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
-
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...
Sugar is a simple carb whether it's in fruit or a cookie.
And the only way it processes them differently (complex carbs are starches like in bread) is that it breaks down the complex carbs into simple ones, which takes a tiny bit longer. (The presence of fiber, fat, and protein make a bigger difference in how long this process takes, but in any case it's not really an issue unless you eat a bunch of simple carbs on their own and/or have IR. Neither applies to me.)
A melon is more purely "simple carbs" (sugar, not much fiber) than a cookie (butter, flour, sugar, etc.).7 -
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?
No more peanut butter and cracker handi snacks, no more Lindt chocolate covered peanut butter balls. No more peanut butter combos and those were my favorite when I was growing up.
Some companies went peanut free a while back that used to make peanut butter products due to the concerns of peanut allergy. (That's a polite way of saying they complained about it.)
More and more companies have been following suit. At this rate, they might as well ban the nut while they're at it.
0 -
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...
Fruit are simple carbs.2 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »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?
Scientifically minded?2 -
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?
No more peanut butter and cracker handi snacks, no more Lindt chocolate covered peanut butter balls. No more peanut butter combos and those were my favorite when I was growing up.
Some companies went peanut free a while back that used to make peanut butter products due to the concerns of peanut allergy. (That's a polite way of saying they complained about it.)
More and more companies have been following suit. At this rate, they might as well ban the nut while they're at it.
I can still find all sorts of peanut products for sale. Including peanut butter.
If you've ever known someone with a potentially deadly risk of anaphylaxis due to cross-contamination of peanut products, though, you'll understand why a lot of companies are choosing to eliminate the production of items that contain peanuts. In order to be able to produce them without cross-contamination risk, they would have to set up a separate facility dedicated solely to making them. Something which, for most companies, isn't worth the enormous financial outlay required simply to continue to offer a product with a limited market share anyway.
And since schools (at least here in Canada) forbid any peanut products being brought in kids lunches or snacks, the demand for these types of products have tanked, too.
A simple lesson in cause and effect.
1 -
At some point a thread like this should just be stickied to the front page so we can stop recreating it every week or two.8
-
But that would upset too many people. People enjoy arguing and debating about sugar. Which is evidenced by the multiple page threads that pop up nearly every week.3
-
makingmark wrote: »At some point a thread like this should just be stickied to the front page so we can stop recreating it every week or two.
No-one is forced to participate as far as I'm aware?1 -
makingmark wrote: »At some point a thread like this should just be stickied to the front page so we can stop recreating it every week or two.
No-one is forced to participate as far as I'm aware?
Very true 1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »It feels like I'm witnessing a discussion on a religious topic, its sooo long.
So far I've learned that:
1. everyone who decides to give up sugar believes that they should because it is as addictive as heroin.
2. all mfp longtimers are really healthy and they all eat sugar 'in moderation'.
3. *kitten* don't eat sugary foods, especially candy bars and their pimps never buy those things for them.
IDK
4. Everyone who decides to give up sugar is shifting the blame, trying to avoid taking responsibility and/or hysterical.
5. Sugar isn't addictive because people won't steal to get it, but if they do, that's only because they're kleptomaniacs.
6. The definition of moderation is: "whatever works for me"...
7. Because some MFP members aren't addicted to sugar, that means no-one else is either.
This is great!! (:-)
You mean it's great to just make stuff up? Works for some, I guess, but it's really not a particularly effective debating technique and certainly is not a good way to try and reach common ground or convince anyone. Distorting what those you are disagreeing with are saying and making up stuff about them might make you feel good, though (hmm, maybe it's an addiction!).
4. Distortion of what was said or taking one person's opinion for everyone's, which is rude.
5. No one said this, you may be misinterpreting some prior posts.
6. No one said this, and it's an effort to claim that those who are disagreeing with you must not care about nutrition, so pretty rude. Again, I ask that you quote or retract.
7. This is not what was said either -- I don't think there's a common shared viewpoint on whether it sometimes is or not (if you include behavioral addiction). I see 0 reason to single out sugar from other eating behaviors or foods, especially other highly palatable foods, however. I'd be open to discussing your claim that "sugar" is an addiction on its own, though, vs. it being a behavior problem (addiction, if you like) with eating.
OP did you care to respond to the points @lemurcat12 made here?0 -
makingmark wrote: »At some point a thread like this should just be stickied to the front page so we can stop recreating it every week or two.
There's a Sugar FAQ stickied in Food & Nutrition, but I don't think anyone ever reads the stickies before starting a thread.2 -
Christine_72 wrote: »But that would upset too many people. People enjoy arguing and debating about sugar. Which is evidenced by the multiple page threads that pop up nearly every week.
And yet here you are...0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »But that would upset too many people. People enjoy arguing and debating about sugar. Which is evidenced by the multiple page threads that pop up nearly every week.
And yet here you are...
I wasn't the one suggesting a sticky, nor did i complain about sugar threads... So your point is kinda moot.
3 -
I would like to propose a challenge to all the 'moderates' here: Abstain from all high-GL fruits/vegetables and any foods/drinks with added sugars for a month and report back on your experience. As you're not addicted either physically or psychologically to the sugars, this should cause you zero problems or stress, right? Who's up for it?!?
(Incidentally this suggestion was inspired by Mrs Floyd, who constantly tells me she is not addicted to cigarettes and can give them up whenever she wants to...)3 -
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.
I tried to--the journal this article is in hasn't been published yet. Any research article like this will also focus on the study's limitations as well as recommendations for the next steps in research.
Keep in mind, this is not the actual article, but a summary of the article published by MIT about MIT research. Often, these press releases are written by people trying to market the research to the masses and not by people who had anything to do with the research. And therefor there might not be a high level of understanding of the research conducted.
“We need to study this circuit in more depth, but our ultimate goal is to develop safe, noninvasive approaches to avert maladaptive eating behaviors, first in mice and eventually in people.”- To me, this quote says we need to study this more to find ways to help people change unhealthy behaviors. This is not equating eating sugar to an addiction.
“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.”- To me it is just that--a step forward in achieving new understanding. Not in drawing any conclusions. At least explained in this summary is how compulsive (not addictive, compulsive) sugar consumption is mediated by a different neural circuit and to what degree and how it can differ from person to person.
Other questions I have:- "After the mice learned to predict a sucrose reward upon cue, he randomly withheld the reward about half the time — a bitter disappointment." How could the researchers tell the mice were "bitterly disappointed?"
- Likewise ... "Other times, the mice unexpectedly received a sucrose reward without any predictive cue — a sweet surprise." How was "sweet surprise" identified on the mice?
- "Next, Nieh worked with an MD/PhD student in Tye's lab, Stephen Allsop, to modify mice so that the LH-VTA neural projections carried light-sensitive proteins that can activate or silence neurons with pulses of light, a method called optogenetics." How exactly were the mice "modified?" Would the optpgenics not worked if the mice hadn't been "modified?"
- In the "modified" mice ... "Activating the projections led to compulsive sucrose-eating and increased overeating in mice that were full. Inactivating this pathway reduced the compulsive sucrose-seeking that resembles addiction, but did not prevent mice that were hungry from eating regular chow." The pulses were used to activate and inactivate these pathways. How on earth would this translate into a real world situation? Flashing "modified" people with pulses of light to control their compulsions? I'm pretty sure I already saw that movie.
I'm going to stop now.
It's really interesting research. But proving sugar is an "addiction," it does not.8 -
I would like to propose a challenge to all the 'moderates' here: Abstain from all high-GL fruits/vegetables and any foods/drinks with added sugars for a month and report back on your experience. As you're not addicted either physically or psychologically to the sugars, this should cause you zero problems or stress, right? Who's up for it?!?
(Incidentally this suggestion was inspired by Mrs Floyd, who constantly tells me she is not addicted to cigarettes and can give them up whenever she wants to...)
I tried this already, for six months. It didn't cause me problems or stress, and especially not withdrawals since sugar isn't addictive.
And then I started back eating sugar because there was literally no difference in my life whether I ate it or not, except being tired of the limited food restrictions.7 -
I would like to propose a challenge to all the 'moderates' here: Abstain from all high-GL fruits/vegetables and any foods/drinks with added sugars for a month and report back on your experience. As you're not addicted either physically or psychologically to the sugars, this should cause you zero problems or stress, right? Who's up for it?!?
(Incidentally this suggestion was inspired by Mrs Floyd, who constantly tells me she is not addicted to cigarettes and can give them up whenever she wants to...)
I tried this already, for six months. It didn't cause me problems or stress, and especially not withdrawals since sugar isn't addictive.
And then I started back eating sugar because there was literally no difference in my life whether I ate it or not, except being tired of the limited food restrictions.
Interesting... Thank you for the input.
I'm trying to imagine a parallel scenario where I would start smoking again even though it made no difference to my life apart from feeling less 'limited'.0 -
I would like to propose a challenge to all the 'moderates' here: Abstain from all high-GL fruits/vegetables and any foods/drinks with added sugars for a month and report back on your experience. As you're not addicted either physically or psychologically to the sugars, this should cause you zero problems or stress, right? Who's up for it?!?
(Incidentally this suggestion was inspired by Mrs Floyd, who constantly tells me she is not addicted to cigarettes and can give them up whenever she wants to...)
I tried this already, for six months. It didn't cause me problems or stress, and especially not withdrawals since sugar isn't addictive.
And then I started back eating sugar because there was literally no difference in my life whether I ate it or not, except being tired of the limited food restrictions.
I went for about six months as well, on my doctors very strong 'suggestion'. There were no issues, but I would say that missing something/strongly desiring/gaining pleasure from having...none of these are indicative of an addiction. Even stressing over not having isn't a good indicator either in my opinion.
edit: Instead of 'indicative" maybe I should say proof of....2 -
I would like to propose a challenge to all the 'moderates' here: Abstain from all high-GL fruits/vegetables and any foods/drinks with added sugars for a month and report back on your experience. As you're not addicted either physically or psychologically to the sugars, this should cause you zero problems or stress, right? Who's up for it?!?
As I've said multiple times in this thread, I have given up added sugar for a month a few times. The first time I did it I was eating barely any fruit, as it was January and I don't normally eat much fruit in Jan. (I'm actively changing that this Jan, but I also am currently eating very little added sugar as I'm taking a post-Christmas break from sweets and that's my main source of added sugar (I'm into home cooking).)
So does that count?
The reason I did it the first time was that I struggled with emotional eating and was curious whether it would make a difference in how I felt in general (I also did paleo for a while, same reason). What I learned was sticking to 3 main meals and not snacking was really what worked for emotional eating, as well as working on other ways of dealing with feelings and being mindful, and I didn't feel any different. I also learned that I didn't feel any different from giving up grains, etc.
(I used to give up alcohol for Lent back when I was a practicing drunk, though, to prove to myself I did not have a problem, so I'd say there are limits to what this experiment proves. I was definitely not white knuckling it when I gave up added sugar, though, and I enjoy largely cutting it out for a while from time to time.)1
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