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.
Giving up sugar for good
Replies
-
goldthistime wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »SymbolismNZ wrote: »Nothing actually wrong with someone giving up sugar in my view; if nothing else it reduces a lot of calorie dense foods that are far too easy to pick up and scoff down (chocolate, flavored milk, sodas) and forces people to be more mindful of what is going into their diets.
Giving up fruit and most dairy is fine, although I would miss them, and starches like sweet potatoes and plantains can be replaced with others, but I personally think giving up vegetables is really unhealthy (barring a rare medical issue that requires it), and there sure is something wrong with it.
I avoid or limit (or simply find unappealing) lots of high cal foods that also have sugar, but not because sugar is terrible and must be avoided. Focusing on sugar=bad leads to bad nutritional choices, IMO.
I would have assumed that the poster you replied to meant foods with added sugars, not fruit, dairy and sweet potatoes.
Why would avoiding added sugar lead to bad nutritional choices?
(1) The poster did not say added sugar.
(2) The sugar in fruit (for example) and added sugar (sucrose) that in other things is the same, chemically (especially when your body breaks apart the sucrose), so it doesn't even make sense to claim that "sugar" means only added sugar. The arguments about sugar hurting your body would apply to all.
(I happen to agree that we shouldn't consume excessive sugar, or excessive anything else, but that's a different discussion. Or what cwolfman said upthread.)
I agree that sugar is sugar whether in fruit or a candy bar, but the fact that the sugar in fruit is packaged with nutrients and fibre makes a difference.
The FOODS are different, yes. But the sugar (as you acknowledge) is not. So if they meant giving up high cal low nutrient foods, why wouldn't they say "junk food"? If they meant added sugar, they should say added sugar. I've often said I've given up added sugar at times, and I always say "added sugar," because I most certainly did not give up sugar.
Had 17 g of sugar for breakfast the other day, which some would say was "high sugar" and would make me crave sugar (someone claimed that of a Big Mac, which has less), and that was just a pear (which I ate with fat and protein). Pears aren't terribly high fiber (had 5 grams). Yet I was stuffed until a late lunch, and didn't crave sugar one bit (I'm sensitive to that as I struggled with it over the holidays and we are continuing to receive this week some really delicious chocolate treats that I have entirely ignored, yay me).Unless someone is talking about giving up carbs, I assume that they are talking about added sugar. The person we quoted gave three examples that each contain added sugar.
But the person SAID sugar and the discussion was about sugar. The person said that giving up SUGAR was a good thing since it would prevent you from eating those foods, which it would, but it would ALSO prevent you from eating fruits and veg -- that was exactly the point I was making. Not a good strategy. If you want to give up so called junk foods (which I'm not really in favor of as a 100% elimination thing) or not eat chocolate (the horror!) ;-). soda, and cake, why not forget about a blanket prohibition on sugar and give up the specific foods?
For example, we had a discussion about bananas vs. chips in another thread. I'm not against either, but chips aren't super nutrient-dense just because they lack sugar (or low in calories, lots of the cal from fat, btw) and bananas are pretty good despite all the sugar. Using sugar as a proxy for low nutrient calorie dense foods is bizarre and unclear and suggests that you really do think the problem is SUGAR and that bananas might be a problem.I make the argument not to pick on you lemurcat, (especially given that you are far better at the art of debate than I am), but to defend people thinking that they want to reduce added sugar in their lives as not being extremists. I would consider giving up fruit and dairy as an extreme practice.
NO ONE has ever said that reducing added sugar makes you an extremist. Again, I refer to the points that cwolfman made above.
Reducing added sugar and other low nutrient sources of extra calories is not a negative thing at all, and for many it is a really good thing to do (as I've noted before, my extra calories when gaining weren't much from added sugar, so just focusing on that would have been super dumb for me, so that's one reason this lopsided advice bugs).
But forgetting WHY added sugar should not be consumed in excess and assuming it means that SUGAR is toxic, does suggest that you are better off eating as little as possible or eliminating, which is why it's very important to remember that many foods that are commonly understood to be quite healthy (although yeah, it's diet, not individual foods, which is healthful or not) contain sugar.
That -- as I think you know -- was the point.3 -
@lyn_glenmont Buying a sack of sugar to add to cakes and pies and homemade treats is very different from having sugar added to almost everything you buy in a grocery store filled with processed food. Are you really arguing that people today eat in the same way they did 50 years ago--or in the 19th century?
I don't see that she made that argument at all. I think she made the point that people in the 1800s ate a crapload of sugar and bought it by the hundredweight. Just like the Amish do today.
I live in a 120-year-old farm house with a root cellar currently full of leeks and potatoes that I planted, nurtured and dug myself; shelves lined with jars of jam from strawberries, rhubarb, and peaches that I cultivated and processed myself, plus an insane amount of canned tomatoes and pickled items of every description, plus multiple freezers stuffed to capacity. I have vinegar mothers living in my basement, sourdough organisms living in my fridge, god knows what kinds of critters living in the kraut that is pickling in a crock on my counter, and I have 8 linear feet of shelving dedicated to cookbooks passed down through my family or featuring classical and traditional from-scratch European and American cuisine. I go to local farms to get my eggs, raw milk, and many of our meats, and often visit with the animals that produce them and the farmers that raise them. I have 7,000 ish square feet of assorted gardens under cultivation.
Please, illuminate me as to the evils of the 1 T of sugar I put in my sour dough loaves or the 1 cup I put into my peach or apple or strawberry-rhubarb pie, with more sprinkled on the top crust, of course.10 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »Interesting long read by Gary Taubes in The Guardian today about sugar's addictive effects and the futility of trying to "moderate" its consumption. He also makes the interesting observation that people tend to define moderation as "whatever works for them". Anyway, it's all enough to convince me...
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jan/05/is-sugar-worlds-most-popular-drug
I haven't read all the replies....some people get really upset when you ask them to give up sugar, but of course it is not addictive.
I eat very little added sugar...I'm just not keen on bull *kitten*. If people didn't go to these kind of extremes when talking about sugar we could in fact have an actual discussion about over consumption and that being a negative...but nah...it's always a crack discussion and it's *kitten* stupid.
Exactly. 100% this!3 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »You obviously did not read the whole piece and are twisting what it meant to say.
I'm not twisting anything; those words were a direct quote from the article:
"Together, obesity and Type 2 diabetes rank among our nation’s greatest health problem, and they largely result from what many call an “addiction” to sugar. But solving this problem is more complicated than solving drug addiction, because it requires reducing the drive to eat unhealthy foods without affecting the desire to eat healthy foods when hungry."
Did *you* read the whole piece?
But that's just not true-these things happen because people are eating excess CALORIES, which causes weight gains, which causes health problems.
Back in the day I was a pre-diabetic and it was because I was eating too many calories and was overweight. But I got over myself and stopped making excuses and learned how weight gain/loss/maintenance actually works. I started reducing my calorie intake, while still eating all the foods I liked including sugary ones- now just in smaller amounts, and I lost the extra weight. In the process I also got my high glucose numbers down into the normal range, where it's stayed for almost 4 years now. And I eat still eat sugar every day. I still eat all the foods I like, I've just learned how to fit them into my calorie goals.
Sugar is just the new fad scapegoat like fat was a few years ago. People like Taubes are parasites that feed off of people's fears and lack of knowledge to makes money off of them.10 -
goldthistime wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »chocolate_owl wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »
There is no withdrawal...a craving is different than withdrawal symptoms...this is just perpetuating nonsense.
Cravings are just one of the symptoms of withdrawal. People who have given up sugar also report other withdrawal symptoms, including: anger, anxiety, appetite changes, depression, dizziness, fatigue, flu-like symptoms, headaches, insomnia, irritability, mood swings, shakes, and sleep changes. Again quite similar to quitting nicotine!
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-29126872
It's a behavioral issue...
Back 'atcha! (:-)
http://abc13.com/health/study-sugar-is-as-addictive-as-cocaine/533979/
Seriously though, I think we can agree that the medical profession is divided on the issue and there is no definitive research yet, which again is one of the points Taube's article makes...
A 2010 metastudy concluding sugar addiction is not supported by research: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261561409002398
And reposting @GottaBurnEmAll 's link to the 2016 metastudy concluding sugar addiction is not supported by research:
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00394-016-1229-6
Good links.
I am not yet convinced though that there isn't some benefit for people who have trouble moderating sugar consumption in thinking that their cravings/behaviour have similarities to an addiction. There's lots of good advice out there for alcoholics dealing with cravings and stressful situations for instance that seems useful to people trying to undo the habit of overeating sweets.
I have mixed feelings on it.
I think some of it is helpful, actually, although I also see people who claim "sugar addiction" using that term in a very different way than anyone in an addiction program for substances would (or should, anyway, people do, because people are people). Specifically, if someone said "oh, it's not my fault that I drank too much and did X, I'm an addict," people wouldn't buy it. But the whole point of the sugar addiction thing, for many, is to claim that unlike other slobs who got fat because they were undisciplined or whatever, they were ADDICTED and it's different for them.
Also, I bet many of the things that are in some ways analogous to that which would help addictive behaviors apply to ALL foods (certainly all highly palatable foods) and not sugar specifically. And to most humans, not just those who like the addiction label (which I think is pushed hard by people like Taubes and others on the internet).
Anyway, the bigger issue is that I also think it can be harmful. Even with true addictive substances, like alcohol (although alcohol addiction tends to be largely behavioral too), I think deciding you cannot drink without getting totally smashed tends to have a negative effect (usually a necessary one if you believe, as I do, that an alcoholic really can't drink normally and should give it up), often causing people to basically make the decision that they are drinking to excess every time they pick up a drink, since once they do they cannot help it.
In that there is evidence that the binge/restrict cycle plays into the development of food addictions (or whatever), so that telling yourself you cannot eat whatever (and are a bad person if you do and other such things) and then giving it up for a long time and giving in and overdoing and seeing that as confirmation, this is especially problematic. If you think just eating a bit is a failure and will make you eat a lot, that's almost always a self-confirming prophecy. So I do think it's dangerous to tell people that is true, when it probably is not, as opposed to telling them they can avoid it, but that there are behavioral triggers and work through those.
I'd still think that for many (including me) giving it up for a while might be helpful, or being careful about some of the triggers you'd hear about in AA (which are just common sense, really), like knowing you are more likely to be tempted when hungry, angry, lonely, tired, etc.
Oh, and finally, given that it's usually things YOU consider ultra palatable and not all sweets or everything (or only things) with sugar for most, I think it's a terrible idea to pretend it's all about sugar. Leads to people on MFP being scared of eating fruit or asking if a banana will hurt them.
I can't stay to continue the discussion, but I wanted to comment on the binge/restrict cycle. I have been thinking lately that my own binge/restrict cycles might have had more to do with underconsuming calories in general rather than not eating dessert. I'm not so sure that eating fewer or no sweet treats (but still eating plenty of calories, hopefully nutrient packed) will be more likely to cause me to eat sweet treats in great quantity at some point in time in the future. I think it may be the opposite.
I don't think it has that effect for everyone, and mindset matters.
(I am not sure if you understood me to be saying otherwise.)
Like I've said hundreds of times, I think reducing or eliminating for a period of time added sugar or other foods can be helpful and use that strategy myself. But telling yourself that something is BAD (or shameful) or even just that you cannot handle it, that it is a problem, CAN -- not must, but often does -- lead to a negative cycle that creates a behavior addiction or the like. Basically, shame from eating something you have told yourself is bad or shameful tends to trigger the "must avoid scary feelings" reaction (emotional eating which I do think has some similarities to the stifle feelings part of addiction, although that's not ALL that addiction is, which is why I don't call my own emotional eating an addiction). AND, especially, if you say "I cannot handle X, must be GOOD," and then blow it, it's really common to think "I blew it already, might as well go to town" and then that reinforces the belief that you can't just eat a bit. Plus there's the "this is the last time I am doing this so might as well make it worthwhile." One thing that helped me moderate, to the contrary, was consciously thinking "no more than X tonight, but if I want more I will have more tomorrow."
So I think telling yourself it is an addiction very often with these things can make the issue worse, and same with telling yourself you must not eat it, especially when that's colored with moral ideas, which food stuff so often is (I used to eat stuff I thought I should not in secret, and would eat way more doing that than when I got over it).
If you want to cut down or even give up on something because you make a reasoned decision that it's not worth the calories to you, that's different -- and I do that with many foods, and just don't ever eat them although I have not given them up. If you think that under lots of circumstances certain foods are triggers so easier not to eat (not because they are bad in themselves, but habitual reaction or taste preference), again, I am not questioning that at all, I also do it.4 -
http://healthdefine.com/medical-advice/what-is-aspartame-and-the-aspartame-side-effects
maybe the fact that the company that produces aspartame also produces herbicides should raise a red flag.
P&G produces toothpaste and dishwashing detergent. What's your point?11 -
I have just recently tried to eliminate all refined sugar (not fruits, grains, potatoes, etc) these last two weeks to try to help with gout issues. I typically have been losing 1-lb/week doing a 20:4 IF diet. I don't count cals and eat ad libitum in my eating window. During the last two weeks, I've lost 5-lbs and that includes the holidays where I ate a lot. I went to cheese as my go-to splurge item instead of the loads of sugary things around the kitchen and we had tons of it (I ate zero of it and wasn't even tempted because I associated it with gout). I would never give up fruits and whole grains but I think giving up refined sugars could really help. Just anecdotal evidence since I'm not logging cals. I will continue this and see what the long-term weight loss rate is. I think the preliminary evidence is outstanding!2
-
French_Peasant wrote: »@lyn_glenmont Buying a sack of sugar to add to cakes and pies and homemade treats is very different from having sugar added to almost everything you buy in a grocery store filled with processed food. Are you really arguing that people today eat in the same way they did 50 years ago--or in the 19th century?
I don't see that she made that argument at all. I think she made the point that people in the 1800s ate a crapload of sugar and bought it by the hundredweight. Just like the Amish do today.
I live in a 120-year-old farm house with a root cellar currently full of leeks and potatoes that I planted, nurtured and dug myself; shelves lined with jars of jam from strawberries, rhubarb, and peaches that I cultivated and processed myself, plus an insane amount of canned tomatoes and pickled items of every description, plus multiple freezers stuffed to capacity. I have vinegar mothers living in my basement, sourdough organisms living in my fridge, god knows what kinds of critters living in the kraut that is pickling in a crock on my counter, and I have 8 linear feet of shelving dedicated to cookbooks passed down through my family or featuring classical and traditional from-scratch European and American cuisine. I go to local farms to get my eggs, raw milk, and many of our meats, and often visit with the animals that produce them and the farmers that raise them. I have 7,000 ish square feet of assorted gardens under cultivation.
Please, illuminate me as to the evils of the 1 T of sugar I put in my sour dough loaves or the 1 cup I put into my peach or apple or strawberry-rhubarb pie, with more sprinkled on the top crust, of course.
I am housebroken and tidy. Can I come live with you?
12 -
Hmmm. It all comes down to gluttony and sloth then? And a fat enough wallet to afford you or some other sort of support?
No they can control it IF THEY REALLY WANT TO. There really aren't any "sugar/carb addicts". There are people who like it more than they like eating other stuff because it tastes good.OP---you are correct and so is Gary Taubes---fully half of people in the US (and some other places) are obese or overweight, they can not control the intake of sugar/carbs and they are having negative health impacts.
Here at MFP, we hear from many who can eat sugar/carbs within CiCo and those ppl refuse to believe that this does not work for sugar/carb addicts.
And as a professional in the business, I'm sure I've dealt personally with more overweight/obese people than many of the posters and can tell you emphatically that BEHAVIOR can be altered with consistency and support.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
The funny thing is that it's pretty easy to connect addiction to a religious notion of gluttony (I am speaking of alcohol specifically).
Yet for you it seems that sugar addiction = not gluttony.
Fat for any other reason = gluttony.
Personally, I think it's normally not addiction, but gluttony is usually way too simplistic/wrong too. And I say that as someone who will cop to being both gluttonous and slothful at times.4 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »http://healthdefine.com/medical-advice/what-is-aspartame-and-the-aspartame-side-effects
maybe the fact that the company that produces aspartame also produces herbicides should raise a red flag.
P&G produces toothpaste and dishwashing detergent. What's your point?
Well, back in the '80s I believe there was a rumor spread that P&G was promoting Satan.
Maybe it's because of the diversity of product lines?8 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »French_Peasant wrote: »@lyn_glenmont Buying a sack of sugar to add to cakes and pies and homemade treats is very different from having sugar added to almost everything you buy in a grocery store filled with processed food. Are you really arguing that people today eat in the same way they did 50 years ago--or in the 19th century?
I don't see that she made that argument at all. I think she made the point that people in the 1800s ate a crapload of sugar and bought it by the hundredweight. Just like the Amish do today.
I live in a 120-year-old farm house with a root cellar currently full of leeks and potatoes that I planted, nurtured and dug myself; shelves lined with jars of jam from strawberries, rhubarb, and peaches that I cultivated and processed myself, plus an insane amount of canned tomatoes and pickled items of every description, plus multiple freezers stuffed to capacity. I have vinegar mothers living in my basement, sourdough organisms living in my fridge, god knows what kinds of critters living in the kraut that is pickling in a crock on my counter, and I have 8 linear feet of shelving dedicated to cookbooks passed down through my family or featuring classical and traditional from-scratch European and American cuisine. I go to local farms to get my eggs, raw milk, and many of our meats, and often visit with the animals that produce them and the farmers that raise them. I have 7,000 ish square feet of assorted gardens under cultivation.
Please, illuminate me as to the evils of the 1 T of sugar I put in my sour dough loaves or the 1 cup I put into my peach or apple or strawberry-rhubarb pie, with more sprinkled on the top crust, of course.
I am housebroken and tidy. Can I come live with you?
I live closer so will get there first, sorry!2 -
Our body has absolutely no use of sugar. None! -we eat it because it tastes good. It's a treat. And we like to treat ourselves,even if it's good or bad. Some people are more likely to get addicted to "treats", (in some forms), than others
Salt is something the body needs, BUT not much-just enough! Happy New year 
You may want to brush up on your physiology a bit. The human brain relies on glucose (that's a sugar, in case you didn't know) as its main source of energy. The brain accounts for 2% of your body weight, but consumes about 20% of your glucose-derived energy. (All of which may actually help explain some of the posts in this thread.)
As for the whole addiction BS - I've seen alcoholics who will drink mouthwash for its alcohol content when they don't have access to booze. I've seen plenty of heroin and meth addicts who will commit burglaries or steal from their own families to support their habits. Show me a "sugar addict" who will grab a spoon and start shoveling down sugar from a bag when their usual treats aren't available if you want to talk about sugar truly being addictive. Or maybe one who goes and breaks into other people's houses to eat their sugary treats. The addiction hypothesis is nothing more than a) fearmongering and b) an attempt to absolve people of personal responsibility.10 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
Yes, I read this whole piece, and their study is weak and preliminary, because it's based on animal findings and presumes an addiction to soda consumption in humans.
Silliness.
Others would disagree with your assessment:
“This study represents, in my opinion, an outstanding step forward in understanding the many intricate aspects of feeding behaviors,” says Antonello Bonci, scientific director at the National Institute on Drug Abuse, who was not involved with the research. “While there have been many excellent studies in the past, looking at the compulsive drive of substance-use disorders, this is the first time that a study goes very deeply and comprehensively into the same aspects for compulsive feeding behavior. From a translational perspective, the extraordinary multidisciplinary approach used in this study produced a very exciting finding: that compulsive sugar consumption is mediated by a different neural circuit than physiological, healthy eating.”
But anyway, I'm sure those who are interested will read the report for themselves.
Compulsive behaviors =/= addiction, even if the neural pathways are different.4 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »chocolate_owl wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »
There is no withdrawal...a craving is different than withdrawal symptoms...this is just perpetuating nonsense.
Cravings are just one of the symptoms of withdrawal. People who have given up sugar also report other withdrawal symptoms, including: anger, anxiety, appetite changes, depression, dizziness, fatigue, flu-like symptoms, headaches, insomnia, irritability, mood swings, shakes, and sleep changes. Again quite similar to quitting nicotine!
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-29126872
It's a behavioral issue...
Back 'atcha! (:-)
http://abc13.com/health/study-sugar-is-as-addictive-as-cocaine/533979/
Seriously though, I think we can agree that the medical profession is divided on the issue and there is no definitive research yet, which again is one of the points Taube's article makes...
A 2010 metastudy concluding sugar addiction is not supported by research: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261561409002398
And reposting @GottaBurnEmAll 's link to the 2016 metastudy concluding sugar addiction is not supported by research:
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00394-016-1229-6
Good links.
I am not yet convinced though that there isn't some benefit for people who have trouble moderating sugar consumption in thinking that their cravings/behaviour have similarities to an addiction. There's lots of good advice out there for alcoholics dealing with cravings and stressful situations for instance that seems useful to people trying to undo the habit of overeating sweets.
I have mixed feelings on it.
I think some of it is helpful, actually, although I also see people who claim "sugar addiction" using that term in a very different way than anyone in an addiction program for substances would (or should, anyway, people do, because people are people). Specifically, if someone said "oh, it's not my fault that I drank too much and did X, I'm an addict," people wouldn't buy it. But the whole point of the sugar addiction thing, for many, is to claim that unlike other slobs who got fat because they were undisciplined or whatever, they were ADDICTED and it's different for them.
Also, I bet many of the things that are in some ways analogous to that which would help addictive behaviors apply to ALL foods (certainly all highly palatable foods) and not sugar specifically. And to most humans, not just those who like the addiction label (which I think is pushed hard by people like Taubes and others on the internet).
Anyway, the bigger issue is that I also think it can be harmful. Even with true addictive substances, like alcohol (although alcohol addiction tends to be largely behavioral too), I think deciding you cannot drink without getting totally smashed tends to have a negative effect (usually a necessary one if you believe, as I do, that an alcoholic really can't drink normally and should give it up), often causing people to basically make the decision that they are drinking to excess every time they pick up a drink, since once they do they cannot help it.
In that there is evidence that the binge/restrict cycle plays into the development of food addictions (or whatever), so that telling yourself you cannot eat whatever (and are a bad person if you do and other such things) and then giving it up for a long time and giving in and overdoing and seeing that as confirmation, this is especially problematic. If you think just eating a bit is a failure and will make you eat a lot, that's almost always a self-confirming prophecy. So I do think it's dangerous to tell people that is true, when it probably is not, as opposed to telling them they can avoid it, but that there are behavioral triggers and work through those.
I'd still think that for many (including me) giving it up for a while might be helpful, or being careful about some of the triggers you'd hear about in AA (which are just common sense, really), like knowing you are more likely to be tempted when hungry, angry, lonely, tired, etc.
Oh, and finally, given that it's usually things YOU consider ultra palatable and not all sweets or everything (or only things) with sugar for most, I think it's a terrible idea to pretend it's all about sugar. Leads to people on MFP being scared of eating fruit or asking if a banana will hurt them.
I can't stay to continue the discussion, but I wanted to comment on the binge/restrict cycle. I have been thinking lately that my own binge/restrict cycles might have had more to do with underconsuming calories in general rather than not eating dessert. I'm not so sure that eating fewer or no sweet treats (but still eating plenty of calories, hopefully nutrient packed) will be more likely to cause me to eat sweet treats in great quantity at some point in time in the future. I think it may be the opposite.
I don't think it has that effect for everyone, and mindset matters.
(I am not sure if you understood me to be saying otherwise.)
Like I've said hundreds of times, I think reducing or eliminating for a period of time added sugar or other foods can be helpful and use that strategy myself. But telling yourself that something is BAD (or shameful) or even just that you cannot handle it, that it is a problem, CAN -- not must, but often does -- lead to a negative cycle that creates a behavior addiction or the like. Basically, shame from eating something you have told yourself is bad or shameful tends to trigger the "must avoid scary feelings" reaction (emotional eating which I do think has some similarities to the stifle feelings part of addiction, although that's not ALL that addiction is, which is why I don't call my own emotional eating an addiction). AND, especially, if you say "I cannot handle X, must be GOOD," and then blow it, it's really common to think "I blew it already, might as well go to town" and then that reinforces the belief that you can't just eat a bit. Plus there's the "this is the last time I am doing this so might as well make it worthwhile." One thing that helped me moderate, to the contrary, was consciously thinking "no more than X tonight, but if I want more I will have more tomorrow."
So I think telling yourself it is an addiction very often with these things can make the issue worse, and same with telling yourself you must not eat it, especially when that's colored with moral ideas, which food stuff so often is (I used to eat stuff I thought I should not in secret, and would eat way more doing that than when I got over it).
If you want to cut down or even give up on something because you make a reasoned decision that it's not worth the calories to you, that's different -- and I do that with many foods, and just don't ever eat them although I have not given them up. If you think that under lots of circumstances certain foods are triggers so easier not to eat (not because they are bad in themselves, but habitual reaction or taste preference), again, I am not questioning that at all, I also do it.
I want to Awesome this 1000 times.1 -
@Ty_Floyd I find it frankly amazing how angrily people are reacting to the information you presented quite neutrally.
For me, sugar may not have been as addicting as cocaine, but since reducing it drastically from my diet (going from a ridiculous 125g or something per day!) to a more sensible 24g per day has made a world of difference in my cravings. I think there are other people for whom that is also true. Do I believe that sugar is a drug? Nah. Do I think trying to avoid it as much as possible is very beneficial *for some people* in controlling cravings? Absolutely. I'm glad I discovered people like Taubes because it helped me think hard about what sugar does to my body and make thoughtful choices about how much of it I want to consume. Maybe the article you shared will have the same impact on others. Thanks for posting it.
Thank you for a voice of reason. I've given up on MFP, for the most part, when it comes to any dietary sanity. It's just not even worth the time anymore. I feel for people that post for the first time and don't realize they are about to be hit with a grenade. Instead of it being that both sides could have valid points, and if people would "eat the meat and spit out the bones" of both sides, there might actually be some semblance of balance. Sadly, anything alternative to the AMA is "woo" and all things "AMA"/"science" are gospel. When the truth is, there are points of truth from both sides and points on both sides that have no merit. Sorry for those that got dragged into the fray unknowingly. I would encourage you to use the info that is useful and makes the most sense for you and set aside the rest.
5 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »French_Peasant wrote: »@lyn_glenmont Buying a sack of sugar to add to cakes and pies and homemade treats is very different from having sugar added to almost everything you buy in a grocery store filled with processed food. Are you really arguing that people today eat in the same way they did 50 years ago--or in the 19th century?
I don't see that she made that argument at all. I think she made the point that people in the 1800s ate a crapload of sugar and bought it by the hundredweight. Just like the Amish do today.
I live in a 120-year-old farm house with a root cellar currently full of leeks and potatoes that I planted, nurtured and dug myself; shelves lined with jars of jam from strawberries, rhubarb, and peaches that I cultivated and processed myself, plus an insane amount of canned tomatoes and pickled items of every description, plus multiple freezers stuffed to capacity. I have vinegar mothers living in my basement, sourdough organisms living in my fridge, god knows what kinds of critters living in the kraut that is pickling in a crock on my counter, and I have 8 linear feet of shelving dedicated to cookbooks passed down through my family or featuring classical and traditional from-scratch European and American cuisine. I go to local farms to get my eggs, raw milk, and many of our meats, and often visit with the animals that produce them and the farmers that raise them. I have 7,000 ish square feet of assorted gardens under cultivation.
Please, illuminate me as to the evils of the 1 T of sugar I put in my sour dough loaves or the 1 cup I put into my peach or apple or strawberry-rhubarb pie, with more sprinkled on the top crust, of course.
I am housebroken and tidy. Can I come live with you?
Ha ha! Maybe i will just send you my surplus of pickled jalapenos and jam. 3 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »http://healthdefine.com/medical-advice/what-is-aspartame-and-the-aspartame-side-effects
maybe the fact that the company that produces aspartame also produces herbicides should raise a red flag.
P&G produces toothpaste and dishwashing detergent. What's your point?
Well, back in the '80s I believe there was a rumor spread that P&G was promoting Satan.
Maybe it's because of the diversity of product lines?
I actually remember the controversy in the 80s when Philip Morris bought Kraft and people thought they were going to start bundling cigarettes with American Cheese slices...
Just shows how little people understand about global economics and multinational corporations if they think that companies manufacturing and selling completely diverse products means some sort of conspiracy theory against consumers.6 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »French_Peasant wrote: »@lyn_glenmont Buying a sack of sugar to add to cakes and pies and homemade treats is very different from having sugar added to almost everything you buy in a grocery store filled with processed food. Are you really arguing that people today eat in the same way they did 50 years ago--or in the 19th century?
I don't see that she made that argument at all. I think she made the point that people in the 1800s ate a crapload of sugar and bought it by the hundredweight. Just like the Amish do today.
I live in a 120-year-old farm house with a root cellar currently full of leeks and potatoes that I planted, nurtured and dug myself; shelves lined with jars of jam from strawberries, rhubarb, and peaches that I cultivated and processed myself, plus an insane amount of canned tomatoes and pickled items of every description, plus multiple freezers stuffed to capacity. I have vinegar mothers living in my basement, sourdough organisms living in my fridge, god knows what kinds of critters living in the kraut that is pickling in a crock on my counter, and I have 8 linear feet of shelving dedicated to cookbooks passed down through my family or featuring classical and traditional from-scratch European and American cuisine. I go to local farms to get my eggs, raw milk, and many of our meats, and often visit with the animals that produce them and the farmers that raise them. I have 7,000 ish square feet of assorted gardens under cultivation.
Please, illuminate me as to the evils of the 1 T of sugar I put in my sour dough loaves or the 1 cup I put into my peach or apple or strawberry-rhubarb pie, with more sprinkled on the top crust, of course.
I am housebroken and tidy. Can I come live with you?
I live closer so will get there first, sorry!
I will up the ante, then, by offering free gardening services.
3 -
Our body has absolutely no use of sugar. None! -we eat it because it tastes good. It's a treat. And we like to treat ourselves,even if it's good or bad. Some people are more likely to get addicted to "treats", (in some forms), than others Salt is something the body needs, BUT not much-just enough! Happy New year
You may want to brush up on your physiology a bit. The human brain relies on glucose (that's a sugar, in case you didn't know) as its main source of energy. The brain accounts for 2% of your body weight, but consumes about 20% of your glucose-derived energy. (All of which may actually help explain some of the posts in this thread.)
As for the whole addiction BS - I've seen alcoholics who will drink mouthwash for its alcohol content when they don't have access to booze. I've seen plenty of heroin and meth addicts who will commit burglaries or steal from their own families to support their habits. Show me a "sugar addict" who will grab a spoon and start shoveling down sugar from a bag when their usual treats aren't available if you want to talk about sugar truly being addictive. Or maybe one who goes and breaks into other people's houses to eat their sugary treats. The addiction hypothesis is nothing more than a) fearmongering and b) an attempt to absolve people of personal responsibility.
Don't forget whoring yourself out...3 -
I have just recently tried to eliminate all refined sugar (not fruits, grains, potatoes, etc) these last two weeks to try to help with gout issues. I typically have been losing 1-lb/week doing a 20:4 IF diet. I don't count cals and eat ad libitum in my eating window. During the last two weeks, I've lost 5-lbs and that includes the holidays where I ate a lot. I went to cheese as my go-to splurge item instead of the loads of sugary things around the kitchen and we had tons of it (I ate zero of it and wasn't even tempted because I associated it with gout). I would never give up fruits and whole grains but I think giving up refined sugars could really help. Just anecdotal evidence since I'm not logging cals. I will continue this and see what the long-term weight loss rate is. I think the preliminary evidence is outstanding!
Great! That works for you, but others can enjoy whatever they want to eat with no adverse issues. And the fact remains, that our bodies/brains, do need sugar, and it is virtually impossible to eliminate it, nor should we.
We need to focus on the issue of overeating and what works for each of us to achieve and maintain healthy body weight. For most, or at least many people, that means moderation in all foods and eating less calories than we burn to lose weight and eating @ the number of calories we burn to maintain. How we get there and stay there is up to each of us.
5 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »Our body has absolutely no use of sugar. None! -we eat it because it tastes good. It's a treat. And we like to treat ourselves,even if it's good or bad. Some people are more likely to get addicted to "treats", (in some forms), than others Salt is something the body needs, BUT not much-just enough! Happy New year
You may want to brush up on your physiology a bit. The human brain relies on glucose (that's a sugar, in case you didn't know) as its main source of energy. The brain accounts for 2% of your body weight, but consumes about 20% of your glucose-derived energy. (All of which may actually help explain some of the posts in this thread.)
As for the whole addiction BS - I've seen alcoholics who will drink mouthwash for its alcohol content when they don't have access to booze. I've seen plenty of heroin and meth addicts who will commit burglaries or steal from their own families to support their habits. Show me a "sugar addict" who will grab a spoon and start shoveling down sugar from a bag when their usual treats aren't available if you want to talk about sugar truly being addictive. Or maybe one who goes and breaks into other people's houses to eat their sugary treats. The addiction hypothesis is nothing more than a) fearmongering and b) an attempt to absolve people of personal responsibility.
Don't forget whoring yourself out...
That too. Look up the urban dictionary definition of "strawberry" (warning: nsfw). I have yet to ever hear of a prostitute exchanging their services for sugar.0 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »French_Peasant wrote: »@lyn_glenmont Buying a sack of sugar to add to cakes and pies and homemade treats is very different from having sugar added to almost everything you buy in a grocery store filled with processed food. Are you really arguing that people today eat in the same way they did 50 years ago--or in the 19th century?
I don't see that she made that argument at all. I think she made the point that people in the 1800s ate a crapload of sugar and bought it by the hundredweight. Just like the Amish do today.
I live in a 120-year-old farm house with a root cellar currently full of leeks and potatoes that I planted, nurtured and dug myself; shelves lined with jars of jam from strawberries, rhubarb, and peaches that I cultivated and processed myself, plus an insane amount of canned tomatoes and pickled items of every description, plus multiple freezers stuffed to capacity. I have vinegar mothers living in my basement, sourdough organisms living in my fridge, god knows what kinds of critters living in the kraut that is pickling in a crock on my counter, and I have 8 linear feet of shelving dedicated to cookbooks passed down through my family or featuring classical and traditional from-scratch European and American cuisine. I go to local farms to get my eggs, raw milk, and many of our meats, and often visit with the animals that produce them and the farmers that raise them. I have 7,000 ish square feet of assorted gardens under cultivation.
Please, illuminate me as to the evils of the 1 T of sugar I put in my sour dough loaves or the 1 cup I put into my peach or apple or strawberry-rhubarb pie, with more sprinkled on the top crust, of course.
I am housebroken and tidy. Can I come live with you?
I live closer so will get there first, sorry!
I will up the ante, then, by offering free gardening services.
And I'll come along to supervise. And taste test. 1 -
@lyn_glenmont Buying a sack of sugar to add to cakes and pies and homemade treats is very different from having sugar added to almost everything you buy in a grocery store filled with processed food. Are you really arguing that people today eat in the same way they did 50 years ago--or in the 19th century?
This point was raised early on in the thread when someone suggested that we couldn't know he long term effects of sugar on our body since this is such a new thing. Repeatedly, people have pointed out that sugar has been consumed for thousands of years in various forms.
How people eat today has little to do with whether sugar is, in and of itself, addictive. The fact remains, it isn't chemically addictive. If it were, from a molecular standpoint, then it wouldn't matter if it were sugar in the domino bag, the banana in your fruit bowl, the cookie in the office break room, or the carrots you make for dinner. They all contain sugar and the chemical composition and how it is processed in the body is the same.
People eat too many calories today, period. Many of those calories can come from added sugar, but they also come from fats and other areas which just are tasty. Acknowledging that while sugar is not the sole scapegoat while suggesting though that cutting back on added sugar could be a way to reduce overall calories and address many obesity related health issues is the goal of many of the posters here.
I'm not sure why people have such a hard time with understanding that there can be a middle ground and that people should look at the true root cause rather than identifying a convenient scapegoat to blame for so many problems...5 -
kshama2001 wrote: »Yes, I'm not claiming that sugar (or food) is physically addicting like crack is. I've mentioned behavioral addiction earlier in this thread. Gambling is a behavioral addiction. There are drugs to help with physical withdrawal, but other than that, both types of addictions can be treated similarly.
I'm curious if there isn't something to this. Is it possible that sugar, while not physically addicting, might be emotionally addicting to some people? Is there a difference between "needing" to gamble and "needing" comfort foods? And is this the type of addiction Taubes is (poorly) talking about?
Gambling isn't bad and many can enjoy a night out playing poker, slots etc. without spending the last of their food and rent money, but to some they can't stop.
I'm firmly in the "sugar is not evil and Taubes is and idiot" camp, but am curious about the implication for some.
1 -
This thread just keeps on going.2
-
-
cwolfman13 wrote: »Our body has absolutely no use of sugar. None! -we eat it because it tastes good. It's a treat. And we like to treat ourselves,even if it's good or bad. Some people are more likely to get addicted to "treats", (in some forms), than others Salt is something the body needs, BUT not much-just enough! Happy New year
You may want to brush up on your physiology a bit. The human brain relies on glucose (that's a sugar, in case you didn't know) as its main source of energy. The brain accounts for 2% of your body weight, but consumes about 20% of your glucose-derived energy. (All of which may actually help explain some of the posts in this thread.)
As for the whole addiction BS - I've seen alcoholics who will drink mouthwash for its alcohol content when they don't have access to booze. I've seen plenty of heroin and meth addicts who will commit burglaries or steal from their own families to support their habits. Show me a "sugar addict" who will grab a spoon and start shoveling down sugar from a bag when their usual treats aren't available if you want to talk about sugar truly being addictive. Or maybe one who goes and breaks into other people's houses to eat their sugary treats. The addiction hypothesis is nothing more than a) fearmongering and b) an attempt to absolve people of personal responsibility.
Don't forget whoring yourself out...
That too. I have yet to ever hear of a prostitute exchanging their services for sugar.
Can confirm.
In my line of work, I see a lot of young women in the sex trade industry whose pimps deliberately get them addicted to drugs in order to keep them dependent, compliant and trapped.
A Klondike Bar has never entered this equation.11 -
3rdof7sisters wrote: »I have just recently tried to eliminate all refined sugar (not fruits, grains, potatoes, etc) these last two weeks to try to help with gout issues. I typically have been losing 1-lb/week doing a 20:4 IF diet. I don't count cals and eat ad libitum in my eating window. During the last two weeks, I've lost 5-lbs and that includes the holidays where I ate a lot. I went to cheese as my go-to splurge item instead of the loads of sugary things around the kitchen and we had tons of it (I ate zero of it and wasn't even tempted because I associated it with gout). I would never give up fruits and whole grains but I think giving up refined sugars could really help. Just anecdotal evidence since I'm not logging cals. I will continue this and see what the long-term weight loss rate is. I think the preliminary evidence is outstanding!
Great! That works for you, but others can enjoy whatever they want to eat with no adverse issues. And the fact remains, that our bodies/brains, do need sugar, and it is virtually impossible to eliminate it, nor should we.
We need to focus on the issue of overeating and what works for each of us to achieve and maintain healthy body weight. For most, or at least many people, that means moderation in all foods and eating less calories than we burn to lose weight and eating @ the number of calories we burn to maintain. How we get there and stay there is up to each of us.
I think lots of refined sugar will have adverse issues. Moderate use for most probably wont although I think a compete elimination of refined sugars could possibly help a person lose weight faster than if there were not eliminated. When I hit maintenance and if I'm not having gout issues, I will have a little here and there. I will probably never give up fruits and grains because I don't want to miss out on the micro-nutrients there and I like them.
I do believe the brain can run off of butyrate (derived from fat) very well and whatever glucose the body needs can also be generated from fat (gluconeogenesis). I don't think there is any requirement for the human body to have to eat carbs. I sure as heck will not eat that way though because just eating fats and proteins sounds horrible to me and I'm not sure that is healthy.1 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »Our body has absolutely no use of sugar. None! -we eat it because it tastes good. It's a treat. And we like to treat ourselves,even if it's good or bad. Some people are more likely to get addicted to "treats", (in some forms), than others Salt is something the body needs, BUT not much-just enough! Happy New year
You may want to brush up on your physiology a bit. The human brain relies on glucose (that's a sugar, in case you didn't know) as its main source of energy. The brain accounts for 2% of your body weight, but consumes about 20% of your glucose-derived energy. (All of which may actually help explain some of the posts in this thread.)
As for the whole addiction BS - I've seen alcoholics who will drink mouthwash for its alcohol content when they don't have access to booze. I've seen plenty of heroin and meth addicts who will commit burglaries or steal from their own families to support their habits. Show me a "sugar addict" who will grab a spoon and start shoveling down sugar from a bag when their usual treats aren't available if you want to talk about sugar truly being addictive. Or maybe one who goes and breaks into other people's houses to eat their sugary treats. The addiction hypothesis is nothing more than a) fearmongering and b) an attempt to absolve people of personal responsibility.
Don't forget whoring yourself out...
That too. I have yet to ever hear of a prostitute exchanging their services for sugar.
Can confirm.
In my line of work, I see a lot of young women in the sex trade industry whose pimps deliberately get them addicted to drugs in order to keep them dependent, compliant and trapped.
A Klondike Bar has never entered this equation.
But is that just a narrow view of addiction? Pot isn't physically addictive, but there are people addicted to it emotionally.1 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »Our body has absolutely no use of sugar. None! -we eat it because it tastes good. It's a treat. And we like to treat ourselves,even if it's good or bad. Some people are more likely to get addicted to "treats", (in some forms), than others Salt is something the body needs, BUT not much-just enough! Happy New year
You may want to brush up on your physiology a bit. The human brain relies on glucose (that's a sugar, in case you didn't know) as its main source of energy. The brain accounts for 2% of your body weight, but consumes about 20% of your glucose-derived energy. (All of which may actually help explain some of the posts in this thread.)
As for the whole addiction BS - I've seen alcoholics who will drink mouthwash for its alcohol content when they don't have access to booze. I've seen plenty of heroin and meth addicts who will commit burglaries or steal from their own families to support their habits. Show me a "sugar addict" who will grab a spoon and start shoveling down sugar from a bag when their usual treats aren't available if you want to talk about sugar truly being addictive. Or maybe one who goes and breaks into other people's houses to eat their sugary treats. The addiction hypothesis is nothing more than a) fearmongering and b) an attempt to absolve people of personal responsibility.
Don't forget whoring yourself out...
That too. I have yet to ever hear of a prostitute exchanging their services for sugar.
Can confirm.
In my line of work, I see a lot of young women in the sex trade industry whose pimps deliberately get them addicted to drugs in order to keep them dependent, compliant and trapped.
A Klondike Bar has never entered this equation.
What would you do-oo-oo for a Klondike Bar?8
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
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K 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
- 96.3K 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