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
-
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 abstained for ten years without problems or stress. I was a low carber all during that time, except during a pregnancy, during which I upped my consumption of non-starchy vegetables and berries.
Editing to add the food that made me fall off the low-carb wagon?
Gluten free oatmeal. Back when I was diagnosed with celiac disease, gluten free oats weren't a thing. When I found out that they'd introduced gluten free oats to the market and I could order them online and have a bowl of good, old-fashioned oatmeal again? That was the end of my low-carbing days.5 -
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'.
In that my experience seems similar, here's what I see as the difference:
Smoking is bad for your health, eating added sugar in moderation is not.
Eating certain foods which contain added sugar (and for me anyway, baking them) is enjoyable, and in particular an intrinsic part of what I see as the traditional shared meal on certain holidays and other events. If I enjoy ice cream or a piece of apple pie occasionally (or both, as I had on Thanksgiving), why would I cut them out if they do me no harm.
Also, if I followed this with EVERY food (or part of a food) that does harm in excess, or seems to based on current evidence, my diet would be extremely limited (no sat fat, no meat, no added sugar, no refined grains, it could go on), then my diet would be awfully limited and dull, and that would affect my life overall.6 -
WinoGelato wrote: »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?
Nah, it's easier to suggest we're all sugar addicts if the thoughtful and well-reasoned posts are ignored.7 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »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'.
In that my experience seems similar, here's what I see as the difference:
Smoking is bad for your health, eating added sugar in moderation is not.
Eating certain foods which contain added sugar (and for me anyway, baking them) is enjoyable, and in particular an intrinsic part of what I see as the traditional shared meal on certain holidays and other events. If I enjoy ice cream or a piece of apple pie occasionally (or both, as I had on Thanksgiving), why would I cut them out if they do me no harm.
Also, if I followed this with EVERY food (or part of a food) that does harm in excess, or seems to based on current evidence, my diet would be extremely limited (no sat fat, no meat, no added sugar, no refined grains, it could go on), then my diet would be awfully limited and dull, and that would affect my life overall.
Yes. I guess a more accurate parallel in my case would be booze. I can take it or leave it, although when I take it I do tend to take it to excess. I wouldn't see any reason to turn down a g&t (or six) at a gathering, but once it's over I'll go six months without even thinking about drinking. On the other hand that doesn't happen to me with sweet stuff. If I want (and have) some one day I'll want even more of it the next day.
This habit has kept me consistently 10–20 pounds above my ideal weight for most of my adult life, so it's one I'd surely like to break.1 -
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....
Stressing over not having any I would think *is* a good indicator; surely it would fall into the category of a 'withdrawal symptom'?
0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
I abstained for ten years without problems or stress. I was a low carber all during that time, except during a pregnancy, during which I upped my consumption of non-starchy vegetables and berries.
Editing to add the food that made me fall off the low-carb wagon?
Gluten free oatmeal. Back when I was diagnosed with celiac disease, gluten free oats weren't a thing. When I found out that they'd introduced gluten free oats to the market and I could order them online and have a bowl of good, old-fashioned oatmeal again? That was the end of my low-carbing days.
Interesting. I'm curious—did you have some kind of emotional attachment to oatmeal, or was it just the food itself you craved?0 -
Just dropping this here because I know there's a handful of people participating in this thread who would be interested in this vox interview with Taubes.
"Ideally, Taubes says, we should eliminate sugar from our diets — or at least treat the decision to munch on sweets with the same gravity as smoking or drinking alcohol. (By sugar, he’s mainly focused on the refined crystals and high-fructose corn syrups that sweeten much of our food and drink these days.)
Taubes is no stranger to pushing controversial ideas about nutrition: He has championed the high-fat, low-carb diet — an approach scientists are fervently debating but one that has already had a big impact. (As Michael Pollan put it: "I can't think of another journalist who has had quite as profound an influence on the conversation about nutrition.”) He built his reporting career on being skeptical of the research community, particularly researchers in nutrition science. In 2012, he moved into advocacy by co-founding a nonprofit, the Nutrition Science Initiative, with the aim of supporting high-quality nutrition studies to give us firmer answers to questions like the ones he explores in the book.
But the NuSI work has been more difficult than Taubes anticipated, and he has attracted criticism for what some view as reductionist arguments and cherry-picked science. In his new book, even Taubes acknowledges that his case isn’t ironclad. But he sees sugar as the primary suspect. And “when large numbers of Americans are dying from diet-related diseases, leaps of faith can be justified if the odds seem good that they will save lives,” he writes.
I talked to Taubes about how we got so hooked on sugar, why he chose to single it out in a junk food–filled landscape, and what he’d like to tell policymakers and his critics about his case. Our conversation follows, edited for length and clarity."
The case for eliminating sugar. All of it.3 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »Just dropping this here because I know there's a handful of people participating in this thread who would be interested in this vox interview with Taubes.
"Ideally, Taubes says, we should eliminate sugar from our diets — or at least treat the decision to munch on sweets with the same gravity as smoking or drinking alcohol. (By sugar, he’s mainly focused on the refined crystals and high-fructose corn syrups that sweeten much of our food and drink these days.)
...
The case for eliminating sugar. All of it.
I seriously think 'eliminating all of it' (at least for a time) is the only thing that is going to work for me. Thanks for sharing this.
2 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »Just dropping this here because I know there's a handful of people participating in this thread who would be interested in this vox interview with Taubes.
"Ideally, Taubes says, we should eliminate sugar from our diets — or at least treat the decision to munch on sweets with the same gravity as smoking or drinking alcohol. (By sugar, he’s mainly focused on the refined crystals and high-fructose corn syrups that sweeten much of our food and drink these days.)
Taubes is no stranger to pushing controversial ideas about nutrition: He has championed the high-fat, low-carb diet — an approach scientists are fervently debating but one that has already had a big impact. (As Michael Pollan put it: "I can't think of another journalist who has had quite as profound an influence on the conversation about nutrition.”) He built his reporting career on being skeptical of the research community, particularly researchers in nutrition science. In 2012, he moved into advocacy by co-founding a nonprofit, the Nutrition Science Initiative, with the aim of supporting high-quality nutrition studies to give us firmer answers to questions like the ones he explores in the book.
But the NuSI work has been more difficult than Taubes anticipated, and he has attracted criticism for what some view as reductionist arguments and cherry-picked science. In his new book, even Taubes acknowledges that his case isn’t ironclad. But he sees sugar as the primary suspect. And “when large numbers of Americans are dying from diet-related diseases, leaps of faith can be justified if the odds seem good that they will save lives,” he writes.
I talked to Taubes about how we got so hooked on sugar, why he chose to single it out in a junk food–filled landscape, and what he’d like to tell policymakers and his critics about his case. Our conversation follows, edited for length and clarity."
The case for eliminating sugar. All of it.
Thank you.
4 -
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'.
There are scientific reasons for quitting smoking. It's bad for your health, and the health of others.
There aren't any scientific reasons for not eating sugar. It doesn't cause extra weight gain, and for me it doesn't hinder weight loss. I have several bowls of Christmas leftover candies in the house, I eat maybe one or two Hershey kisses every few days. I generally don't think about them. So there's no reason for me not to eat one if I suddenly want one.
I started back eating sugar because I like to eat with friends when I go places without worrying about finding certain foods that fit my way of eating (which was keto at the time). I also love to bake and cook for said friends, and didn't want to ruin being in ketosis because I decided I wanted a freshly baked cookie or bread or whatever.5 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »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'.
In that my experience seems similar, here's what I see as the difference:
Smoking is bad for your health, eating added sugar in moderation is not.
Eating certain foods which contain added sugar (and for me anyway, baking them) is enjoyable, and in particular an intrinsic part of what I see as the traditional shared meal on certain holidays and other events. If I enjoy ice cream or a piece of apple pie occasionally (or both, as I had on Thanksgiving), why would I cut them out if they do me no harm.
Also, if I followed this with EVERY food (or part of a food) that does harm in excess, or seems to based on current evidence, my diet would be extremely limited (no sat fat, no meat, no added sugar, no refined grains, it could go on), then my diet would be awfully limited and dull, and that would affect my life overall.
Yes. I guess a more accurate parallel in my case would be booze. I can take it or leave it, although when I take it I do tend to take it to excess. I wouldn't see any reason to turn down a g&t (or six) at a gathering, but once it's over I'll go six months without even thinking about drinking.
Yeah, I think that's a decent parallel. I don't drink, but many people do, with no harm, even though they can easily not drink at all without it being a big thing. The reason they do choose to drink is not that they are "addicted" or couldn't stand going without, but they enjoy it -- I used to be enough of an oenophile (and fan of craft beers) to think that makes total sense. I actually wish there was a way to separate this element of it from the intoxicating bit. (I get that sugary foods, and other foods, can have a emotional relief kind of effect too -- like I said, I'm an emotional eater and have specifically used food as a replacement for booze, but in that it does not actually alter your consciousness in nearly the same way, I really don't see how it could be considered at all the same.)On the other hand that doesn't happen to me with sweet stuff. If I want (and have) some one day I'll want even more of it the next day.
Yes, I think what we eat affects what we want. For example, if I snack through the day for a few days (or sometimes even just one), I will think about food all day long and want to snack. If I get out of the habit, I'm fine, even when there's delicious food on offer all day long (as there was today, and I barely thought about it, although leading up to Christmas I was eating in a totally out of control way based on the same stimulus, or less of one). What that means to me is that I -- and I think many people -- need structure. For me the structure is not snacking, as I have a really strong idea of what a proper meal is that is pretty nutritionally dense (and for the record I don't eat much added sugar in a meal, if any). I do eat a something extra after dinner many days, sometimes something sweet, sometimes fruit (also sweet, of course), sometimes something not sweet (I'm a huge fan of good cheese, and learning to eat them in moderation has been wonderful, and also nuts are a good choice for me).
I do think having a balanced diet with plenty of protein and healthy fats helps me feel satisfied with my diet and not think about foods just because they are there, also, but I do think you have to find the strategy that works for you.1 -
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....
Stressing over not having any I would think *is* a good indicator; surely it would fall into the category of a 'withdrawal symptom'?
Thinking about this, several times I have fallen back into the habit of snacking -- grazing, really, throughout the day -- and this does not mean sweet food, it could be anything. Used to be mostly nuts when I was in a "clean eating" kind of phase (although I never called it that, ugh, hate the term), and the thought of quitting was stressful and even the first day or two could be. I don't think that makes it an addiction, I think it makes it a habit.3 -
Just because something doesn't have physical withdrawal symptoms doesn't mean people can't become addicted. That argument is ridiculous. There wouldn't be EDA and OA if food addictions weren't a real thing. There is GA for gamblers...not a substance and no physical withdrawal but definitely an addiction for some.
If you were never addicted to anything kudos to you. If you have watched loved ones suffer I am truly sorry. I know my family suffered watching me for many years.
As someone who has struggled with addiction in many forms and lost many loved ones, my aunt to diabetes as a direct result of food addiction, I find this thread the hardest read I've ever come across on this forum.
Two points I need to make
1. Some people are prone to addictive compulsive tendancies and can become addicted to anything including sugar/foods. They will likely become drug addicts of they try it.
2. Some people are not prone to these behaviors and can enjoy what they like in moderation including things like sugar or alcohol
It's about that person and not the substance/activity.3 -
Here's a piece on Taubes by someone I respect (and disclosure I used to be pretty into bloggingheads and watched the discussion he is talking about when it happened). He wrote this after the discussion, but this was 100% my take-away from watching it:
Edit -- whoops, forgot the link! https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/thin-body-of-evidence-why-i-have-doubts-about-gary-taubess-why-we-get-fat/Gary, it seems to me, applies this critical outlook more to high-carb, low-fat diets than to the Atkins diet, which he celebrates for helping him and many others lose weight "almost effortlessly." If the Atkins diet works so well, why hasn't it swept aside its competitors, especially low-calorie, low-fat diets recommended by Weight Watchers and other popular groups? One problem, Gary says, is that many people become addicted to carbs, and their craving makes them fall off the Atkins wagon. Switching from a high-carb, low-fat diet to the Atkins system, Gary also acknowledges in Why We Get Fat, can trigger "weakness, fatigue, nausea, dehydration, diarrhea, constipation," among other side effects. Gary assures readers that they'll reap the benefits if they just stick to Atkins, but he slams advocates of less-fat, more-exercise diets for giving people this same just-stick-to-it advice.
I also think it's interesting that the addiction model seems important to him to explain why Atkins, if so obviously superior and right, isn't solving obesity. Maybe for some individuals (and that's great), but if that matters so do a huge variety of other diets, just as much, certainly when we start talking long term.
Treating sugar differently than the other foods/inputs that can be consumed in excess and are correlated with negative health outcomes seems wrong to me, simply more of the scapegoating that has failed in the past. IMO, eat a healthful diet, include sugar or not, not if you don't want, but don't pretend like focusing all the energy on sugar and eliminating it makes you healthier or more concerned with nutrition than those who eat it in a moderate (truly moderate) way as part of an overall balanced diet. As cwolfman keeps saying, of course it can be consumed in excess and the US on average (but not everyone who eats added sugar, obviously) does, by a lot. If someone eats lots of added sugar obviously cutting back is a smart thing to do (but sugar is not alone in this, and quite possible the problems with added sugar are less to do with sugar itself than other things like lacking vegetables and fruits and nutrient-dense foods overall or calories, or even that it's correlated with consumption of many other foods that it is recommended we moderate).3 -
Just because something doesn't have physical withdrawal symptoms doesn't mean people can't become addicted.
That there are behavior addictions and that it may be a behavioral addiction is a point that many in this thread have made (including me). If you have read the whole thread I am surprised you missed it.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?
Not exactly -- they had a lot less variety available to them, especially in the 19th century, but even just 50 years ago people in most parts of the U.S. had never seen kiwifruit or avocado; I know that from October to mid-May, I hardly ever had any fresh fruit other than apples, bananas, and citrus; there wasn't a lot of kale getting eaten either; most people were still boiling their veggies because the steaming and roasting methods hadn't become popular (other than root veggies roasted with a roast); most people's "leafy greens" consisted of a wedge of iceberg drowned in commercially bottled dressing (plenty of sugar there); popular cake, jello, and even savory meat dishes called for adding a bottle of Coke.
My mother made most of our meals from scratch, but I still remember how horrible jarred spaghetti sauce tasted to me the first time I had it, with all that added sugar. Lots of other families were obviously eating it, since grocery stores had plenty on the shelves -- there were lots of other "processed" convenience foods on the grocery store shelves 50 years ago, too.
In the 19th century, fruit was preserved for out-of-season consumption in a variety of canned forms, but they pretty much all involved substantial amounts of "added sugar." Pies, cakes, flapjacks, doughnuts were all good ways for people to get the calories they needed to perform heavy work with little to no mechanical assistance . My grandmother, who was born in the 19th century, still made doughnuts at home about 60 years ago; she made brownies regularly to use the pecans her father shipped to her when he harvested them.2 -
I've done this 7 times in my life (competitive bodybuilding shows) to get cut up and down to single digit body fat numbers. I was weak, lethargic and moody whenever I did this for 12-16 weeks (that's more than your month you're asking for). Once I got processed foods and sugar back in my body, my workouts were explosive again and I was even more filled out than when I was on stage.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...)
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
4 -
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.
We have peanutbutter combos at the gas station.
We have all these things you mentioned. Where are you?3 -
lynn_glenmont 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?
Not exactly -- they had a lot less variety available to them, especially in the 19th century, but even just 50 years ago people in most parts of the U.S. had never seen kiwifruit or avocado; I know that from October to mid-May, I hardly ever had any fresh fruit other than apples, bananas, and citrus; there wasn't a lot of kale getting eaten either; most people were still boiling their veggies because the steaming and roasting methods hadn't become popular (other than root veggies roasted with a roast); most people's "leafy greens" consisted of a wedge of iceberg drowned in commercially bottled dressing (plenty of sugar there); popular cake, jello, and even savory meat dishes called for adding a bottle of Coke.
My mother made most of our meals from scratch, but I still remember how horrible jarred spaghetti sauce tasted to me the first time I had it, with all that added sugar. Lots of other families were obviously eating it, since grocery stores had plenty on the shelves -- there were lots of other "processed" convenience foods on the grocery store shelves 50 years ago, too.
In the 19th century, fruit was preserved for out-of-season consumption in a variety of canned forms, but they pretty much all involved substantial amounts of "added sugar." Pies, cakes, flapjacks, doughnuts were all good ways for people to get the calories they needed to perform heavy work with little to no mechanical assistance . My grandmother, who was born in the 19th century, still made doughnuts at home about 60 years ago; she made brownies regularly to use the pecans her father shipped to her when he harvested them.
Not to mention the price of sugar in the 19th century. Many people couldn't afford sugar until mid 20th0 -
Just because something doesn't have physical withdrawal symptoms doesn't mean people can't become addicted. That argument is ridiculous. There wouldn't be EDA and OA if food addictions weren't a real thing. There is GA for gamblers...not a substance and no physical withdrawal but definitely an addiction for some.
If you were never addicted to anything kudos to you. If you have watched loved ones suffer I am truly sorry. I know my family suffered watching me for many years.
As someone who has struggled with addiction in many forms and lost many loved ones, my aunt to diabetes as a direct result of food addiction, I find this thread the hardest read I've ever come across on this forum.
Two points I need to make
1. Some people are prone to addictive compulsive tendancies and can become addicted to anything including sugar/foods. They will likely become drug addicts of they try it.
2. Some people are not prone to these behaviors and can enjoy what they like in moderation including things like sugar or alcohol
It's about that person and not the substance/activity.
Many of us specifically made the point that people can have a behavioral addiction to food. No one here has said that's not the case. We are saying that sugar is not a physically addictive substance, which is what the video in the OP was about.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