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
Options
Replies
-
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.
I have heard of people doing weird things like stealing co-workers sugary treats.
I've heard of people doing weird things like stealing co-workers' pens and pencils too. Does that mean they're addicted to pens and pencils?
No, they may just be a klepto or have a need of a pen. Do they have a need of the co-workers sweets?
If you simply have need for a pen, you'd usually give it back once you're done. The two most stolen things in the world are pens and lighters, I don't think there's that many kleptos or people so forgetful they don't realize they just borrowed that pen in their hand.
"Opportunity creates thieves", is that a saying in English too?
It's free food of low enough value that no one really cares too much when it's gone.
2 -
...Whatever anyone wants to call it, the reality is the same: Abstinence is a viable option for those who struggle moderating. Whether you struggle with refraining from overeating bacon or cupcakes, abstinence might work for you. On the other hand, many will find abstinence to be unsustainable and even triggering. Those individuals would probably find greater success moderating...
Truth, and I don't think anybody is arguing that point. Abstinence is a viable option for virtually anything that somebody has trouble moderating. The disconnect in every one of these ridiculous sugar threads is the blanket fearmongering about "sugarz iz da debilz!!1!" and how it's poison and just like cocaine and heroin and you're going to end up finding yourself scantily clad on a dark street corner selling your body for your next Twinkie if you so much as taste the demon sugar.
People have argued that point in the past...I haven't read the whole thread here. While I don't doubt that people have said "Sugar is the devil" or that it is "just like cocaine and heroine" I think the debate will better served if the hyperbolic outliers are ignored.
Saying "I am addicted to sugar" is not the same thing as saying that it is a substance which will create a physical dependence. This seems to be the sticking point for the argument. @RobD520 had a very informative thread which discussed this concept a while back. Unfortunately, this is such an emotionally charged subject that people are reluctant to put forth the effort to consider the actual message.
For what it's worth, I think Taubes in general paints with too wide a brush in seemingly saying sugar is addictive to all people.
I wouldn't really call them hyperbolic outliers...it's basically the premise from the start of this thread and most sugar threads in general which makes it pretty much impossible to ignore. In my experience, people tend to lean towards extremes and completely discount context and dosage...it's either good or bad, black or white...no middle ground.
It is well evidenced in this thread...apparently all of us who are arguing against the notion of sugar addiction are all "praising sugar" and must eat all the sugarz which isn't remotely true...it's kind of like when people say that you can have some pizza from time to time turns into, "you must be living off junk food"...to the best of my knowledge, everyone who is arguing against the premise of the OP and the article, do in fact eat overwhelmingly healthy and balanced diets to include sugar in appropriate dosages in the context of the overall diet as a whole as well as activity...like finishing a 1/2 century and having a chocolate milk to aid in recovery for example...I actually had a lady call me out on that once...why would such a fit person put that poison into their bodies? Context and dosage.11 -
benjaminlight wrote: »--stuff--
Ah the old dopamine thing that was already talked about. It's still wrong.
Opiates aren't addictive because they release dopamine. Dopamine release is not what makes an addiction They're way worse than that. They actually have a similar structure to dopamine themselves.
In easily understandable terms, the opiates pretend they're your feel-good hormones to your brain receptors, only problem is that their effect is much stronger than those hormones, this results in your own body not producing much of those hormones anymore because you have a much better outside source of them. And that's why you get horrible withdrawal symptoms, your body loses its ability to feel good without the drug.
http://www.howtokickheroin.com/how-heroin-works/
Here. This is why Heroin is a drug.
This is why these comparisons are horribly distasteful on top of being factually wrong.10 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »...Whatever anyone wants to call it, the reality is the same: Abstinence is a viable option for those who struggle moderating. Whether you struggle with refraining from overeating bacon or cupcakes, abstinence might work for you. On the other hand, many will find abstinence to be unsustainable and even triggering. Those individuals would probably find greater success moderating...
Truth, and I don't think anybody is arguing that point. Abstinence is a viable option for virtually anything that somebody has trouble moderating. The disconnect in every one of these ridiculous sugar threads is the blanket fearmongering about "sugarz iz da debilz!!1!" and how it's poison and just like cocaine and heroin and you're going to end up finding yourself scantily clad on a dark street corner selling your body for your next Twinkie if you so much as taste the demon sugar.
People have argued that point in the past...I haven't read the whole thread here. While I don't doubt that people have said "Sugar is the devil" or that it is "just like cocaine and heroine" I think the debate will better served if the hyperbolic outliers are ignored.
Saying "I am addicted to sugar" is not the same thing as saying that it is a substance which will create a physical dependence. This seems to be the sticking point for the argument. @RobD520 had a very informative thread which discussed this concept a while back. Unfortunately, this is such an emotionally charged subject that people are reluctant to put forth the effort to consider the actual message.
For what it's worth, I think Taubes in general paints with too wide a brush in seemingly saying sugar is addictive to all people.
I wouldn't really call them hyperbolic outliers...it's basically the premise from the start of this thread and most sugar threads in general which makes it pretty much impossible to ignore. In my experience, people tend to lean towards extremes and completely discount context and dosage...it's either good or bad, black or white...no middle ground.
It is well evidenced in this thread...apparently all of us who are arguing against the notion of sugar addiction are all "praising sugar" and must eat all the sugarz which isn't remotely true...it's kind of like when people say that you can have some pizza from time to time turns into, "you must be living off junk food"...to the best of my knowledge, everyone who is arguing against the premise of the OP and the article, do in fact eat overwhelmingly healthy and balanced diets to include sugar in appropriate dosages in the context of the overall diet as a whole as well as activity...like finishing a 1/2 century and having a chocolate milk to aid in recovery for example...I actually had a lady call me out on that once...why would such a fit person put that poison into their bodies? Context and dosage.
In fact, the point you're making has been reiterated over and over again.
The point that if someone feels the need or desire to restrict, they should certainly do so has been conceded numerous times as well.
Fine distinctions which have been important for those of us finding success in our path to settling our relationship with food are being missed here, and it's fairly frustrating to keep pointing them out only to have our remarks twisted.
For example, I never said nor implied that everyone who gives up sugar is shifting blame. Yet, that was how what I said was twisted.
I myself have given up plenty of things I used to eat (potato chips or Trader Joe's Crunchy Cheetos knock-offs, for example) because I find that I can't moderate them. The fine distinction is that I am not shifting my blame onto the idea that potato chips are the problem rather than me.
5 -
...Whatever anyone wants to call it, the reality is the same: Abstinence is a viable option for those who struggle moderating. Whether you struggle with refraining from overeating bacon or cupcakes, abstinence might work for you. On the other hand, many will find abstinence to be unsustainable and even triggering. Those individuals would probably find greater success moderating...
Truth, and I don't think anybody is arguing that point. Abstinence is a viable option for virtually anything that somebody has trouble moderating. The disconnect in every one of these ridiculous sugar threads is the blanket fearmongering about "sugarz iz da debilz!!1!" and how it's poison and just like cocaine and heroin and you're going to end up finding yourself scantily clad on a dark street corner selling your body for your next Twinkie if you so much as taste the demon sugar.
People have argued that point in the past...I haven't read the whole thread here. While I don't doubt that people have said "Sugar is the devil" or that it is "just like cocaine and heroine" I think the debate will better served if the hyperbolic outliers are ignored.
Saying "I am addicted to sugar" is not the same thing as saying that it is a substance which will create a physical dependence. This seems to be the sticking point for the argument. @RobD520 had a very informative thread which discussed this concept a while back. Unfortunately, this is such an emotionally charged subject that people are reluctant to put forth the effort to consider the actual message.
For what it's worth, I think Taubes in general paints with too wide a brush in seemingly saying sugar is addictive to all people.
I don't think this particular thread can move past the hyperbolic; they're not outliers here.
I agree that abstaining from a substance you struggle to moderate is a fine idea if that's what works for you. I think the point of the comment you originally responded to was that there were plenty of people who claimed to be "addicts" who found they could moderate, showing that it wasn't the substance that was the problem. It was the behavior, and once the behavior was addressed, consumption was properly regulated.
I think the problem with claiming "I'm addicted to sugar" is that in that statement there's no distinction between a substance dependence and a behavioral disorder, no clarification. While I know some behavior disorders (i.e. gambling) follow a similar pattern as substance addiction, I do kind of wish the DSM-V hadn't taken the first step to integrate them under the addiction umbrella if only because of the debating of semantics that's resulted. While the addiction model works for behavior issues that aren't consumable - gambling, sex, internet - when we get into the whys of overconsumption, it makes discussions like this murky at best and full of extremes and vitriol at worst.4 -
Sure they mean that. Too bad those two things are one and the same.10 -
And it's just as ridiculous to think that the body treats refined/added sugar any differently than it does naturally occurring sugar.5 -
The point being, though, that as far as your body is concerned there's absolutely no difference between the two.6 -
They should deprive the world of aspartame like they deprived the world of peanut butter products.
Did something happen to peanut butter products that I don't know about?2 -
I don't know any high carbers...if anything, I'd say most of the people posting eat high protein diets or moderate amounts of all three macros. I'm pretty balanced myself as I see no need for extremes...
I'm a high-carber! helloooo 0 -
KatzeDerNacht22 wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »KatzeDerNacht22 wrote: »I am amused at people who think sugar can not be addictive. ;O
Scientists amuse you?
I'm not even, yeah no, shouldn't had said that on here, I know how you people are >.<
Reasonable?3 -
stevencloser wrote: »benjaminlight wrote: »--stuff--
Ah the old dopamine thing that was already talked about. It's still wrong.
Opiates aren't addictive because they release dopamine. Dopamine release is not what makes an addiction They're way worse than that. They actually have a similar structure to dopamine themselves.
In easily understandable terms, the opiates pretend they're your feel-good hormones to your brain receptors, only problem is that their effect is much stronger than those hormones, this results in your own body not producing much of those hormones anymore because you have a much better outside source of them. And that's why you get horrible withdrawal symptoms, your body loses its ability to feel good without the drug.
http://www.howtokickheroin.com/how-heroin-works/
Here. This is why Heroin is a drug.
This is why these comparisons are horribly distasteful on top of being factually wrong.
Thank you so much! I've been sitting here trying to find the right words and you just nailed it 2 -
KatzeDerNacht22 wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »KatzeDerNacht22 wrote: »I am amused at people who think sugar can not be addictive. ;O
Scientists amuse you?
I'm not even, yeah no, shouldn't had said that on here, I know how you people are >.<
"you people"
Always an indication of a desire to communicate respectfully and understand what other people's ideas really are!12 -
Christine_72 wrote: »I agree that sugar cravings in no way resemble drug addiction. But the prostitute and pimping comments above got me thinking.. Would people who claim to have a sugar addiction, or whatever their problem food is go walk the streets and sell their bodies, steal from family, friends and neighbours, risk imprisonment etc etc if a gram bag of candy cost them $250?? If the answer is yes, then an addiction you may have...
FTR: I'm not a sugar pusher, my sugar grams go way too high in summer due to fruit, and drop back down in winter.
This reminds me when I was in college and did not manage my weekly budget well, I used to skip meals, sometimes whole days of food, in order to buy cigarettes. I also remember scouring for cigarette butts that still had a stump of grass in them when I was out and it was too late. Then there is taking a cigarette from a friend, a brand that I don't like, and literally gagging because of how disgusting it was but smoking it anyway because I needed to. When I quit I really felt the withdrawal physically although compared to other drugs they're quite mild. I had severe sleep disturbances and mental health changes when I tried to quit cold turkey.
I've never had problems with added sugar, but I could describe my relationship with nuts as "addiction-like", in the sense that I feel an intense urge to have more and more of them whenever they are around and a sense of loss and emptiness when I first put my foot down and decided to control my intake, with that characteristic addiction-like anxiety. It sucked, but more along the lines of how it sucks when my internet connection goes down (which sucks a lot and creates habit separation anxiety). I don't think I would have eaten rancid nuts if I ran out and it was late anymore than a self-proclaimed sugar addict would guzzle BBQ sauce or salad dressing to get their sugar fix.
On a different note, I'm curious why people believe sugar addiction is a thing when they have a problem moderating certain foods that happen to contain sugar among other things but my affinity for nuts is not called "oil addiction" and stated in articles to cause obesity and diabetes as a fact? The correlations is there, the research is there... everyone should give up oil for good.4 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »
A )
The point being, though, that as far as your body is concerned there's absolutely no difference between the two.
B )
And it's just as ridiculous to think that the body treats refined/added sugar any differently than it does naturally occurring sugar.
You guys don't think the body processes complex and simple carbohydrates differently? Or am I misunderstanding...
0 -
Saying "I am addicted to sugar" is not the same thing as saying that it is a substance which will create a physical dependence.
Yes, that has been covered, and many of us agree that eating can be a behavioral addiction. Where we disagree is:
(1) Is it sensible/consistent with the evidence to call out sugar specifically?
(2) Should common human food issues like merely having trouble moderating some favorites or strongly wanting to continue eating chips (especially from a basket on the table) or cookies or so on be seen as an "addiction" (in other words, does the fact that people often overeat even when they want to eat less or lose weight require that there be an explanation like addiction)?
(3) Is it helpful or neutral to overdesignate food addictions (or characterize the issues in (2) as addictions) or can it in fact be counterproductive/cause more problems/be highly damaging?5 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »I wouldn't really call them hyperbolic outliers...it's basically the premise from the start of this thread and most sugar threads in general which makes it pretty much impossible to ignore. In my experience, people tend to lean towards extremes and completely discount context and dosage...it's either good or bad, black or white...no middle ground.
It is well evidenced in this thread...apparently all of us who are arguing against the notion of sugar addiction are all "praising sugar" and must eat all the sugarz which isn't remotely true...it's kind of like when people say that you can have some pizza from time to time turns into, "you must be living off junk food"...to the best of my knowledge, everyone who is arguing against the premise of the OP and the article, do in fact eat overwhelmingly healthy and balanced diets to include sugar in appropriate dosages in the context of the overall diet as a whole as well as activity...like finishing a 1/2 century and having a chocolate milk to aid in recovery for example...I actually had a lady call me out on that once...why would such a fit person put that poison into their bodies? Context and dosage.
Yes, this.
I especially love how disagreeing with the idea that sugar is toxic in any amount means we are addicted and in denial. (I am currently eating very little added sugar, as my main source was occasional sweet desserts and I am taking a break from them. But clearly, I'm trying to justify my decision to survive only on candy or some such nonsense.)1 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »
A )
The point being, though, that as far as your body is concerned there's absolutely no difference between the two.
B )
And it's just as ridiculous to think that the body treats refined/added sugar any differently than it does naturally occurring sugar.
You guys don't think the body processes complex and simple carbohydrates differently? Or am I misunderstanding...
fruits contain sucrose, fructose and glucose in different amounts depending on the fruit. Refined sugar is sucrose extracted from plants. They are literally the same thing. These are not complex carbohydrates, they are all Sugars.8 -
To your body, distinguishing between sugar in fruit (fructose, glucose, and sucrose, in varying amounts), and "refined sugar" (sucrose -- which gets broken down to fructose and glucose anyway) makes no sense, as has been pointed out. Are foods which contain intrinsic and added sugar different? Sure, just like not all foods that have added sugar are the same and not all foods with intrinsic sugar are the same. If you really think there's something wrong with sugar itself, though, and that it's important to make a huge point to others of how you don't eat it, surely you'd exclude all sources of sugar?
(I am not suggesting that there are never other reasons to focus on added sugar. As I've mentioned, I do myself, more at some times that others, and have cut it out for periods of time. Not because I think sugar is bad, though.)4
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions