How do you deal with sugar withdraw??
Replies
-
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.0 -
The sugar detox headache is no joke! I'm on day 4 of keto and holy moly!!!
Note that this isn't about "detoxing" at all, or about lowering the consumption of sugar alone. It's the effect of your body going into ketosis, from being extremely low carb. Someone who merely lowers added sugar (or even sugar in general) won't experience it (it being low carb flu or some other name if you prefer, but there's no detoxing going on).2 -
2
-
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.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.
Gut biome is the new buzz word to throw around while making woo claims. Don't put too much faith in that stuff.5 -
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!3 -
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!
Hello Dan, stop making sense!2 -
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.
1 -
queenliz99 wrote: »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!
Hello Dan, stop making sense!
Along with the snarky comments I actually do care and work to help people avoid the things I've done in the past before realizing critical thinking is an important skill to grow.
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.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.
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
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 415 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions