for everyone, but I would strongly caution you against the idea that if someone feels out of control about food or certain foods (as I have in the past), that the first and best answer should be "remove them, because a drunk shouldn't try to drink in moderation, right?"
Here are some links I think are worthwhile:
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/139/3/617.full (includes a discussion of the link between restriction and binging)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763414002140 (good discussion of the problems of "food addiction" and argument for "eating addiction")
http://www.refinery29.com/2015/01/80504/sugar-addiction-myths?utm_source=email&utm_medium=editorial&utm_content=everywhere&utm_campaign=150114-sugar-addiction-myths (nice article with interviews, and addresses this "sugar=heroin" nonsense that always comes up in these threads)5 -
tlflag1620 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »
I got your sarcasm, thanks. I just found your post funny directly after someone had agreed with him.
That's just a sockpuppet account. No one could dislike Ferrero Nutella (TM), the light breakfast spread with the best of milk, hazelnuts and cocoa.
I hate that crap. Detest. Despise. God it is so awful.
Mostly because my kids like it and it's it the nastiest crap to clean off of a plate. It's like friggin spackle. Poop colored spackle. Tastes okay, a bit too sweet, and I prefer PB. But cleaning if? Did I mention I hate that crap?
This I totally understand.0 -
It's OK for you all to be wrong.
4 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »The heroine analogy is a bit much, but her point is to address the seemingly illogical idea that abstinence is more sustainable than moderation. In which case a comparison to addiction in general is more appropriate. Since the idea that sugar as a substance is addictive is very debatable, consider addictions which are not related to a substance. In those cases, moderation is very rarely prescribed.
But with eating addiction you (1) can't stop the behavior (we don't have to gamble, but we do have to eat), and (2) in at least many cases restriction itself makes the problem worse, if not actually causing it in the first place (which is why many recovered binge eaters and other ED sufferers (including overeaters) point to restrictive behavior/labeling foods bad and good as an issue. That's why -- even though I think for SOME people more restrictive approaches, like cutting out certain trigger foods or cutting down on carbs (I can't go along with the idea that cutting out all carbs and sugar, including veg, is healthy absent an actual health reason, like Crohn's, for doing so) is a helpful approach. It seems that for many others it's really counterproductive. I do find that the more I demonize foods (and this is something I've been prone to and work against) I have less control with them when I do eat them. Really consciously focusing on taking a logical approach to foods is one reason I think I've mostly managed to get rid of trigger foods. Again, not saying this works for everyone, but I would strongly caution you against the idea that if someone feels out of control about food or certain foods (as I have in the past), that the first and best answer should be "remove them, because a drunk shouldn't try to drink in moderation, right?"
Here are some links I think are worthwhile:
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/139/3/617.full (includes a discussion of the link between restriction and binging)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763414002140 (good discussion of the problems of "food addiction" and argument for "eating addiction")
http://www.refinery29.com/2015/01/80504/sugar-addiction-myths?utm_source=email&utm_medium=editorial&utm_content=everywhere&utm_campaign=150114-sugar-addiction-myths (nice article with interviews, and addresses this "sugar=heroin" nonsense that always comes up in these threads)
Good that you found something that works for you. Whatever is your experience is true for you. I am not questioning that. If moderation works for you, good for you (same for people who have problem feeling out of control with drinking). At the same time, whatever I experience is true to me. For me abstaining from sweets (candy, cakes, cookies, soda pop etc) works best and I do that. At the same time, I do eat a lot of vegetables and fruits as I am mostly vegetarian (I may eat fish or chicken one meal in a couple weeks). I eat very small quantities of whole grains because as the other poster said, I have a hard time feeling satiated and stay within my calorie needs when I eat grains and I feel hungry within two hours. I don't hate any food groups, but anything with added sugar is bad for me and I will abstain as moderation doesn't work for me.
3 -
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »The heroine analogy is a bit much, but her point is to address the seemingly illogical idea that abstinence is more sustainable than moderation. In which case a comparison to addiction in general is more appropriate. Since the idea that sugar as a substance is addictive is very debatable, consider addictions which are not related to a substance. In those cases, moderation is very rarely prescribed.
But with eating addiction you (1) can't stop the behavior (we don't have to gamble, but we do have to eat), and (2) in at least many cases restriction itself makes the problem worse, if not actually causing it in the first place (which is why many recovered binge eaters and other ED sufferers (including overeaters) point to restrictive behavior/labeling foods bad and good as an issue. That's why -- even though I think for SOME people more restrictive approaches, like cutting out certain trigger foods or cutting down on carbs (I can't go along with the idea that cutting out all carbs and sugar, including veg, is healthy absent an actual health reason, like Crohn's, for doing so) is a helpful approach. It seems that for many others it's really counterproductive. I do find that the more I demonize foods (and this is something I've been prone to and work against) I have less control with them when I do eat them. Really consciously focusing on taking a logical approach to foods is one reason I think I've mostly managed to get rid of trigger foods. Again, not saying this works for everyone, but I would strongly caution you against the idea that if someone feels out of control about food or certain foods (as I have in the past), that the first and best answer should be "remove them, because a drunk shouldn't try to drink in moderation, right?"
Here are some links I think are worthwhile:
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/139/3/617.full (includes a discussion of the link between restriction and binging)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763414002140 (good discussion of the problems of "food addiction" and argument for "eating addiction")
http://www.refinery29.com/2015/01/80504/sugar-addiction-myths?utm_source=email&utm_medium=editorial&utm_content=everywhere&utm_campaign=150114-sugar-addiction-myths (nice article with interviews, and addresses this "sugar=heroin" nonsense that always comes up in these threads)
If one has a problem with controlling consumption of donuts, they never have to eat a donut again. I'm sure many of you will reply with something like "a life without donuts isn't worth living!" or whatever, but many alcoholics feel the same way about drinking.
I understand your point of view, but it isn't coming from someone who lives in this world. I talk with self described food (eating) addicts, anorexia and bulimia nervosa sufferers, compulsive overeaters and those with binge eating disorder almost daily. Abstinence is the OVERWHELMING majority of what they practice. That being said, it isn't the only method used to treat the problem. Either ("any" is a better word) method is only a tool and actual treatment and recovery comes on another level.6 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »The heroine analogy is a bit much, but her point is to address the seemingly illogical idea that abstinence is more sustainable than moderation. In which case a comparison to addiction in general is more appropriate. Since the idea that sugar as a substance is addictive is very debatable, consider addictions which are not related to a substance. In those cases, moderation is very rarely prescribed.
But with eating addiction you (1) can't stop the behavior (we don't have to gamble, but we do have to eat), and (2) in at least many cases restriction itself makes the problem worse, if not actually causing it in the first place (which is why many recovered binge eaters and other ED sufferers (including overeaters) point to restrictive behavior/labeling foods bad and good as an issue. That's why -- even though I think for SOME people more restrictive approaches, like cutting out certain trigger foods or cutting down on carbs (I can't go along with the idea that cutting out all carbs and sugar, including veg, is healthy absent an actual health reason, like Crohn's, for doing so) is a helpful approach. It seems that for many others it's really counterproductive. I do find that the more I demonize foods (and this is something I've been prone to and work against) I have less control with them when I do eat them. Really consciously focusing on taking a logical approach to foods is one reason I think I've mostly managed to get rid of trigger foods. Again, not saying this works for everyone, but I would strongly caution you against the idea that if someone feels out of control about food or certain foods (as I have in the past), that the first and best answer should be "remove them, because a drunk shouldn't try to drink in moderation, right?"
Here are some links I think are worthwhile:
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/139/3/617.full (includes a discussion of the link between restriction and binging)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763414002140 (good discussion of the problems of "food addiction" and argument for "eating addiction")
http://www.refinery29.com/2015/01/80504/sugar-addiction-myths?utm_source=email&utm_medium=editorial&utm_content=everywhere&utm_campaign=150114-sugar-addiction-myths (nice article with interviews, and addresses this "sugar=heroin" nonsense that always comes up in these threads)
If one has a problem with controlling consumption of donuts, they never have to eat a donut again. I'm sure many of you will reply with something like "a life without donuts isn't worth living!" or whatever, but many alcoholics feel the same way about drinking.
I understand your point of view, but it isn't coming from someone who lives in this world. I talk with self described food (eating) addicts, anorexia and bulimia nervosa sufferers, compulsive overeaters and those with binge eating disorder almost daily. Abstinence is the OVERWHELMING majority of what they practice. That being said, it isn't the only method used to treat the problem. Either ("any" is a better word) method is only a tool and actual treatment and recovery comes on another level.
Can I ask in what context you talk with these people?0 -
The heroine analogy is a bit much, but her point is to address the seemingly illogical idea that abstinence is more sustainable than moderation. In which case a comparison to addiction in general is more appropriate. Since the idea that sugar as a substance is addictive is very debatable, consider addictions which are not related to a substance. In those cases, moderation is very rarely prescribed.
It's not really debatable. There is absolutely nothing in sugar that counts as an addictive substance and virtually everyone who ever says they're "addicted to sugar" only overeats a certain small subset of foods containing sugar, whereas someone who was actually addicted to the substance wouldn't care where it's in, see hard cases of alcoholism where people drink hand sanitizer for god's sake.
That's why I can't take anyone's comparisons to alcohol or even HEROIN seriously in the slightest, and find them quite insulting in fact.17 -
stevencloser wrote: »The heroine analogy is a bit much, but her point is to address the seemingly illogical idea that abstinence is more sustainable than moderation. In which case a comparison to addiction in general is more appropriate. Since the idea that sugar as a substance is addictive is very debatable, consider addictions which are not related to a substance. In those cases, moderation is very rarely prescribed.
It's not really debatable. There is absolutely nothing in sugar that counts as an addictive substance and virtually everyone who ever says they're "addicted to sugar" only overeats a certain small subset of foods containing sugar, whereas someone who was actually addicted to the substance wouldn't care where it's in, see hard cases of alcoholism where people drink hand sanitizer for god's sake.
That's why I can't take anyone's comparisons to alcohol or even HEROIN seriously in the slightest, and find them quite insulting in fact.
I will take the heroin comparison seriously when I see sugar rehabilitation clinics. I agree, it's a crass and insulting comparison. Plus you literally need sugar to function.12 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »The heroine analogy is a bit much, but her point is to address the seemingly illogical idea that abstinence is more sustainable than moderation. In which case a comparison to addiction in general is more appropriate. Since the idea that sugar as a substance is addictive is very debatable, consider addictions which are not related to a substance. In those cases, moderation is very rarely prescribed.
But with eating addiction you (1) can't stop the behavior (we don't have to gamble, but we do have to eat), and (2) in at least many cases restriction itself makes the problem worse, if not actually causing it in the first place (which is why many recovered binge eaters and other ED sufferers (including overeaters) point to restrictive behavior/labeling foods bad and good as an issue. That's why -- even though I think for SOME people more restrictive approaches, like cutting out certain trigger foods or cutting down on carbs (I can't go along with the idea that cutting out all carbs and sugar, including veg, is healthy absent an actual health reason, like Crohn's, for doing so) is a helpful approach. It seems that for many others it's really counterproductive. I do find that the more I demonize foods (and this is something I've been prone to and work against) I have less control with them when I do eat them. Really consciously focusing on taking a logical approach to foods is one reason I think I've mostly managed to get rid of trigger foods. Again, not saying this works for everyone, but I would strongly caution you against the idea that if someone feels out of control about food or certain foods (as I have in the past), that the first and best answer should be "remove them, because a drunk shouldn't try to drink in moderation, right?"
Here are some links I think are worthwhile:
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/139/3/617.full (includes a discussion of the link between restriction and binging)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763414002140 (good discussion of the problems of "food addiction" and argument for "eating addiction")
http://www.refinery29.com/2015/01/80504/sugar-addiction-myths?utm_source=email&utm_medium=editorial&utm_content=everywhere&utm_campaign=150114-sugar-addiction-myths (nice article with interviews, and addresses this "sugar=heroin" nonsense that always comes up in these threads)
Don't read the comments on those articles. Dear Lord.3 -
Right. That's why I didn't debate it.stevencloser wrote: »The heroine analogy is a bit much, but her point is to address the seemingly illogical idea that abstinence is more sustainable than moderation. In which case a comparison to addiction in general is more appropriate. Since the idea that sugar as a substance is addictive is very debatable, consider addictions which are not related to a substance. In those cases, moderation is very rarely prescribed.
It's not really debatable.
Most of the time when alcoholics get to the point where they would ingest hand sanitizer for the alcohol content, they are physically dependent on the substance. Dependence is not the same as addiction, though addiction can and often does lead to physical dependence. However, that is not the case with sugar.There is absolutely nothing in sugar that counts as an addictive substance and virtually everyone who ever says they're "addicted to sugar" only overeats a certain small subset of foods containing sugar, whereas someone who was actually addicted to the substance wouldn't care where it's in, see hard cases of alcoholism where people drink hand sanitizer for god's sake.
That's why I can't take anyone's comparisons to alcohol or even HEROIN seriously in the slightest, and find them quite insulting in fact.
2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »The heroine analogy is a bit much, but her point is to address the seemingly illogical idea that abstinence is more sustainable than moderation. In which case a comparison to addiction in general is more appropriate. Since the idea that sugar as a substance is addictive is very debatable, consider addictions which are not related to a substance. In those cases, moderation is very rarely prescribed.
But with eating addiction you (1) can't stop the behavior (we don't have to gamble, but we do have to eat), and (2) in at least many cases restriction itself makes the problem worse, if not actually causing it in the first place (which is why many recovered binge eaters and other ED sufferers (including overeaters) point to restrictive behavior/labeling foods bad and good as an issue. That's why -- even though I think for SOME people more restrictive approaches, like cutting out certain trigger foods or cutting down on carbs (I can't go along with the idea that cutting out all carbs and sugar, including veg, is healthy absent an actual health reason, like Crohn's, for doing so) is a helpful approach. It seems that for many others it's really counterproductive. I do find that the more I demonize foods (and this is something I've been prone to and work against) I have less control with them when I do eat them. Really consciously focusing on taking a logical approach to foods is one reason I think I've mostly managed to get rid of trigger foods. Again, not saying this works for everyone, but I would strongly caution you against the idea that if someone feels out of control about food or certain foods (as I have in the past), that the first and best answer should be "remove them, because a drunk shouldn't try to drink in moderation, right?"
Here are some links I think are worthwhile:
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/139/3/617.full (includes a discussion of the link between restriction and binging)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763414002140 (good discussion of the problems of "food addiction" and argument for "eating addiction")
http://www.refinery29.com/2015/01/80504/sugar-addiction-myths?utm_source=email&utm_medium=editorial&utm_content=everywhere&utm_campaign=150114-sugar-addiction-myths (nice article with interviews, and addresses this "sugar=heroin" nonsense that always comes up in these threads)
If one has a problem with controlling consumption of donuts, they never have to eat a donut again. I'm sure many of you will reply with something like "a life without donuts isn't worth living!" or whatever, but many alcoholics feel the same way about drinking.
I understand your point of view, but it isn't coming from someone who lives in this world. I talk with self described food (eating) addicts, anorexia and bulimia nervosa sufferers, compulsive overeaters and those with binge eating disorder almost daily. Abstinence is the OVERWHELMING majority of what they practice. That being said, it isn't the only method used to treat the problem. Either ("any" is a better word) method is only a tool and actual treatment and recovery comes on another level.
Can I ask in what context you talk with these people?
I belong to groups which are inclusive of those types of individuals.0 -
paulgads82 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »The heroine analogy is a bit much, but her point is to address the seemingly illogical idea that abstinence is more sustainable than moderation. In which case a comparison to addiction in general is more appropriate. Since the idea that sugar as a substance is addictive is very debatable, consider addictions which are not related to a substance. In those cases, moderation is very rarely prescribed.
It's not really debatable. There is absolutely nothing in sugar that counts as an addictive substance and virtually everyone who ever says they're "addicted to sugar" only overeats a certain small subset of foods containing sugar, whereas someone who was actually addicted to the substance wouldn't care where it's in, see hard cases of alcoholism where people drink hand sanitizer for god's sake.
That's why I can't take anyone's comparisons to alcohol or even HEROIN seriously in the slightest, and find them quite insulting in fact.
I will take the heroin comparison seriously when I see sugar rehabilitation clinics. I agree, it's a crass and insulting comparison. Plus you literally need sugar to function.
I understand your reasons for taking offense. I wish I could offer an apology to you guys, but I haven't ever made the comparison as I know little about heroin addiction. Of course, I think the studies are partially to blame for this because they tend to draw the comparisons (even one of the links posted by lemurcat does this) which are then blown out of proportion from there.
Regarding the bold, you are mistaken about that. Humans have no requirement to ingest sugar.2 -
paulgads82 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »The heroine analogy is a bit much, but her point is to address the seemingly illogical idea that abstinence is more sustainable than moderation. In which case a comparison to addiction in general is more appropriate. Since the idea that sugar as a substance is addictive is very debatable, consider addictions which are not related to a substance. In those cases, moderation is very rarely prescribed.
It's not really debatable. There is absolutely nothing in sugar that counts as an addictive substance and virtually everyone who ever says they're "addicted to sugar" only overeats a certain small subset of foods containing sugar, whereas someone who was actually addicted to the substance wouldn't care where it's in, see hard cases of alcoholism where people drink hand sanitizer for god's sake.
That's why I can't take anyone's comparisons to alcohol or even HEROIN seriously in the slightest, and find them quite insulting in fact.
I will take the heroin comparison seriously when I see sugar rehabilitation clinics. I agree, it's a crass and insulting comparison. Plus you literally need sugar to function.
I understand your reasons for taking offense. I wish I could offer an apology to you guys, but I haven't ever made the comparison as I know little about heroin addiction. Of course, I think the studies are partially to blame for this because they tend to draw the comparisons (even one of the links posted by lemurcat does this) which are then blown out of proportion from there.
Regarding the bold, you are mistaken about that. Humans have no requirement to ingest sugar.
Exactly. We don't. Carbs are broken down in to sugar (glucose), but we have no need to include added sugar in our diets.0 -
Guys,
I don't really have the time or the energy to debate this today. My stance on this subject has changed little over time. The application of the word "addiction" to these cases seems to me to be a distractor. I think most of the time the word "compulsion" would probably fit better. That being said, I find the subject of the label to be inconsequential to the treatment of the condition. Whether it is an addiction or compulsion or something else, the individual will need to address the problem on psychological level very similar to (if not exactly like) treatments used for other, more readily accepted, addictions. This has been happening for decades.
You all have a good weekend.
2 -
I think that's a little pedantic, besides I never actually said ingested sugar, if we are going to continue the pedantry 1
-
stevencloser wrote: »The heroine analogy is a bit much, but her point is to address the seemingly illogical idea that abstinence is more sustainable than moderation. In which case a comparison to addiction in general is more appropriate. Since the idea that sugar as a substance is addictive is very debatable, consider addictions which are not related to a substance. In those cases, moderation is very rarely prescribed.
It's not really debatable. There is absolutely nothing in sugar that counts as an addictive substance and virtually everyone who ever says they're "addicted to sugar" only overeats a certain small subset of foods containing sugar, whereas someone who was actually addicted to the substance wouldn't care where it's in, see hard cases of alcoholism where people drink hand sanitizer for god's sake.
That's why I can't take anyone's comparisons to alcohol or even HEROIN seriously in the slightest, and find them quite insulting in fact.
Exactly this.
And now we've moved on to "donut addiction." Again, that's like claiming one is addicted to pinot noir, but is perfectly fine with cabernet, porter, and whiskey.6 -
paulgads82 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »The heroine analogy is a bit much, but her point is to address the seemingly illogical idea that abstinence is more sustainable than moderation. In which case a comparison to addiction in general is more appropriate. Since the idea that sugar as a substance is addictive is very debatable, consider addictions which are not related to a substance. In those cases, moderation is very rarely prescribed.
It's not really debatable. There is absolutely nothing in sugar that counts as an addictive substance and virtually everyone who ever says they're "addicted to sugar" only overeats a certain small subset of foods containing sugar, whereas someone who was actually addicted to the substance wouldn't care where it's in, see hard cases of alcoholism where people drink hand sanitizer for god's sake.
That's why I can't take anyone's comparisons to alcohol or even HEROIN seriously in the slightest, and find them quite insulting in fact.
I will take the heroin comparison seriously when I see sugar rehabilitation clinics. I agree, it's a crass and insulting comparison. Plus you literally need sugar to function.
I understand your reasons for taking offense. I wish I could offer an apology to you guys, but I haven't ever made the comparison as I know little about heroin addiction. Of course, I think the studies are partially to blame for this because they tend to draw the comparisons (even one of the links posted by lemurcat does this) which are then blown out of proportion from there.
Regarding the bold, you are mistaken about that. Humans have no requirement to ingest sugar.paulgads82 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »The heroine analogy is a bit much, but her point is to address the seemingly illogical idea that abstinence is more sustainable than moderation. In which case a comparison to addiction in general is more appropriate. Since the idea that sugar as a substance is addictive is very debatable, consider addictions which are not related to a substance. In those cases, moderation is very rarely prescribed.
It's not really debatable. There is absolutely nothing in sugar that counts as an addictive substance and virtually everyone who ever says they're "addicted to sugar" only overeats a certain small subset of foods containing sugar, whereas someone who was actually addicted to the substance wouldn't care where it's in, see hard cases of alcoholism where people drink hand sanitizer for god's sake.
That's why I can't take anyone's comparisons to alcohol or even HEROIN seriously in the slightest, and find them quite insulting in fact.
I will take the heroin comparison seriously when I see sugar rehabilitation clinics. I agree, it's a crass and insulting comparison. Plus you literally need sugar to function.
I understand your reasons for taking offense. I wish I could offer an apology to you guys, but I haven't ever made the comparison as I know little about heroin addiction. Of course, I think the studies are partially to blame for this because they tend to draw the comparisons (even one of the links posted by lemurcat does this) which are then blown out of proportion from there.
Regarding the bold, you are mistaken about that. Humans have no requirement to ingest sugar.
Exactly. We don't. Carbs are broken down in to sugar (glucose), but we have no need to include added sugar in our diets.
Your body needs glucose all the same, if you don't consume it it has to create its own. You literally at all times have that substance in your blood as long as you're alive. Hence why the comparison to addictive substances is so wrong.
Also note that substance addiction includes the substance giving you physical dependency additionally to the psychological component, the psychological part can for example be seen with people giving up smoking fiddling around with their hands all the time because they were so used to having a cigarette in their hand and the positive feelings their brain associates with having something between their fingers.
In contrast to that is addiction to certain actions where it's just the psychological component like gambling or binge eating where you're addicted to a feeling caused by the action, not something inherent to the thing making you dependent on it. People who are addicted to gambling will not selectively only have a problem with slots and be fine around black jack because they're addicted to the idea of gambling, the thrill, ups and downs etc.
The way "sugar addiction" is portrayed on these boards fits neither of those two addiction "archetypes", it's not a substance that can give you a physical dependency, but the action of "eating something sweet" would not differentiate between things with added sugar or not, so the small subset of sweet things people list they can't stop eating doesn't fit with addiction either, they should have similar problems around sweet fruit or a ton of other things. Yet it's always a very personalized and small group of things that get listed, one says soda, others say sweets, others yet bakery things, cakes or other things. Most of those also have tons of fat and wouldn't taste nearly as good if they were low fat, but no one says they've got fat addiction.
I wish Shell was still around, she had lots of insight into the whole addiction thing.11 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »The heroine analogy is a bit much, but her point is to address the seemingly illogical idea that abstinence is more sustainable than moderation. In which case a comparison to addiction in general is more appropriate. Since the idea that sugar as a substance is addictive is very debatable, consider addictions which are not related to a substance. In those cases, moderation is very rarely prescribed.
But with eating addiction you (1) can't stop the behavior (we don't have to gamble, but we do have to eat), and (2) in at least many cases restriction itself makes the problem worse, if not actually causing it in the first place (which is why many recovered binge eaters and other ED sufferers (including overeaters) point to restrictive behavior/labeling foods bad and good as an issue. That's why -- even though I think for SOME people more restrictive approaches, like cutting out certain trigger foods or cutting down on carbs (I can't go along with the idea that cutting out all carbs and sugar, including veg, is healthy absent an actual health reason, like Crohn's, for doing so) is a helpful approach. It seems that for many others it's really counterproductive. I do find that the more I demonize foods (and this is something I've been prone to and work against) I have less control with them when I do eat them. Really consciously focusing on taking a logical approach to foods is one reason I think I've mostly managed to get rid of trigger foods. Again, not saying this works for everyone, but I would strongly caution you against the idea that if someone feels out of control about food or certain foods (as I have in the past), that the first and best answer should be "remove them, because a drunk shouldn't try to drink in moderation, right?"
Here are some links I think are worthwhile:
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/139/3/617.full (includes a discussion of the link between restriction and binging)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763414002140 (good discussion of the problems of "food addiction" and argument for "eating addiction")
http://www.refinery29.com/2015/01/80504/sugar-addiction-myths?utm_source=email&utm_medium=editorial&utm_content=everywhere&utm_campaign=150114-sugar-addiction-myths (nice article with interviews, and addresses this "sugar=heroin" nonsense that always comes up in these threads)
If one has a problem with controlling consumption of donuts, they never have to eat a donut again. I'm sure many of you will reply with something like "a life without donuts isn't worth living!" or whatever, but many alcoholics feel the same way about drinking.
No, I think giving up donuts is pretty trivial and for some people might be an okay strategy, although I am skeptical it will work as a long-term solution. (Don't care if someone tries it, though.) I also don't think the alcohol comparison is valid, and NONE of the research supports an idea of "donut addiction." (Donuts are physically the same as many other foods.)
In that the arguments are for SUGAR addiction or FOOD addiction and that the best evidence supports EATING addiction, it's not surprising that the experts don't seem to think abstinence is the best and obvious path. Again, not saying someone shouldn't try it -- or something like low carb -- but it's important to be aware of how in many cases strategies of restriction can be exactly wrong for people with control and bingeing issues around food. I've heard this anecdotally from many people (apparently the opposite of your experience, but there's a certain self selection there, as I suspect yours is coming from low carb groups and the like) and more important, from the experts and research, such as my links indicated.4 -
pcoslady83 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »The heroine analogy is a bit much, but her point is to address the seemingly illogical idea that abstinence is more sustainable than moderation. In which case a comparison to addiction in general is more appropriate. Since the idea that sugar as a substance is addictive is very debatable, consider addictions which are not related to a substance. In those cases, moderation is very rarely prescribed.
But with eating addiction you (1) can't stop the behavior (we don't have to gamble, but we do have to eat), and (2) in at least many cases restriction itself makes the problem worse, if not actually causing it in the first place (which is why many recovered binge eaters and other ED sufferers (including overeaters) point to restrictive behavior/labeling foods bad and good as an issue. That's why -- even though I think for SOME people more restrictive approaches, like cutting out certain trigger foods or cutting down on carbs (I can't go along with the idea that cutting out all carbs and sugar, including veg, is healthy absent an actual health reason, like Crohn's, for doing so) is a helpful approach. It seems that for many others it's really counterproductive. I do find that the more I demonize foods (and this is something I've been prone to and work against) I have less control with them when I do eat them. Really consciously focusing on taking a logical approach to foods is one reason I think I've mostly managed to get rid of trigger foods. Again, not saying this works for everyone, but I would strongly caution you against the idea that if someone feels out of control about food or certain foods (as I have in the past), that the first and best answer should be "remove them, because a drunk shouldn't try to drink in moderation, right?"
Here are some links I think are worthwhile:
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/139/3/617.full (includes a discussion of the link between restriction and binging)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763414002140 (good discussion of the problems of "food addiction" and argument for "eating addiction")
http://www.refinery29.com/2015/01/80504/sugar-addiction-myths?utm_source=email&utm_medium=editorial&utm_content=everywhere&utm_campaign=150114-sugar-addiction-myths (nice article with interviews, and addresses this "sugar=heroin" nonsense that always comes up in these threads)
Good that you found something that works for you. Whatever is your experience is true for you. I am not questioning that. If moderation works for you, good for you (same for people who have problem feeling out of control with drinking).
Feeling out of control with food is quite different from alcoholism, IME.At the same time, whatever I experience is true to me. For me abstaining from sweets (candy, cakes, cookies, soda pop etc) works best and I do that.
Sure, not saying you shouldn't. I am saying that that approach shouldn't be assumed to be the One True One or necessary since we are pretending food is addictive. In some cases it can even be harmful. But can it be a strategy that works for some? I specifically said before that I thought it could.At the same time, I do eat a lot of vegetables and fruits as I am mostly vegetarian (I may eat fish or chicken one meal in a couple weeks). I eat very small quantities of whole grains because as the other poster said, I have a hard time feeling satiated and stay within my calorie needs when I eat grains and I feel hungry within two hours. I don't hate any food groups, but anything with added sugar is bad for me and I will abstain as moderation doesn't work for me.
Okay.
And if you decide moderation doesn't work for you, it won't, that is certainly true. But if you are happier not eating added sugar, that's fine too.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »The heroine analogy is a bit much, but her point is to address the seemingly illogical idea that abstinence is more sustainable than moderation. In which case a comparison to addiction in general is more appropriate. Since the idea that sugar as a substance is addictive is very debatable, consider addictions which are not related to a substance. In those cases, moderation is very rarely prescribed.
It's not really debatable. There is absolutely nothing in sugar that counts as an addictive substance and virtually everyone who ever says they're "addicted to sugar" only overeats a certain small subset of foods containing sugar, whereas someone who was actually addicted to the substance wouldn't care where it's in, see hard cases of alcoholism where people drink hand sanitizer for god's sake.
That's why I can't take anyone's comparisons to alcohol or even HEROIN seriously in the slightest, and find them quite insulting in fact.
I will take the heroin comparison seriously when I see sugar rehabilitation clinics. I agree, it's a crass and insulting comparison. Plus you literally need sugar to function.
I understand your reasons for taking offense. I wish I could offer an apology to you guys, but I haven't ever made the comparison as I know little about heroin addiction. Of course, I think the studies are partially to blame for this because they tend to draw the comparisons (even one of the links posted by lemurcat does this) which are then blown out of proportion from there.
Regarding the bold, you are mistaken about that. Humans have no requirement to ingest sugar.paulgads82 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »The heroine analogy is a bit much, but her point is to address the seemingly illogical idea that abstinence is more sustainable than moderation. In which case a comparison to addiction in general is more appropriate. Since the idea that sugar as a substance is addictive is very debatable, consider addictions which are not related to a substance. In those cases, moderation is very rarely prescribed.
It's not really debatable. There is absolutely nothing in sugar that counts as an addictive substance and virtually everyone who ever says they're "addicted to sugar" only overeats a certain small subset of foods containing sugar, whereas someone who was actually addicted to the substance wouldn't care where it's in, see hard cases of alcoholism where people drink hand sanitizer for god's sake.
That's why I can't take anyone's comparisons to alcohol or even HEROIN seriously in the slightest, and find them quite insulting in fact.
I will take the heroin comparison seriously when I see sugar rehabilitation clinics. I agree, it's a crass and insulting comparison. Plus you literally need sugar to function.
I understand your reasons for taking offense. I wish I could offer an apology to you guys, but I haven't ever made the comparison as I know little about heroin addiction. Of course, I think the studies are partially to blame for this because they tend to draw the comparisons (even one of the links posted by lemurcat does this) which are then blown out of proportion from there.
Regarding the bold, you are mistaken about that. Humans have no requirement to ingest sugar.
Exactly. We don't. Carbs are broken down in to sugar (glucose), but we have no need to include added sugar in our diets.
Your body needs glucose all the same, if you don't consume it it has to create its own. You literally at all times have that substance in your blood as long as you're alive. Hence why the comparison to addictive substances is so wrong.
Also note that substance addiction includes the substance giving you physical dependency additionally to the psychological component, the psychological part can for example be seen with people giving up smoking fiddling around with their hands all the time because they were so used to having a cigarette in their hand and the positive feelings their brain associates with having something between their fingers.
In contrast to that is addiction to certain actions where it's just the psychological component like gambling or binge eating where you're addicted to a feeling caused by the action, not something inherent to the thing making you dependent on it. People who are addicted to gambling will not selectively only have a problem with slots and be fine around black jack because they're addicted to the idea of gambling, the thrill, ups and downs etc.
The way "sugar addiction" is portrayed on these boards fits neither of those two addiction "archetypes", it's not a substance that can give you a physical dependency, but the action of "eating something sweet" would not differentiate between things with added sugar or not, so the small subset of sweet things people list they can't stop eating doesn't fit with addiction either, they should have similar problems around sweet fruit or a ton of other things. Yet it's always a very personalized and small group of things that get listed, one says soda, others say sweets, others yet bakery things, cakes or other things. Most of those also have tons of fat and wouldn't taste nearly as good if they were low fat, but no one says they've got fat addiction.
I wish Shell was still around, she had lots of insight into the whole addiction thing.
I know a few who claim to only have problems with fat and salt, though not on here. They follow the same protocol. I've heard Shell's story before. I think I remember her saying that she had binge eating disorder but thought it was a sugar addiction, but through Cognitive Behavioral Therapy she realized that it wasn't a sugar addiction at all. In other words, she addressed the problem on psychological level very similar to treatments used for other, more readily accepted, addictions.
I seriously have to go now...but have fun.
1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K 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
- 426 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