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

1568101132

Replies

  • pcoslady83
    pcoslady83 Posts: 55 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    pcoslady83 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    moe0303 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.

    Well...you may think that feeling out of control with food is quite different from alcoholism. That doesn't mean it is true. Also we are talking sugar, and specifically added sugar in this topic not food in general. Neither I said abstaining is a panacea for all addiction. But for many, abstaining works well.

    Moderation didn't stop working for me after I decided it will not work for me. On the contrary, I came to the conclusion that moderation doesn't work for me after many failed attempts at moderation.

    Also, from r29 article:

    "Food manufacturers add sugar to just about everything, but you might be surprised to learn how often it's added to savory items. "There’s more added sugar per calorie in most pasta sauces than in ice cream toppings," Dr. Katz points out. "You'll see many potato chips brands with high-fructose corn syrup sprayed on at the end." That's because sweetness is an appetite stimulant, urging you to eat more. Dr. Katz calls this "stealth sugar," because you don't consciously taste it, but it increases the amount you need to eat to feel satisfied."

    So added sugar causes people to eat more. It is an appetite stimulant for vast majority of people. Though the article cleverly not mentions sugar in cakes, candies, it has the same effect on many people where they are stimulated to eat more of it. Then the article says practice mindfulness while eating added sugar. It doesn't explain how to practice mindfulness when sugar has interfered with your brain chemistry and driving a primal desire to eat more of it.
  • pcoslady83
    pcoslady83 Posts: 55 Member
    pcoslady83 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    pcoslady83 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    moe0303 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.

    Well...you may think that feeling out of control with food is quite different from alcoholism. That doesn't mean it is true. Also we are talking sugar, and specifically added sugar in this topic not food in general. Neither I said abstaining is a panacea for all addiction. But for many, abstaining works well.

    Moderation didn't stop working for me after I decided it will not work for me. On the contrary, I came to the conclusion that moderation doesn't work for me after many failed attempts at moderation.

    Also, from r29 article:

    "Food manufacturers add sugar to just about everything, but you might be surprised to learn how often it's added to savory items. "There’s more added sugar per calorie in most pasta sauces than in ice cream toppings," Dr. Katz points out. "You'll see many potato chips brands with high-fructose corn syrup sprayed on at the end." That's because sweetness is an appetite stimulant, urging you to eat more. Dr. Katz calls this "stealth sugar," because you don't consciously taste it, but it increases the amount you need to eat to feel satisfied."

    So added sugar causes people to eat more. It is an appetite stimulant for vast majority of people. Though the article cleverly not mentions sugar in cakes, candies, it has the same effect on many people where they are stimulated to eat more of it. Then the article says practice mindfulness while eating added sugar. It doesn't explain how to practice mindfulness when sugar has interfered with your brain chemistry and driving a primal desire to eat more of it.

    Yeah, I'm sure the 1 gram of added sugar per bag of chips is going to make all the difference.

    Well..what do you think is the reason for these manufacturers to add sugar in their products?
  • zyxst
    zyxst Posts: 9,147 Member
    moe0303 wrote: »
    moe0303 wrote: »
    paulgads82 wrote: »
    moe0303 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.
    owensy12 wrote: »
    moe0303 wrote: »
    paulgads82 wrote: »
    moe0303 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.

    Shell said she was a food addict, not sugar. Found a post that specifically mentions it, page 7 about half way down (16 posts up from the bottom) - http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10388272/addiction-versus-dependence/p7
  • kimny72
    kimny72 Posts: 16,011 Member
    I guess my question for people who say they are addicted to sugar, or who eat it compulsively, and who have to abstain, why do you not have to cut out fruits and sweet veggies as well? If you have no control over eating a bag of jelly beans, why don't you have the same issue with a bowl of ripe peaches, or a bunch of bananas? Do you stuff yourself on roasted carrots? Because those things taste just as "sweet" and contain just as much sugar as candy. If there was anything physical or chemical in your brain or your body causing you to eat too much candy, healthy sweet foods would have the same affect, wouldn't it?
  • Gamliela
    Gamliela Posts: 2,468 Member
    edited May 2016
    kimny72 wrote: »
    I guess my question for people who say they are addicted to sugar, or who eat it compulsively, and who have to abstain, why do you not have to cut out fruits and sweet veggies as well? If you have no control over eating a bag of jelly beans, why don't you have the same issue with a bowl of ripe peaches, or a bunch of bananas? Do you stuff yourself on roasted carrots? Because those things taste just as "sweet" and contain just as much sugar as candy. If there was anything physical or chemical in your brain or your body causing you to eat too much candy, healthy sweet foods would have the same affect, wouldn't it?

    I think the lady with the bowl full of sugar just went straight for the most dense sugar hit she could get in the quickest amount of time, and put herself in bed so she could sleep it off afterwards.

    A couple of pounds of roasted carrots (something far more appealing to me by the way)
    just wouldn't pack it for her.

  • paulgads82
    paulgads82 Posts: 256 Member
    pcoslady83 wrote: »
    pcoslady83 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    pcoslady83 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    moe0303 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.

    Well...you may think that feeling out of control with food is quite different from alcoholism. That doesn't mean it is true. Also we are talking sugar, and specifically added sugar in this topic not food in general. Neither I said abstaining is a panacea for all addiction. But for many, abstaining works well.

    Moderation didn't stop working for me after I decided it will not work for me. On the contrary, I came to the conclusion that moderation doesn't work for me after many failed attempts at moderation.

    Also, from r29 article:

    "Food manufacturers add sugar to just about everything, but you might be surprised to learn how often it's added to savory items. "There’s more added sugar per calorie in most pasta sauces than in ice cream toppings," Dr. Katz points out. "You'll see many potato chips brands with high-fructose corn syrup sprayed on at the end." That's because sweetness is an appetite stimulant, urging you to eat more. Dr. Katz calls this "stealth sugar," because you don't consciously taste it, but it increases the amount you need to eat to feel satisfied."

    So added sugar causes people to eat more. It is an appetite stimulant for vast majority of people. Though the article cleverly not mentions sugar in cakes, candies, it has the same effect on many people where they are stimulated to eat more of it. Then the article says practice mindfulness while eating added sugar. It doesn't explain how to practice mindfulness when sugar has interfered with your brain chemistry and driving a primal desire to eat more of it.

    Yeah, I'm sure the 1 gram of added sugar per bag of chips is going to make all the difference.

    Well..what do you think is the reason for these manufacturers to add sugar in their products?

    It tastes good. Ditto adding salt. Fat. Etc etc etc.
  • paulgads82
    paulgads82 Posts: 256 Member
    Gamliela wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    I guess my question for people who say they are addicted to sugar, or who eat it compulsively, and who have to abstain, why do you not have to cut out fruits and sweet veggies as well? If you have no control over eating a bag of jelly beans, why don't you have the same issue with a bowl of ripe peaches, or a bunch of bananas? Do you stuff yourself on roasted carrots? Because those things taste just as "sweet" and contain just as much sugar as candy. If there was anything physical or chemical in your brain or your body causing you to eat too much candy, healthy sweet foods would have the same affect, wouldn't it?

    I think the lady with the bowl full of sugar just went straight for the most dense sugar hit she could get in the quickest amount of time, and put herself in bed so she could sleep it off afterwards.

    A couple of pounds of roasted carrots (something far more appealing to me by the way)
    just wouldn't pack it for her.

    It would be interesting to find out how many people who think they have a sugar addiction have issues with fruit only.
  • pcoslady83
    pcoslady83 Posts: 55 Member
    kimny72 wrote: »
    I guess my question for people who say they are addicted to sugar, or who eat it compulsively, and who have to abstain, why do you not have to cut out fruits and sweet veggies as well? If you have no control over eating a bag of jelly beans, why don't you have the same issue with a bowl of ripe peaches, or a bunch of bananas? Do you stuff yourself on roasted carrots? Because those things taste just as "sweet" and contain just as much sugar as candy. If there was anything physical or chemical in your brain or your body causing you to eat too much candy, healthy sweet foods would have the same affect, wouldn't it?

    It is because of the difference in the way candy and peaches are metabolized and the fiber content in them and how quickly sugar enters blood stream. More refined the carbs are, more easily they will cause you to overeat. So it is easy to overeat candy when compared with white bread. It is easy to overeat white bread when compared to wheat bread. It is easy to over eat wheat bread when compared to carrots. When a food is full of added sugar, it leads some people to extreme overeating.
  • paulgads82
    paulgads82 Posts: 256 Member
    Gamliela wrote: »
    Sobriety from alcohol wasn't won by trying to drink 'normally', as in moderation. Neither was 'clean' from all chemicals/drugs. Thats my experince with those things.

    Can I just say that sugar filled foods are not the same to me?

    Nevertheless, I, myself, find that cutting sugary foods out whenever I need to reduce calories, is a terrific help.

    I met a woman in Rome that told me she took the sugar bowl and a spoon and locked herself in the bedroom several times a week, she was a member of OA. Another woman, a friend of mine, answered the phone one day and said "thanks for calling at the right moment, I just locked myself in the bedroom with a huge bowl of M&M peanut candies."

    So just because I can't compare my own addictions and alcoholism to these two women, I don't argue with their internal experience with sugar. Its none of my business if they consider sugar addiction REAL.

    Maybe a view of abstinance for life from sugar, like I do with booze is right for them. I wouldn't interfere because even with the science nobody really knows for certain. How many times do we see science changed and contradicted with the next brilliant study?

    I don't think saying "It's not an addiction" minimises the issue for people who struggle trying to stop eating certain foods. It's not a judgement or a dismissal.
  • Carlos_421
    Carlos_421 Posts: 5,132 Member
    pcoslady83 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    pcoslady83 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    moe0303 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.

    It doesn't explain how to practice mindfulness when sugar has interfered with your brain chemistry and driving a primal desire to eat more of it.

    Probably because sugar doesn't interfere with your brain chemistry or drive a primal desire to eat more of it. It just doesn't. It's not a mind altering or addictive substance. Any claims to the contrary are completely contradictory to all scientific evidence.

    People eat sugar because it tastes good and they enjoy it. It's not warping their brain and driving them into fits to get their next hit of gummy bears.
  • pcoslady83
    pcoslady83 Posts: 55 Member
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    pcoslady83 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    pcoslady83 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    moe0303 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.

    It doesn't explain how to practice mindfulness when sugar has interfered with your brain chemistry and driving a primal desire to eat more of it.

    Probably because sugar doesn't interfere with your brain chemistry or drive a primal desire to eat more of it. It just doesn't. It's not a mind altering or addictive substance. Any claims to the contrary are completely contradictory to all scientific evidence.

    People eat sugar because it tastes good and they enjoy it. It's not warping their brain and driving them into fits to get their next hit of gummy bears.

    Sugar may not interfere with your brain chemistry, but you cannot speak for people for whom it does.
  • AlabasterVerve
    AlabasterVerve Posts: 3,171 Member
    kimny72 wrote: »
    I guess my question for people who say they are addicted to sugar, or who eat it compulsively, and who have to abstain, why do you not have to cut out fruits and sweet veggies as well? If you have no control over eating a bag of jelly beans, why don't you have the same issue with a bowl of ripe peaches, or a bunch of bananas? Do you stuff yourself on roasted carrots? Because those things taste just as "sweet" and contain just as much sugar as candy. If there was anything physical or chemical in your brain or your body causing you to eat too much candy, healthy sweet foods would have the same affect, wouldn't it?

    I don't identify as a sugar addict (although I believe it's certainly possible I might be if science ever concludes there's such a thing) and while I do abstain/restrict my carbs on a daily basis I eat all the things when the occasion calls for it but - for me - it's the amount of carbs/sugar that causes problems.

    Too many carbs in general just increases my appetite which leads to eating a little bit more, and then a little bit more than that until in very short order my eating/hunger is out of control. But that's a slower process that happens over the course of days and I might not realize it's happening until I'm hungry all of the time.

    Something like eating a large bowl of watermelon last year triggered the same response as eating a sugary dessert. It's not the sweet taste or even the sugar itself but the quantity -- or at least that's what I believe is happening. I know it's not the sweet taste because pretty much all of the vegetables and fruit I eat are sweet - some are even intensely sweet like sugar snap peas. And I know it's not the source of the sugar because even table sugar isn't a problem if the amount is small enough. There's a tipping point where too much is too much. For me.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    zyxst wrote: »
    moe0303 wrote: »
    moe0303 wrote: »
    paulgads82 wrote: »
    moe0303 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.
    owensy12 wrote: »
    moe0303 wrote: »
    paulgads82 wrote: »
    moe0303 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.

    Shell said she was a food addict, not sugar. Found a post that specifically mentions it, page 7 about half way down (16 posts up from the bottom) - http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10388272/addiction-versus-dependence/p7

    Specifically, that at one point she thought she was, but does not believe that now (or that food addiction is real). I was inclined to think that BED might reasonably be compared to addiction (aspects of it sound like addictive behavior to me, unlike the more usual "I overeat my favorite trigger foods"), but she disagreed -- for her, at least, keeping the specifics separate was helpful.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    kimny72 wrote: »
    I guess my question for people who say they are addicted to sugar, or who eat it compulsively, and who have to abstain, why do you not have to cut out fruits and sweet veggies as well? If you have no control over eating a bag of jelly beans, why don't you have the same issue with a bowl of ripe peaches, or a bunch of bananas? Do you stuff yourself on roasted carrots? Because those things taste just as "sweet" and contain just as much sugar as candy. If there was anything physical or chemical in your brain or your body causing you to eat too much candy, healthy sweet foods would have the same affect, wouldn't it?

    Typically it's not even all things with added sugar. It's specific foods that are enjoyed and not others that are made up of almost identical ingredients. This is one big reason I don't think it's at all like addiction.

    Also, people talk of not being filled up, of being physically not sated by certain foods. That is a good reason to change one's diet to foods you find more filling, but not a good reason to claim addiction.

    I have definitely used food to self-comfort. I even started doing that more when I quit drinking. It was in part a crutch, a replacement. (When I was drinking at my worst I was super controlled around food.) One reason I let myself get so fat is I was terrified that if I got restrictive about food again I would find it harder not to shift back to booze and I needed to be more secure in my sobriety. But still, it was not even close to the same. That I had some of the same dysfunctional behaviors (the tendency to use something else to blot out emotions) and I can recognize some of the same kinds of triggers/habits (strong associations with particular places and activities such that doing the activity would trigger the desire) does not make it the same, not at all.
  • pcoslady83
    pcoslady83 Posts: 55 Member
    pcoslady83 wrote: »
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    pcoslady83 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    pcoslady83 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    moe0303 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.

    It doesn't explain how to practice mindfulness when sugar has interfered with your brain chemistry and driving a primal desire to eat more of it.

    Probably because sugar doesn't interfere with your brain chemistry or drive a primal desire to eat more of it. It just doesn't. It's not a mind altering or addictive substance. Any claims to the contrary are completely contradictory to all scientific evidence.

    People eat sugar because it tastes good and they enjoy it. It's not warping their brain and driving them into fits to get their next hit of gummy bears.
    Sugar may not interfere with your brain chemistry, but you cannot speak for people for whom it does.

    I say this with all sensitivity - as someone who has had plenty of battles with eating disorders, I know how much eating issues suck - but why are you so convinced that something is wrong with your brain chemistry rather than that you have learned a disordered behavior? Why are you so sure it's the sugar's fault messing with your brain, rather than you like sugary, hyperpalatable foods, so you'd consume more and more of them, thus reinforcing the idea in your brain that sugary foods were meant to be overconsumed?

    I can turn around an ask the same question. How are people so convinced that it is will power and not the brain chemistry? I am in no way reinforcing the idea in my brain that sugary foods were meant to be overconsumed. On the contrary, I am saying that there is absolutely no need for added sugar in our diet.
    I am also saying that one person's experience is not an universal experience. If added sugar works for you, go for it. If moderation works for you, go for it. If abstaining works for you, go for it.
  • diannethegeek
    diannethegeek Posts: 14,776 Member
    pcoslady83 wrote: »
    pcoslady83 wrote: »
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    pcoslady83 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    pcoslady83 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    moe0303 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.

    It doesn't explain how to practice mindfulness when sugar has interfered with your brain chemistry and driving a primal desire to eat more of it.

    Probably because sugar doesn't interfere with your brain chemistry or drive a primal desire to eat more of it. It just doesn't. It's not a mind altering or addictive substance. Any claims to the contrary are completely contradictory to all scientific evidence.

    People eat sugar because it tastes good and they enjoy it. It's not warping their brain and driving them into fits to get their next hit of gummy bears.
    Sugar may not interfere with your brain chemistry, but you cannot speak for people for whom it does.

    I say this with all sensitivity - as someone who has had plenty of battles with eating disorders, I know how much eating issues suck - but why are you so convinced that something is wrong with your brain chemistry rather than that you have learned a disordered behavior? Why are you so sure it's the sugar's fault messing with your brain, rather than you like sugary, hyperpalatable foods, so you'd consume more and more of them, thus reinforcing the idea in your brain that sugary foods were meant to be overconsumed?

    I can turn around an ask the same question. How are people so convinced that it is will power and not the brain chemistry? I am in no way reinforcing the idea in my brain that sugary foods were meant to be overconsumed. On the contrary, I am saying that there is absolutely no need for added sugar in our diet.
    I am also saying that one person's experience is not an universal experience. If added sugar works for you, go for it. If moderation works for you, go for it. If abstaining works for you, go for it.

    Do you believe sugar should be banned like the article in the OP suggests? Have you had a chance to read any of the response articles that were posted, yet?
  • snikkins
    snikkins Posts: 1,282 Member
    The brain is a helluva drug. Many of these posts remind me of the thing where the brain wants its reality to be the one so badly that it warps everything to make it so.

    That, and psycho-somaticism is cool.
  • HenryCT
    HenryCT Posts: 43 Member
    edited May 2016
    pcoslady83 wrote: »
    pcoslady83 wrote: »
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    pcoslady83 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    pcoslady83 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    moe0303 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.

    It doesn't explain how to practice mindfulness when sugar has interfered with your brain chemistry and driving a primal desire to eat more of it.

    Probably because sugar doesn't interfere with your brain chemistry or drive a primal desire to eat more of it. It just doesn't. It's not a mind altering or addictive substance. Any claims to the contrary are completely contradictory to all scientific evidence.

    People eat sugar because it tastes good and they enjoy it. It's not warping their brain and driving them into fits to get their next hit of gummy bears.
    Sugar may not interfere with your brain chemistry, but you cannot speak for people for whom it does.

    I say this with all sensitivity - as someone who has had plenty of battles with eating disorders, I know how much eating issues suck - but why are you so convinced that something is wrong with your brain chemistry rather than that you have learned a disordered behavior? Why are you so sure it's the sugar's fault messing with your brain, rather than you like sugary, hyperpalatable foods, so you'd consume more and more of them, thus reinforcing the idea in your brain that sugary foods were meant to be overconsumed?

    I can turn around an ask the same question. How are people so convinced that it is will power and not the brain chemistry? I am in no way reinforcing the idea in my brain that sugary foods were meant to be overconsumed. On the contrary, I am saying that there is absolutely no need for added sugar in our diet.
    I am also saying that one person's experience is not an universal experience. If added sugar works for you, go for it. If moderation works for you, go for it. If abstaining works for you, go for it.

    Sugar is addictive, and can be even more addictive than cocaine:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23719144

    And we already know that some people can walk away from cocaine, and others cannot, due to that individuals brain chemistry. The answer is pretty simple. We already know sugar has no health qualities of any kind, and that when you consider it as a fuel source, it is almost entirely negative in how it is processed by the human body. We also know that for some people it can be extremely addictive. Willpower requirements for sugar can vary from one person to the next dramatically. For one person, it may seem like going without a cupcake. For another person, it can feel like going without air.

    But a calorie is not a calorie, and sugar is the worst kind. And it's addictive. Not really sure why there is a debate on this. The willpower one is old (and biased). To make matters more confusing, even willpower itself is a brain chemistry thing (and different from one person to the next). What is important to know is that (A) sugar is bad, and (B) everyone reacts differently to it.
  • pcoslady83
    pcoslady83 Posts: 55 Member
    pcoslady83 wrote: »
    pcoslady83 wrote: »
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    pcoslady83 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    pcoslady83 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    moe0303 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.

    It doesn't explain how to practice mindfulness when sugar has interfered with your brain chemistry and driving a primal desire to eat more of it.

    Probably because sugar doesn't interfere with your brain chemistry or drive a primal desire to eat more of it. It just doesn't. It's not a mind altering or addictive substance. Any claims to the contrary are completely contradictory to all scientific evidence.

    People eat sugar because it tastes good and they enjoy it. It's not warping their brain and driving them into fits to get their next hit of gummy bears.
    Sugar may not interfere with your brain chemistry, but you cannot speak for people for whom it does.

    I say this with all sensitivity - as someone who has had plenty of battles with eating disorders, I know how much eating issues suck - but why are you so convinced that something is wrong with your brain chemistry rather than that you have learned a disordered behavior? Why are you so sure it's the sugar's fault messing with your brain, rather than you like sugary, hyperpalatable foods, so you'd consume more and more of them, thus reinforcing the idea in your brain that sugary foods were meant to be overconsumed?

    I can turn around an ask the same question. How are people so convinced that it is will power and not the brain chemistry? I am in no way reinforcing the idea in my brain that sugary foods were meant to be overconsumed. On the contrary, I am saying that there is absolutely no need for added sugar in our diet.
    I am also saying that one person's experience is not an universal experience. If added sugar works for you, go for it. If moderation works for you, go for it. If abstaining works for you, go for it.

    Do you believe sugar should be banned like the article in the OP suggests? Have you had a chance to read any of the response articles that were posted, yet?

    I don't believe sugar should be banned. I do believe that added sugar is bad for vast majority of people and it is one of the important causes for the obesity epidemic and people should be educated about this. I also believe that it is just not a matter of self control or will power and refined sugar can be addictive. I believe that if moderation doesn't work for some people and they choose to abstain completely, it should be encouraged and it is no way reflection of lack of self control.
  • HenryCT
    HenryCT Posts: 43 Member
    snikkins wrote: »
    The brain is a helluva drug. Many of these posts remind me of the thing where the brain wants its reality to be the one so badly that it warps everything to make it so.

    That, and psycho-somaticism is cool.

    Agreed. In some ways, it's better to think back to days when you were a child, perhaps without preconceived notions, biases, and adult anxieties.

    When I gave my oldest child food with added sugar for the first time in any real abundance, it was her first birthday, and we let her have a piece of birthday cake. She at first dabbed a finger and carefully tried it out. When it hit her tongue and mouth, 5 seconds later her eyes went WIDE open and she started to destroy that birthday cake.

    With my next two kids, we did the same thing. We got out the video recorder expecting the same reaction, but neither kid had that reaction. Both of them ate some of the cake, but did it as if it were any other food.

    Fast forward 14 years. My oldest has always been extremely addicted to sugar, the younger two can take it or leave it. My middle is addicted to mayo and butter and fats. My youngest isn't into either.

    Lastly, going back to my own childhood, I remember when given candy, it would make me high, and I would run around the house/yard euphorically. Instant happiness and brain buzz.
  • akoivisto
    akoivisto Posts: 141 Member
    Slightly Hungry.
    I eat Snickers.
    Satisfied.
    Definitely could eat another ten Snickers; and my chance of having another Snickers is drastically increased for the day if they are readily available.

    Slightly Hungry
    I eat small bag of Peanuts.
    Satisfied.
    Snickers are readily available; yet some how I have the more willpower this day.

    I'm going to blame the wrapper on the Snickers, not the fact that sugar is f#*@ing awesome in just about everything, and a reason I eat 'sweet' treats enmasse after just having 'one'.

    Show me someone that hates sugar's taste, and I'll show you a liar. :smiley:

    If only fiber, protein, and all these macros and micros and yadda-yadda-yadda which are supposedly so good for you tasted so bloody awesome as Sugar. Sugar is a problem, for some, if not most, people.... I crave sugar, I don't crave fiber.

    When is the last time you heard someone say, "Damn my Fiber tooth..."

    Sweets = Sugar, humans love sugar, just like every other animal, readily available energy. :)
  • upoffthemat
    upoffthemat Posts: 679 Member
    pcoslady83 wrote: »
    pcoslady83 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    pcoslady83 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    moe0303 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.

    Well...you may think that feeling out of control with food is quite different from alcoholism. That doesn't mean it is true. Also we are talking sugar, and specifically added sugar in this topic not food in general. Neither I said abstaining is a panacea for all addiction. But for many, abstaining works well.

    Moderation didn't stop working for me after I decided it will not work for me. On the contrary, I came to the conclusion that moderation doesn't work for me after many failed attempts at moderation.

    Also, from r29 article:

    "Food manufacturers add sugar to just about everything, but you might be surprised to learn how often it's added to savory items. "There’s more added sugar per calorie in most pasta sauces than in ice cream toppings," Dr. Katz points out. "You'll see many potato chips brands with high-fructose corn syrup sprayed on at the end." That's because sweetness is an appetite stimulant, urging you to eat more. Dr. Katz calls this "stealth sugar," because you don't consciously taste it, but it increases the amount you need to eat to feel satisfied."

    So added sugar causes people to eat more. It is an appetite stimulant for vast majority of people. Though the article cleverly not mentions sugar in cakes, candies, it has the same effect on many people where they are stimulated to eat more of it. Then the article says practice mindfulness while eating added sugar. It doesn't explain how to practice mindfulness when sugar has interfered with your brain chemistry and driving a primal desire to eat more of it.

    Yeah, I'm sure the 1 gram of added sugar per bag of chips is going to make all the difference.

    Well..what do you think is the reason for these manufacturers to add sugar in their products?

    Adding sugar means more of our taste buds are hit and the food tastes better. It tastes better we eat more. I make a mean Bloody Mary, very spicy, it tastes so much better with just a little brown sugar in it to counterpoint the savory.