How do you deal with sugar withdraw??
Replies
-
CorneliusPhoton wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »CorneliusPhoton wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
I wouldn't exactly call that a smack-down "nope" but a call for more discussion on the nature of the various pathways of addiction, both behavioral and neurochemical, both of which need more research. Not to mention the influence our gut biome has on our eating decisions.
Gut biome is the new buzz word to throw around while making woo claims. Don't put too much faith in that stuff.
The importance of a healthy gut biome is nothing new, and though research into the area of its influence on behavior is relatively recent, there is no reason to discount it by calling out "woo."Helloitsdan wrote: »CorneliusPhoton wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
I wouldn't exactly call that a smack-down "nope" but a call for more discussion on the nature of the various pathways of addiction, both behavioral and neurochemical, both of which need more research. Not to mention the influence our gut biome has on our eating decisions.
We seek sugar because of the brain. It's #1 priority is maintaining energy.
But when you look into the rodent models on sugar you'll see several key factors.
1). Extremely limited food choices. The rodents eat nutrient dense nuggets that taste like cardboard.
2). Dopamine increase only lasted a short while in rodents when fed sugar water but returned to normal.
3). Rodents experienced a dopamine rush that continued to build when given cocaine. This lasted long after they stopped.
4). Humans experience the same dopamine rush with sugar compared to hugging their grandparents for 20 seconds.
Therefore
Hugging grandparents is addictive and needs to stop!
Sarcastic comments are not helpful and are demeaning. Addiction is not that simple.
Again, open minded, civil discussion about both the chemical and behavioral motivations of addictive behavior are needed and are much more constructive than sarcasm or smack-downs. Shaming people doesn't change their minds, and taking a hard line just shows that you think that there is nothing left to learn. Nobody here has shown that any theory has been proven or debunked. I don't take a hard line either way. I think there are habitual, cultural, and emotional reasons for craving sugar, but I don't discount the possibility of chemical.
Okay I'll stop being snarky.
2 of my clients are former binge eaters.
They claimed to have sugar addiction but in reality, they were cutting out foods that have no negative impact on their ultimate goals of having a healthy body. After educating them for more than a year, they are binge free, don't count calories, sleep, laugh, dance, and are overall happy.
In other words, you don't have to cut out sugar to get the body you want unless you are diabetic. Then this forum isn't the best place to get information seeing as any recommendations would go against most state laws regarding dietary recommendations.
What part of my above statement offended you @CorneliusPhoton ?1 -
I didn't work to cut sugar directly, just to eat less sugary stuff in general. Every time I want something sweet, I ask myself if the taste of it is worth it. Store bought junk food isn't. Brownies made on my Birthday by my 12 year old daughter are. After awhile it became second nature to NOT want the junk.
But I still enjoy the good stuff.
Once I cut back on sugary items the cravings for it diminished. I had one Reese's Peanut Butter Cup and it was so sweet I couldn't even eat the second one. I gave it to hubby. In the past that would never have happened. It didn't taste good and wasn't even that peanut buttery.0 -
CorneliusPhoton wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »CorneliusPhoton wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
I wouldn't exactly call that a smack-down "nope" but a call for more discussion on the nature of the various pathways of addiction, both behavioral and neurochemical, both of which need more research. Not to mention the influence our gut biome has on our eating decisions.
Gut biome is the new buzz word to throw around while making woo claims. Don't put too much faith in that stuff.
The importance of a healthy gut biome is nothing new, and though research into the area of its influence on behavior is relatively recent, there is no reason to discount it by calling out "woo."Helloitsdan wrote: »CorneliusPhoton wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
I wouldn't exactly call that a smack-down "nope" but a call for more discussion on the nature of the various pathways of addiction, both behavioral and neurochemical, both of which need more research. Not to mention the influence our gut biome has on our eating decisions.
We seek sugar because of the brain. It's #1 priority is maintaining energy.
But when you look into the rodent models on sugar you'll see several key factors.
1). Extremely limited food choices. The rodents eat nutrient dense nuggets that taste like cardboard.
2). Dopamine increase only lasted a short while in rodents when fed sugar water but returned to normal.
3). Rodents experienced a dopamine rush that continued to build when given cocaine. This lasted long after they stopped.
4). Humans experience the same dopamine rush with sugar compared to hugging their grandparents for 20 seconds.
Therefore
Hugging grandparents is addictive and needs to stop!
Sarcastic comments are not helpful and are demeaning. Addiction is not that simple.
Again, open minded, civil discussion about both the chemical and behavioral motivations of addictive behavior are needed and are much more constructive than sarcasm or smack-downs. Shaming people doesn't change their minds, and taking a hard line just shows that you think that there is nothing left to learn. Nobody here has shown that any theory has been proven or debunked. I don't take a hard line either way. I think there are habitual, cultural, and emotional reasons for craving sugar, but I don't discount the possibility of chemical.
The word gut biome gets thrown around for everything nowadays. "Oh this could be having an effect on your gut biome" for literally anything. Artificial sweeteners can make you fat because gut biome. Calories aren't calories because gut biome. Dairy kills you because gut biome. Your parents don't love you because gut biome.
It's the new "inflammation causing" that was all the rage a few years ago as the reason for any dumb idea.4 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »crzycatlady1 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »More or less yeah. Besides, how you feel from that differs between people too. Apples make me hungry for some reason.
Definitely different from person to person. Apples are one of my go-to filling snacks.
Whereas I hate them (most fruit actually), and it's probably been 10 years since I've had a raw apple (apple pie at Thanksgiving probably doesn't count lol). It is interesting how we're all so different
I find apples really filling, but yeah -- satiety and preferences are very individual things that can't be generalized about.
Apples by themselves make me hungrier unless I pair it with a protein or a meal.
So you agree that it's an individual thing that cannot be generalized about? Cool.0 -
CorneliusPhoton wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
I wouldn't exactly call that a smack-down "nope" but a call for more discussion on the nature of the various pathways of addiction, both behavioral and neurochemical, both of which need more research. Not to mention the influence our gut biome has on our eating decisions.
She posted a rat study. At least what I shared has information on human studies.
Also, what stevencloser said about gut biomes. I have a feeling that's all going to fizzle out.
Interesting thing about gut biomes. Mine was severely impacted by taking antibiotics last winter. I was lactose and soy intolerant for most of this year. Now, my gut biome readjusted itself. I can eat them again.
3 -
Thank you so much, it's like reading all the best parts of all the best health books. Ya'll are awesome!0
-
Helloitsdan wrote: »What part of my above statement offended you @CorneliusPhoton ?
I am not offended but I don't appreciate the sarcasm which seemingly put a lid on the issue and did not address complexities.
My comment was in response to "nope". The "nope" paper's authors' opinion was that it is "premature" to accept sugar addiction and make policy decisions based on that theory with lack of enough research. I agree with that. I disagreed with the comment "nope" and how it implied that the previously referenced study (and studies referenced within) were debunked, which they were not. A different opinion was reached and it is obvious that more research and evidence is needed. The comment was dismissive and did not elicit discussion. Like I said earlier, I don't take a hard line either way. If you are sure that there is nothing left to learn about eating behavior and/or addiction, then I guess there is no reason to support new research. And I never said anything about having to cut out sugar.stevencloser wrote: »The word gut biome gets thrown around for everything nowadays. "Oh this could be having an effect on your gut biome" for literally anything. Artificial sweeteners can make you fat because gut biome. Calories aren't calories because gut biome. Dairy kills you because gut biome. Your parents don't love you because gut biome.
It's the new "inflammation causing" that was all the rage a few years ago as the reason for any dumb idea.
I agree. But the phrase "gut biome" is not a dumb idea simply because it is a new phrase (agreeably often associated with unfounded ideas on pinterest) for an established area of research. I'll call it intestinal flora if that's better. It was my intention in my comment to add that theory (based on vagus nerve studies, flora transplant studies, etc.) as one of many potential variables in a discussion about the plausible yet unproven possibility of sugar withdrawal.0 -
CorneliusPhoton wrote: »Helloitsdan wrote: »What part of my above statement offended you @CorneliusPhoton ?
I am not offended but I don't appreciate the sarcasm which seemingly put a lid on the issue and did not address complexities.
My comment was in response to "nope". The "nope" paper's authors' opinion was that it is "premature" to accept sugar addiction and make policy decisions based on that theory with lack of enough research. I agree with that. I disagreed with the comment "nope" and how it implied that the previously referenced study (and studies referenced within) were debunked, which they were not. A different opinion was reached and it is obvious that more research and evidence is needed. The comment was dismissive and did not elicit discussion. Like I said earlier, I don't take a hard line either way. If you are sure that there is nothing left to learn about eating behavior and/or addiction, then I guess there is no reason to support new research. And I never said anything about having to cut out sugar.stevencloser wrote: »The word gut biome gets thrown around for everything nowadays. "Oh this could be having an effect on your gut biome" for literally anything. Artificial sweeteners can make you fat because gut biome. Calories aren't calories because gut biome. Dairy kills you because gut biome. Your parents don't love you because gut biome.
It's the new "inflammation causing" that was all the rage a few years ago as the reason for any dumb idea.
I agree. But the phrase "gut biome" is not a dumb idea simply because it is a new phrase (agreeably often associated with unfounded ideas on pinterest) for an established area of research. I'll call it intestinal flora if that's better. It was my intention in my comment to add that theory (based on vagus nerve studies, flora transplant studies, etc.) as one of many potential variables in a discussion about the plausible yet unproven possibility of sugar withdrawal.
How would it allow for withdrawal from cutting down on sugar, let alone added sugar, as some were claiming?
Addiction doesn't mean physical dependency (and physical dependency doesn't mean addiction). Withdrawal results from physical dependency. You ARE physically dependent on glucose (but properly so, as that is how our bodies naturally work) but that comes from numerous sources besides added sugar (or any simple sugars), of course. That is why cutting way down on carbs DOES cause a physical reaction, although calling it "withdrawal" or "detox" is inaccurate and misleading.1 -
CorneliusPhoton wrote: »Helloitsdan wrote: »What part of my above statement offended you @CorneliusPhoton ?
I am not offended but I don't appreciate the sarcasm which seemingly put a lid on the issue and did not address complexities.
My comment was in response to "nope". The "nope" paper's authors' opinion was that it is "premature" to accept sugar addiction and make policy decisions based on that theory with lack of enough research. I agree with that. I disagreed with the comment "nope" and how it implied that the previously referenced study (and studies referenced within) were debunked, which they were not. A different opinion was reached and it is obvious that more research and evidence is needed. The comment was dismissive and did not elicit discussion. Like I said earlier, I don't take a hard line either way. If you are sure that there is nothing left to learn about eating behavior and/or addiction, then I guess there is no reason to support new research. And I never said anything about having to cut out sugar.stevencloser wrote: »The word gut biome gets thrown around for everything nowadays. "Oh this could be having an effect on your gut biome" for literally anything. Artificial sweeteners can make you fat because gut biome. Calories aren't calories because gut biome. Dairy kills you because gut biome. Your parents don't love you because gut biome.
It's the new "inflammation causing" that was all the rage a few years ago as the reason for any dumb idea.
I agree. But the phrase "gut biome" is not a dumb idea simply because it is a new phrase (agreeably often associated with unfounded ideas on pinterest) for an established area of research. I'll call it intestinal flora if that's better. It was my intention in my comment to add that theory (based on vagus nerve studies, flora transplant studies, etc.) as one of many potential variables in a discussion about the plausible yet unproven possibility of sugar withdrawal.
Those rodent studies are a joke. You know that right?
Like most rodent studies they don't apply to humans very well.2 -
I didn't work to cut sugar directly, just to eat less sugary stuff in general. Every time I want something sweet, I ask myself if the taste of it is worth it. Store bought junk food isn't. Brownies made on my Birthday by my 12 year old daughter are. After awhile it became second nature to NOT want the junk.
But I still enjoy the good stuff.
Once I cut back on sugary items the cravings for it diminished. I had one Reese's Peanut Butter Cup and it was so sweet I couldn't even eat the second one. I gave it to hubby. In the past that would never have happened. It didn't taste good and wasn't even that peanut buttery.
Hell will freeze over before i willingly give away that second reese's peanut butter cup!
I make my own now, they have 2g of sugar per cup, but pack a punch in the fat macro.. 1 or 2 is plenty enough, whereas i could eat 2-3 packs of reese's in a row.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »CorneliusPhoton wrote: »Helloitsdan wrote: »What part of my above statement offended you @CorneliusPhoton ?
I am not offended but I don't appreciate the sarcasm which seemingly put a lid on the issue and did not address complexities.
My comment was in response to "nope". The "nope" paper's authors' opinion was that it is "premature" to accept sugar addiction and make policy decisions based on that theory with lack of enough research. I agree with that. I disagreed with the comment "nope" and how it implied that the previously referenced study (and studies referenced within) were debunked, which they were not. A different opinion was reached and it is obvious that more research and evidence is needed. The comment was dismissive and did not elicit discussion. Like I said earlier, I don't take a hard line either way. If you are sure that there is nothing left to learn about eating behavior and/or addiction, then I guess there is no reason to support new research. And I never said anything about having to cut out sugar.stevencloser wrote: »The word gut biome gets thrown around for everything nowadays. "Oh this could be having an effect on your gut biome" for literally anything. Artificial sweeteners can make you fat because gut biome. Calories aren't calories because gut biome. Dairy kills you because gut biome. Your parents don't love you because gut biome.
It's the new "inflammation causing" that was all the rage a few years ago as the reason for any dumb idea.
I agree. But the phrase "gut biome" is not a dumb idea simply because it is a new phrase (agreeably often associated with unfounded ideas on pinterest) for an established area of research. I'll call it intestinal flora if that's better. It was my intention in my comment to add that theory (based on vagus nerve studies, flora transplant studies, etc.) as one of many potential variables in a discussion about the plausible yet unproven possibility of sugar withdrawal.
How would it allow for withdrawal from cutting down on sugar, let alone added sugar, as some were claiming?
Addiction doesn't mean physical dependency (and physical dependency doesn't mean addiction). Withdrawal results from physical dependency. You ARE physically dependent on glucose (but properly so, as that is how our bodies naturally work) but that comes from numerous sources besides added sugar (or any simple sugars), of course. That is why cutting way down on carbs DOES cause a physical reaction, although calling it "withdrawal" or "detox" is inaccurate and misleading.
If we deliberately alter what we ingest, there are measurable changes in microbe population. It is thought that there are die-offs or blooms of the microbes that specialize in whatever food has been omitted or introduced with that food alteration. One theory is that microbes may send electro- and/or chemical reward signals when we eat what they specialize in, or do the opposite with dysphoria when we don't feed them what they want. There are other theories. Either way, the lack of reward signals or their deliberate release of peptides that mimic our own hunger hormones are thought to be a cause of cravings when foods that they specialize in are in short supply or absent. Consistent with (but not necessarily called, k?) a withdrawal response. I never called it detox.
It is an interesting explanation for why many people still crave candy even when there is plenty of glucose around. We don't settle for a carrot when we want chocolate.0 -
CorneliusPhoton wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »CorneliusPhoton wrote: »Helloitsdan wrote: »What part of my above statement offended you @CorneliusPhoton ?
I am not offended but I don't appreciate the sarcasm which seemingly put a lid on the issue and did not address complexities.
My comment was in response to "nope". The "nope" paper's authors' opinion was that it is "premature" to accept sugar addiction and make policy decisions based on that theory with lack of enough research. I agree with that. I disagreed with the comment "nope" and how it implied that the previously referenced study (and studies referenced within) were debunked, which they were not. A different opinion was reached and it is obvious that more research and evidence is needed. The comment was dismissive and did not elicit discussion. Like I said earlier, I don't take a hard line either way. If you are sure that there is nothing left to learn about eating behavior and/or addiction, then I guess there is no reason to support new research. And I never said anything about having to cut out sugar.stevencloser wrote: »The word gut biome gets thrown around for everything nowadays. "Oh this could be having an effect on your gut biome" for literally anything. Artificial sweeteners can make you fat because gut biome. Calories aren't calories because gut biome. Dairy kills you because gut biome. Your parents don't love you because gut biome.
It's the new "inflammation causing" that was all the rage a few years ago as the reason for any dumb idea.
I agree. But the phrase "gut biome" is not a dumb idea simply because it is a new phrase (agreeably often associated with unfounded ideas on pinterest) for an established area of research. I'll call it intestinal flora if that's better. It was my intention in my comment to add that theory (based on vagus nerve studies, flora transplant studies, etc.) as one of many potential variables in a discussion about the plausible yet unproven possibility of sugar withdrawal.
How would it allow for withdrawal from cutting down on sugar, let alone added sugar, as some were claiming?
Addiction doesn't mean physical dependency (and physical dependency doesn't mean addiction). Withdrawal results from physical dependency. You ARE physically dependent on glucose (but properly so, as that is how our bodies naturally work) but that comes from numerous sources besides added sugar (or any simple sugars), of course. That is why cutting way down on carbs DOES cause a physical reaction, although calling it "withdrawal" or "detox" is inaccurate and misleading.
If we deliberately alter what we ingest, there are measurable changes in microbe population. It is thought that there are die-offs or blooms of the microbes that specialize in whatever food has been omitted or introduced with that food alteration. One theory is that microbes may send electro- and/or chemical reward signals when we eat what they specialize in, or do the opposite with dysphoria when we don't feed them what they want. There are other theories. Either way, the lack of reward signals or their deliberate release of peptides that mimic our own hunger hormones are thought to be a cause of cravings when foods that they specialize in are in short supply or absent. Consistent with (but not necessarily called, k?) a withdrawal response. I never called it detox.
It is an interesting explanation for why many people still crave candy even when there is plenty of glucose around. We don't settle for a carrot when we want chocolate.
I don't think we are talking about cravings here (as in the desire for a specific food, not a physical need for it, as with a drug craving people may mean more like the latter). The assertion is that someone has withdrawal symptoms (headaches, severe physical discomfort, stuff like that).
I still don't think it makes sense, as on a physical level added sugar, intrinsic sugar, and starches aren't going to be meaningfully different, but it's important to note that even you don't seem to be arguing for withdrawal from this further explanation. That's not something OP has to worry about from cutting down on the amount of sweets in her diet.0 -
I think a lot of commentators forget why it is hard to get scientific research results for answers to questions about human nutrition -- first of all it is unethical to perform many kinds of experiments on humans, which is why animal models are often used (would you let your child participate in a randomly controlled diet study where some of the kids ate a diet very high in sugar for a year so they could be compared to kids eating a healthier diet?) Certain info can be extrapolated from animal models (and other data not) and there is a whole scientific area of study that looks at what can be extrapolated from animal models and why. Also, most research is funded by the federal government (NIH) or by the food industry and research on effects of sugar has not been a high priority for a variety of reasons. I think we don't have a lot of information that would be very useful. Without that information we are left to try and find out by trial and error what works for each of us (and what works for me may not work for you). I do better on a lower carb/higher protein/higher fat diet -- in other words when I eat that way I can focus on CICO because I feel more satiety, and eat to lose the weight I need to lose. I don't do well with "little" treats -- just want more, and easier to avoid the cravings. But many people on MFP do well with "little treats". What is important is what works for you to lose weight (or maintain). When I crave sugar I have several things that can help: a protein shake w/ almond milk and frozen strawberries sweetened with stevia, maybe throw in 1/2 avacado; a cup of tea; a walk outside. These things help me. Eating a cookie doesn't help me with my cravings. Just me.1
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »CorneliusPhoton wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »CorneliusPhoton wrote: »Helloitsdan wrote: »What part of my above statement offended you @CorneliusPhoton ?
I am not offended but I don't appreciate the sarcasm which seemingly put a lid on the issue and did not address complexities.
My comment was in response to "nope". The "nope" paper's authors' opinion was that it is "premature" to accept sugar addiction and make policy decisions based on that theory with lack of enough research. I agree with that. I disagreed with the comment "nope" and how it implied that the previously referenced study (and studies referenced within) were debunked, which they were not. A different opinion was reached and it is obvious that more research and evidence is needed. The comment was dismissive and did not elicit discussion. Like I said earlier, I don't take a hard line either way. If you are sure that there is nothing left to learn about eating behavior and/or addiction, then I guess there is no reason to support new research. And I never said anything about having to cut out sugar.stevencloser wrote: »The word gut biome gets thrown around for everything nowadays. "Oh this could be having an effect on your gut biome" for literally anything. Artificial sweeteners can make you fat because gut biome. Calories aren't calories because gut biome. Dairy kills you because gut biome. Your parents don't love you because gut biome.
It's the new "inflammation causing" that was all the rage a few years ago as the reason for any dumb idea.
I agree. But the phrase "gut biome" is not a dumb idea simply because it is a new phrase (agreeably often associated with unfounded ideas on pinterest) for an established area of research. I'll call it intestinal flora if that's better. It was my intention in my comment to add that theory (based on vagus nerve studies, flora transplant studies, etc.) as one of many potential variables in a discussion about the plausible yet unproven possibility of sugar withdrawal.
How would it allow for withdrawal from cutting down on sugar, let alone added sugar, as some were claiming?
Addiction doesn't mean physical dependency (and physical dependency doesn't mean addiction). Withdrawal results from physical dependency. You ARE physically dependent on glucose (but properly so, as that is how our bodies naturally work) but that comes from numerous sources besides added sugar (or any simple sugars), of course. That is why cutting way down on carbs DOES cause a physical reaction, although calling it "withdrawal" or "detox" is inaccurate and misleading.
If we deliberately alter what we ingest, there are measurable changes in microbe population. It is thought that there are die-offs or blooms of the microbes that specialize in whatever food has been omitted or introduced with that food alteration. One theory is that microbes may send electro- and/or chemical reward signals when we eat what they specialize in, or do the opposite with dysphoria when we don't feed them what they want. There are other theories. Either way, the lack of reward signals or their deliberate release of peptides that mimic our own hunger hormones are thought to be a cause of cravings when foods that they specialize in are in short supply or absent. Consistent with (but not necessarily called, k?) a withdrawal response. I never called it detox.
It is an interesting explanation for why many people still crave candy even when there is plenty of glucose around. We don't settle for a carrot when we want chocolate.
I don't think we are talking about cravings here (as in the desire for a specific food, not a physical need for it, as with a drug craving people may mean more like the latter). The assertion is that someone has withdrawal symptoms (headaches, severe physical discomfort, stuff like that).
I still don't think it makes sense, as on a physical level added sugar, intrinsic sugar, and starches aren't going to be meaningfully different, but it's important to note that even you don't seem to be arguing for withdrawal from this further explanation. That's not something OP has to worry about from cutting down on the amount of sweets in her diet.
I said several times that I take no sides here. I was trying to respond to several people reacting to my one comment where I disagreed with the word, "nope." And it degraded into nitpicks with little regard to my intention.
I will leave you all now because my miracle fat loss vinegar, garlic, kombucha detox cleanse is ready (now with more biomes). It has really helped me "loose" weight without going through detox cravings. Peace.1 -
CorneliusPhoton wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »CorneliusPhoton wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »CorneliusPhoton wrote: »Helloitsdan wrote: »What part of my above statement offended you @CorneliusPhoton ?
I am not offended but I don't appreciate the sarcasm which seemingly put a lid on the issue and did not address complexities.
My comment was in response to "nope". The "nope" paper's authors' opinion was that it is "premature" to accept sugar addiction and make policy decisions based on that theory with lack of enough research. I agree with that. I disagreed with the comment "nope" and how it implied that the previously referenced study (and studies referenced within) were debunked, which they were not. A different opinion was reached and it is obvious that more research and evidence is needed. The comment was dismissive and did not elicit discussion. Like I said earlier, I don't take a hard line either way. If you are sure that there is nothing left to learn about eating behavior and/or addiction, then I guess there is no reason to support new research. And I never said anything about having to cut out sugar.stevencloser wrote: »The word gut biome gets thrown around for everything nowadays. "Oh this could be having an effect on your gut biome" for literally anything. Artificial sweeteners can make you fat because gut biome. Calories aren't calories because gut biome. Dairy kills you because gut biome. Your parents don't love you because gut biome.
It's the new "inflammation causing" that was all the rage a few years ago as the reason for any dumb idea.
I agree. But the phrase "gut biome" is not a dumb idea simply because it is a new phrase (agreeably often associated with unfounded ideas on pinterest) for an established area of research. I'll call it intestinal flora if that's better. It was my intention in my comment to add that theory (based on vagus nerve studies, flora transplant studies, etc.) as one of many potential variables in a discussion about the plausible yet unproven possibility of sugar withdrawal.
How would it allow for withdrawal from cutting down on sugar, let alone added sugar, as some were claiming?
Addiction doesn't mean physical dependency (and physical dependency doesn't mean addiction). Withdrawal results from physical dependency. You ARE physically dependent on glucose (but properly so, as that is how our bodies naturally work) but that comes from numerous sources besides added sugar (or any simple sugars), of course. That is why cutting way down on carbs DOES cause a physical reaction, although calling it "withdrawal" or "detox" is inaccurate and misleading.
If we deliberately alter what we ingest, there are measurable changes in microbe population. It is thought that there are die-offs or blooms of the microbes that specialize in whatever food has been omitted or introduced with that food alteration. One theory is that microbes may send electro- and/or chemical reward signals when we eat what they specialize in, or do the opposite with dysphoria when we don't feed them what they want. There are other theories. Either way, the lack of reward signals or their deliberate release of peptides that mimic our own hunger hormones are thought to be a cause of cravings when foods that they specialize in are in short supply or absent. Consistent with (but not necessarily called, k?) a withdrawal response. I never called it detox.
It is an interesting explanation for why many people still crave candy even when there is plenty of glucose around. We don't settle for a carrot when we want chocolate.
I don't think we are talking about cravings here (as in the desire for a specific food, not a physical need for it, as with a drug craving people may mean more like the latter). The assertion is that someone has withdrawal symptoms (headaches, severe physical discomfort, stuff like that).
I still don't think it makes sense, as on a physical level added sugar, intrinsic sugar, and starches aren't going to be meaningfully different, but it's important to note that even you don't seem to be arguing for withdrawal from this further explanation. That's not something OP has to worry about from cutting down on the amount of sweets in her diet.
I said several times that I take no sides here. I was trying to respond to several people reacting to my one comment where I disagreed with the word, "nope." And it degraded into nitpicks with little regard to my intention.
I don't know what sides you perceive, but my particular focus in the last few posts has been the claim that you can experience "sugar withdrawal" from cutting out added sugar. Obviously that has zero to do with whether one should or should not cut down on or out added sugar (or any other sugar). I'm all for cutting down on added sugar or cutting it out if one wants (I mention that because another poster seems to think people were arguing against that). But OP worried about whether it would cause sugar withdrawal (no, and that's not a thing) and a few others jumped in to say it did. There is no physical basis for such a claim; it makes no sense.
Well into that discussion, you identified the gut biome as a basis for it, calling it a: "plausible yet unproven possibility of sugar withdrawal." I don't think it's plausible, it seems like you acknowledge that what you are talking about is not withdrawal, so whatever.
I'm not getting into the discussion of whether the current obsession with the "gut" is related to woo, as I think the whole gut biome thing is off topic (OP wanted to know about cutting sugar and IMO got lots of good advice). I do know that gut flora responds to what we eat, apparently pretty quickly, so if one thinks their gut biome is messed up from eating a poor diet, eat a better diet and it will improve. I do think claims that you can't control what you eat because of your gut (or get fat despite eating few calories because of the gut) are bogus, but not made here that I noticed.0 -
I think many people confuse withdrawal with cravings?? I never experienced any negative symptoms when i went down to keto level carbs, not a single day of keto flu.
I've experienced both cravings and withdrawal, there is absolutely no comparison! Cravings can be overcome, mind over matter- Withdrawal, bad and illegal thoughts/actions enter the equation. I've never seen anyone enter rehab, or climb the walls, have zero sleep or go through such mental anguish that you just want to die for 7 straight days and nights because they cant have a candy bar...4 -
It never crossed my mind that someone saying "oh, the sugar withdrawal" meant "when I stopped eating unlimited cookies between meals I craved them for a while," but you may well be right. That's obviously not withdrawal, but I'm sure some experience it (and I think there's lots of good advice above about it, of course).0
-
CorneliusPhoton wrote: »Helloitsdan wrote: »What part of my above statement offended you @CorneliusPhoton ?
I am not offended but I don't appreciate the sarcasm which seemingly put a lid on the issue and did not address complexities.
My comment was in response to "nope". The "nope" paper's authors' opinion was that it is "premature" to accept sugar addiction and make policy decisions based on that theory with lack of enough research. I agree with that. I disagreed with the comment "nope" and how it implied that the previously referenced study (and studies referenced within) were debunked, which they were not. A different opinion was reached and it is obvious that more research and evidence is needed. The comment was dismissive and did not elicit discussion. Like I said earlier, I don't take a hard line either way. If you are sure that there is nothing left to learn about eating behavior and/or addiction, then I guess there is no reason to support new research. And I never said anything about having to cut out sugar.stevencloser wrote: »The word gut biome gets thrown around for everything nowadays. "Oh this could be having an effect on your gut biome" for literally anything. Artificial sweeteners can make you fat because gut biome. Calories aren't calories because gut biome. Dairy kills you because gut biome. Your parents don't love you because gut biome.
It's the new "inflammation causing" that was all the rage a few years ago as the reason for any dumb idea.
I agree. But the phrase "gut biome" is not a dumb idea simply because it is a new phrase (agreeably often associated with unfounded ideas on pinterest) for an established area of research. I'll call it intestinal flora if that's better. It was my intention in my comment to add that theory (based on vagus nerve studies, flora transplant studies, etc.) as one of many potential variables in a discussion about the plausible yet unproven possibility of sugar withdrawal.
My glib "nope" was sarcasm, given the definitively bold assertive nature of "sugar" in the post to which I was responding. "Nope" was in response to "sugar"... the response was that there is not a clear cut answer on the question of addiction as the post I was addressing tried to assert, or at least I thought tried to assert.
I find it interesting that you took issue with my "nope", but took no issue with the similar post with the single word "sugar". One was an assertion, one was a rebuttal. Neither invited discussion, which you state is your problem, but you only have issue with one of them.
3 -
Christine_72 wrote: »I didn't work to cut sugar directly, just to eat less sugary stuff in general. Every time I want something sweet, I ask myself if the taste of it is worth it. Store bought junk food isn't. Brownies made on my Birthday by my 12 year old daughter are. After awhile it became second nature to NOT want the junk.
But I still enjoy the good stuff.
Once I cut back on sugary items the cravings for it diminished. I had one Reese's Peanut Butter Cup and it was so sweet I couldn't even eat the second one. I gave it to hubby. In the past that would never have happened. It didn't taste good and wasn't even that peanut buttery.
Hell will freeze over before i willingly give away that second reese's peanut butter cup!
I make my own now, they have 2g of sugar per cup, but pack a punch in the fat macro.. 1 or 2 is plenty enough, whereas i could eat 2-3 packs of reese's in a row.
Maybe they changed the formula?0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »I didn't work to cut sugar directly, just to eat less sugary stuff in general. Every time I want something sweet, I ask myself if the taste of it is worth it. Store bought junk food isn't. Brownies made on my Birthday by my 12 year old daughter are. After awhile it became second nature to NOT want the junk.
But I still enjoy the good stuff.
Once I cut back on sugary items the cravings for it diminished. I had one Reese's Peanut Butter Cup and it was so sweet I couldn't even eat the second one. I gave it to hubby. In the past that would never have happened. It didn't taste good and wasn't even that peanut buttery.
Hell will freeze over before i willingly give away that second reese's peanut butter cup!
I make my own now, they have 2g of sugar per cup, but pack a punch in the fat macro.. 1 or 2 is plenty enough, whereas i could eat 2-3 packs of reese's in a row.
Maybe they changed the formula?
What do you mean?
The 2g of sugar per PB cup i mentioned are my homemade peanut butter cups.0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »I didn't work to cut sugar directly, just to eat less sugary stuff in general. Every time I want something sweet, I ask myself if the taste of it is worth it. Store bought junk food isn't. Brownies made on my Birthday by my 12 year old daughter are. After awhile it became second nature to NOT want the junk.
But I still enjoy the good stuff.
Once I cut back on sugary items the cravings for it diminished. I had one Reese's Peanut Butter Cup and it was so sweet I couldn't even eat the second one. I gave it to hubby. In the past that would never have happened. It didn't taste good and wasn't even that peanut buttery.
Hell will freeze over before i willingly give away that second reese's peanut butter cup!
I make my own now, they have 2g of sugar per cup, but pack a punch in the fat macro.. 1 or 2 is plenty enough, whereas i could eat 2-3 packs of reese's in a row.
Maybe they changed the formula?
What do you mean?
The 2g of sugar per PB cup i mentioned are my homemade peanut butter cups.
No, I mean the originals. Read my quote above your quote. Lol. They seem so much sweeter than they used to.0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »I didn't work to cut sugar directly, just to eat less sugary stuff in general. Every time I want something sweet, I ask myself if the taste of it is worth it. Store bought junk food isn't. Brownies made on my Birthday by my 12 year old daughter are. After awhile it became second nature to NOT want the junk.
But I still enjoy the good stuff.
Once I cut back on sugary items the cravings for it diminished. I had one Reese's Peanut Butter Cup and it was so sweet I couldn't even eat the second one. I gave it to hubby. In the past that would never have happened. It didn't taste good and wasn't even that peanut buttery.
Hell will freeze over before i willingly give away that second reese's peanut butter cup!
I make my own now, they have 2g of sugar per cup, but pack a punch in the fat macro.. 1 or 2 is plenty enough, whereas i could eat 2-3 packs of reese's in a row.
Maybe they changed the formula?
What do you mean?
The 2g of sugar per PB cup i mentioned are my homemade peanut butter cups.
No, I mean the originals. Read my quote above your quote. Lol. They seem so much sweeter than they used to.
Doh sorry.
. It's been a long time since I've eaten those evil treats of deliciousness. I might have to pick up a pack next time I'm at the store to test out your theory
Have you tried Quest's version? They're not bad at all. I'm hanging to try their keto pb cups, but they're not available here yet.
0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »I didn't work to cut sugar directly, just to eat less sugary stuff in general. Every time I want something sweet, I ask myself if the taste of it is worth it. Store bought junk food isn't. Brownies made on my Birthday by my 12 year old daughter are. After awhile it became second nature to NOT want the junk.
But I still enjoy the good stuff.
Once I cut back on sugary items the cravings for it diminished. I had one Reese's Peanut Butter Cup and it was so sweet I couldn't even eat the second one. I gave it to hubby. In the past that would never have happened. It didn't taste good and wasn't even that peanut buttery.
Hell will freeze over before i willingly give away that second reese's peanut butter cup!
I make my own now, they have 2g of sugar per cup, but pack a punch in the fat macro.. 1 or 2 is plenty enough, whereas i could eat 2-3 packs of reese's in a row.
Maybe they changed the formula?
What do you mean?
The 2g of sugar per PB cup i mentioned are my homemade peanut butter cups.
No, I mean the originals. Read my quote above your quote. Lol. They seem so much sweeter than they used to.
Doh sorry.
. It's been a long time since I've eaten those evil treats of deliciousness. I might have to pick up a pack next time I'm at the store to test out your theory
Have you tried Quest's version? They're not bad at all. I'm hanging to try their keto pb cups, but they're not available here yet.
I haven't but I'll be sure to look for it.1 -
cardiacmommy wrote: »I quit eating sweets (i.e. candy, cupcakes, brownies, Ice cream, etc) 10 months ago. I started with the goal of 30 days. It's definitely gotten easier over the months.
I'm still occasionally tempted..but by being firm and resolute in my decision I'm much more easily able to avoid any temptations. Grocery shopping is much easier. I just don't eat those things...so don't buy.
As far as dealing with the initial cravings...I second fruit if you are still eating that.
And I don't even crave that as much anymore.
But I would either snack on raspberries (1 cal each) or I would cut up a banana, warm it for about 40 seconds in the microwave, stir in a couple tsp peanut butter and a little plain cocoa powder. Got me thru the first couple weeks. Now I just eat a plain piece of fruit when I'd like a sweet snack. Yesterday I had raspberries. Today I had some fresh pineapple. My favorite fruit are oranges, and occasionally I'll have an Apple or banana.
So is this for life?
I don't honestly know. Right now I'm at 308 days. I still need to lose 50-60 lbs so doesn't make sense to allow it back in my life at this point. Too easy to over do it. I also would use sugar to stress eat. Perhaps one day I'll allow very low sugar dark chocolate back into my life. My favorite wa the godiva dark chocolate with almonds. ..so maybe one day I'll allow that again.2 -
Gut biomes will be affecting the tides and doing our taxes next.2
-
cardiacmommy wrote: »cardiacmommy wrote: »I quit eating sweets (i.e. candy, cupcakes, brownies, Ice cream, etc) 10 months ago. I started with the goal of 30 days. It's definitely gotten easier over the months.
I'm still occasionally tempted..but by being firm and resolute in my decision I'm much more easily able to avoid any temptations. Grocery shopping is much easier. I just don't eat those things...so don't buy.
As far as dealing with the initial cravings...I second fruit if you are still eating that.
And I don't even crave that as much anymore.
But I would either snack on raspberries (1 cal each) or I would cut up a banana, warm it for about 40 seconds in the microwave, stir in a couple tsp peanut butter and a little plain cocoa powder. Got me thru the first couple weeks. Now I just eat a plain piece of fruit when I'd like a sweet snack. Yesterday I had raspberries. Today I had some fresh pineapple. My favorite fruit are oranges, and occasionally I'll have an Apple or banana.
So is this for life?
I don't honestly know. Right now I'm at 308 days. I still need to lose 50-60 lbs so doesn't make sense to allow it back in my life at this point. Too easy to over do it. I also would use sugar to stress eat. Perhaps one day I'll allow very low sugar dark chocolate back into my life. My favorite wa the godiva dark chocolate with almonds. ..so maybe one day I'll allow that again.
It took a lot of hard work for me to allow goodies back into my life after years of abstaining. I'd go through bouts of abstaining and overeating on sweets, until I finally learned the art of moderating my foods. It took a lot of trial and error, was/is not perfect, but I can at least now keep these foods in the house and not pig out on them.
I just bought a favorite chocolate bar tonight, weighed out a piece, and put the rest into the frig for another day. This two serving candy bar used to be downed in one one sitting (or I'd have even a larger one in one sitting) is now at least 4 servings.
If you choose to allow your favorite Godiva chocolate in the house at some point, have your scale ready for just that one piece. Put the rest away for another day. After awhile, you will have this down to a tee. 1 -
I wrote a post on moderation once. It got overrun by alcoholics and drug addicts who wanted to hang me in my front yard.2
-
fruit and water
+ how did these responses get so off topic? lol0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions