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
-
cwolfman13 wrote: »Again, I don't eat much in the way of added sugar...but on a molecular level, what's the difference? There is none...sugar is sugar...refined sugar is just sugar cane (a plant) that has been processed. Your body is going to treat sugar as sugar regardless of source...this is just fear mongering.
Addictive drugs are addictive in their 'refined' state but not when consumed in their natural (plant) state. The same theory is now being applied to sugar.
The problem has been exacerbated in recent years with the increased consumption of manufactured snacks, fizzy drinks and hidden sugars in diet/low fat foods and breakfast cereals etc (and cigarettes apparently) that are relatively high in refined sugars.
Hidden sugars? They're listed in the ingredients (don't know about cigarettes but for food items). Nothing hidden about them.5 -
ShammersPink wrote: »"the English had the world’s most productive network of sugar-producing colonies – is that they lacked any succulent native fruit, and so had little previous opportunity to accustom themselves to sweet things."
WTAF?
I must be hallucinating all the apples, pears, plums, cherries, blackberries, bilberries, carrots, parsnips etc that grow all over England, and even (heaven forbid) Scotland, not to mention the honey from bees.
Also, we are primates FFS. We have all the apparatus required for digesting sugar. We just shouldn't eat it to the near-exclusion of all else.
Actually most of the fruits you mention as being grown in UK originated elsewhere, primarily from the Mediterranean, and American continents.
Look up "mead". It's a drink that can be traced back to around 2800 BC in what's now known as Europe. It's honey (that's sugar, in case you didn't know) fermented with water, fruits, spices, grains and hops. There are many varieties which used various fruits. So it's not like fruit just appeared in Europe in the last few years or anything.7 -
Have any of the people here who think we don't naturally like sweet things ever tasted breast milk?19
-
cwolfman13 wrote: »getoffin1year wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »
We're all pretty familiar with Taubes and his articles...
Also, I had a Reece's Peanutbutter Cup yesterday...is that moderation?
I don't eat much in the way of added sugars...I don't think sugar is so much the issue as is over consumption...but the notion that it's a "drug" and moderating intake is futile is asinine. Sugar is nothing new...we've been consuming sugar since the dawn of time.
I am more than capable of having a cookie and going about the rest of my day...or having a Reece's, etc. It's not like I eat a cookie and then proceed to eat all of the cookies.KetoLady86 wrote: »Sorry - I lost interest when he calls sugar a drug. It's not a drug and it's not addictive. People may LIKE the taste of sugar and thus want to consume more but it's no more addictive than cheese is (which is something I have problems moderating but I'm not addicted to it).
I really wish people would stop listening to this kind of low intellect fear-mongering.
/rant
Define "drug". A psychoactive substance with some addictive characteristics? Yes sugar is a drug, as well as being a nutrient.
Yep!
nope...
Not YOU but for some its very real. The same way people can get addicted to any healthy or unhealthy behavior while others don't. Some people are addicted to working or, others will always dislike it. Some can do cocaine in college and not develop a habit, others have full blown drug addictions after doing the same blow in college. Science is a long way from knowing all the ins and outs about addiction, but that doesn't mean sugar addiction isn't real and should be avoided by those with those behaviors while others like yourself can moderate consumption.
Lol...I love the new year...
I can go to town on a block of chedar cheese and gallon of milk...I have like zero self control around chedar cheese...I don't consider myself "addicted" to sharp cheddar, nor do I equate it to being a drug...lack of self control =/= addiction.
It seems that today's society would rather just blame everything on addictions and other things than actually taking responsibility for what they do...it's pretty lame.
Let me guess...millennial?
Hey, leave us millennials out of it.4 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Have any of the people here who think we don't naturally like sweet things ever tasted breast milk?
And milk has what in it? Lactose. Otherwise known as "milk sugar".7 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Have any of the people here who think we don't naturally like sweet things ever tasted breast milk?
Don't be giving people crazy ideas, now!
9 -
Humans have been consuming sugar since the dawn of time...[/quote]
Humans have been consuming sugar since the dawn of time, but processed sugar is really relatively new. There is added sugar in so much of what we eat that simply wasn't there two or thee generations ago. You can argue that it has no impact, but to imply that people have been eating sugar in the same quantities and the same manner that they do today is a little misleading.
[/quote]
There are a lot of foods that were not so readily available two or three generations ago.
Over consumption of ANY food, not just sugar, will lead to weight gain.
Depending on how old you are, "giving up sugar for good" may be a very long time. Learning to eat the proper amount of calories your body needs to sustain a healthy weight, may be a more doable choice.
6 -
getoffin1year wrote: »French_Peasant wrote: »getoffin1year wrote: »Watch TedEd's three minute video on sugars effect on the brain. Is causes a dopamine release consistently while brocolli doesn't. Sex isn't a drug, but some people sure get addicted to that for the same reasons...
Puppies and kittens aren't a drug, music isn't a drug, laughter isn't a drug...well...it IS said to be medicine, so perhaps we should have Taubes and other puritanical nags, scolds and assorted misanthropes working to quantify its damage potential, regulate it and yank it out of people's lives so nobody gets a dopamine hit from anything, and we all sit around with our joyless lives eating only thin amaranth-and-flaxseed gruel and broccoli. Sounds super healthy!
In the meantime, I'll personally just work on eating common-sense, modest amounts of sugar, like moms have been telling their kids for years, and maybe get a beehive and hide it from the sugar police.
There's nothing wrong with laughing and music or in general the release of dopamine. Its the addiction to a negative behavior that causes that that were discussing.
We are discussing an article that states: "The few neurologists and psychologists interested in probing the sweet-tooth phenomenon, or why we might need to ration our sugar consumption so as not to eat too much of it, did so typically from the perspective of how these sugars compared with other drugs of abuse, in which the mechanism of addiction is now relatively well understood. Lately, this comparison has received more attention as the public-health community has looked to ration our sugar consumption as a population, and has thus considered the possibility that one way to regulate these sugars – as with cigarettes – is to establish that they are, indeed, addictive."
It's basically like a society seeing that it has a (legitimate) problem with a few Crazy Cat Ladies who can't moderate on dopamine-inducing kittens, and have a house full of 50 diseased cats and their associated filth. And instead of helping the Crazy Cat Lady get the counselling she needs for the problem *in her brain*, the self-proclaimed authorities instead scream about how cats are addictive (dopamine!!!) and insinuated into our society by EVIL!!! corporations and make plans to regulate everyone in society to half a cat or less. And then people start screaming at the perfectly responsible owners of 2 or 3 or 10 cats about what horrible druggies they are. It's pretty kitten annoying, and it makes no sense. If you can't moderate, then go ahead and cut out sugar or cats, and definitely get some counselling and/or develop some self-awareness and work on discipline. but quit the screeching, and leave me and my sugar cream pie, ice cream, and birthday cake alone.
28 -
Humans have been consuming sugar since the dawn of time...Humans have been consuming sugar since the dawn of time, but processed sugar is really relatively new. There is added sugar in so much of what we eat that simply wasn't there two or thee generations ago. You can argue that it has no impact, but to imply that people have been eating sugar in the same quantities and the same manner that they do today is a little misleading.
It's not that new...and yes, I would agree that consumption is higher now which has more to do with the amount of processed foods that are eaten more so than sugar or the processing of sugar. I never said it wasn't and in fact have mentioned on several occasion in this thread that over consumption is a problem...there's a big difference and whole middle ground between over consumption and "I'm never eating sugar again."
Processed sugar is just cane sugar or beet sugar that has been extracted from the plant...that's it...it's not some crazy *kitten* thing that all of you are making it out to be.cwolfman13 wrote: »Again, I don't eat much in the way of added sugar...but on a molecular level, what's the difference? There is none...sugar is sugar...refined sugar is just sugar cane (a plant) that has been processed. Your body is going to treat sugar as sugar regardless of source...this is just fear mongering.
Addictive drugs are addictive in their 'refined' state but not when consumed in their natural (plant) state. The same theory is now being applied to sugar.
The problem has been exacerbated in recent years with the increased consumption of manufactured snacks, fizzy drinks and hidden sugars in diet/low fat foods and breakfast cereals etc (and cigarettes apparently) that are relatively high in refined sugars.
Sorry guy...I will never buy this *kitten*...lack of self control =/= addiction. I've ready plenty on it...maybe google "sugar is not addictive" and take a look at research from the other side...
Also, there are no "hidden" sugars...they're right there on the label...10 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Have any of the people here who think we don't naturally like sweet things ever tasted breast milk?
Don't be giving people crazy ideas, now!
Don't tell Gary Taubes about this or we'll be hearing about how breast milk is part of some pernicious food industry plot to keep us all fat and sick.11 -
singingflutelady wrote: »
Hidden sugars? They're listed in the ingredients (don't know about cigarettes but for food items). Nothing hidden about them.cwolfman13 wrote: »Sorry guy...I will never buy this *kitten*...lack of self control =/= addiction. I've ready plenty on it...maybe google "sugar is not addictive" and take a look at research from the other side...
Also, there are no "hidden" sugars...they're right there on the label...
Oh, but they are hidden, and deliberately so. The most common way of doing this is instead of listing the total sugar content of a food the manufacturer will divide that total between several confusing synonyms. Remember that your average man on the street is not a food detective, unlike your average MFP user!
Just some of the many synonyms used for sugar on food labelling:
Cane juice, Dehydrated cane juice, Cane juice solids, Cane juice crystals, Dextrin, Maltodextrin, Dextran, Barley malt, Beet sugar, Corn syrup, Corn syrup solids, Caramel, Buttered syrup, Carob syrup, Brown sugar, Date sugar, Malt syrup, Diatase, Diatastic malt, Fruit juice, Fruit juice concentrate, Dehydrated fruit juice, Fruit juice crystals, Golden syrup, Turbinado, Sorghum syrup, Refiner's syrup, Ethyl maltol, Maple syrup, Yellow sugar
Apart from the obvious:
Sucrose, Maltose, Dextrose, Fructose, Glucose, Galactose, Lactose, High fructose corn syrup, Glucose solids
On another note, what's with all this "kitten" stuff? Someone please explain so I can be in on the joke too. (:-)
0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Have any of the people here who think we don't naturally like sweet things ever tasted breast milk?
My baby is addicted to the stuff. :devil:19 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Have any of the people here who think we don't naturally like sweet things ever tasted breast milk?
Don't be giving people crazy ideas, now!
A couple of years ago, a breastfeeding mother went to a local bar. She went to the bathroom with a cup to lactate, but instead of dumping the milk down the sink, she came out and offered the other patrons a shot. They liked it so much they got her to go back and pump out round two.
She told this story to the owner of my local wine bar, who is currently breastfeeding. She was seriously disappointed when K didn't offer up any of her boob milk.
...Now back to our scheduled programming.3 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Have any of the people here who think we don't naturally like sweet things ever tasted breast milk?
Don't be giving people crazy ideas, now!
Don't tell Gary Taubes about this or we'll be hearing about how breast milk is part of some pernicious food industry plot to keep us all fat and sick.
Gotta keep the babies in ketosis if you want them to live.10 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »getoffin1year wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »
We're all pretty familiar with Taubes and his articles...
Also, I had a Reece's Peanutbutter Cup yesterday...is that moderation?
I don't eat much in the way of added sugars...I don't think sugar is so much the issue as is over consumption...but the notion that it's a "drug" and moderating intake is futile is asinine. Sugar is nothing new...we've been consuming sugar since the dawn of time.
I am more than capable of having a cookie and going about the rest of my day...or having a Reece's, etc. It's not like I eat a cookie and then proceed to eat all of the cookies.KetoLady86 wrote: »Sorry - I lost interest when he calls sugar a drug. It's not a drug and it's not addictive. People may LIKE the taste of sugar and thus want to consume more but it's no more addictive than cheese is (which is something I have problems moderating but I'm not addicted to it).
I really wish people would stop listening to this kind of low intellect fear-mongering.
/rant
Define "drug". A psychoactive substance with some addictive characteristics? Yes sugar is a drug, as well as being a nutrient.
Yep!
nope...
Not YOU but for some its very real. The same way people can get addicted to any healthy or unhealthy behavior while others don't. Some people are addicted to working or, others will always dislike it. Some can do cocaine in college and not develop a habit, others have full blown drug addictions after doing the same blow in college. Science is a long way from knowing all the ins and outs about addiction, but that doesn't mean sugar addiction isn't real and should be avoided by those with those behaviors while others like yourself can moderate consumption.
Lol...I love the new year...
I can go to town on a block of chedar cheese and gallon of milk...I have like zero self control around chedar cheese...I don't consider myself "addicted" to sharp cheddar, nor do I equate it to being a drug...lack of self control =/= addiction.
It seems that today's society would rather just blame everything on addictions and other things than actually taking responsibility for what they do...it's pretty lame.
Let me guess...millennial?
Preach it, brother. I will seriously eat ALL THE CHEESE, and knock someone over to get more, but never in a million years would I try to claim that cheese is addictive. Delicious, yes, addictive, no.3 -
singingflutelady wrote: »
Hidden sugars? They're listed in the ingredients (don't know about cigarettes but for food items). Nothing hidden about them.
Oh, but they are, and deliberately so—ever since requirements for food labelling were introduced. The most common way of doing this is instead of listing the total sugar content of a food the manufacturer will divide that total between several confusing synonyms. Remember that your average man on the street is not a food detective, unlike your average MFP user!
Just some of the many synonyms used for sugar on food labelling:
Cane juice, Dehydrated cane juice, Cane juice solids, Cane juice crystals, Dextrin, Maltodextrin, Dextran, Barley malt, Beet sugar, Corn syrup, Corn syrup solids, Caramel, Buttered syrup, Carob syrup, Brown sugar, Date sugar, Malt syrup, Diatase, Diatastic malt, Fruit juice, Fruit juice concentrate, Dehydrated fruit juice, Fruit juice crystals, Golden syrup, Turbinado, Sorghum syrup, Refiner's syrup, Ethyl maltol, Maple syrup, Yellow sugar
Apart from the obvious:
Sucrose, Maltose, Dextrose, Fructose, Glucose, Galactose, Lactose, High fructose corn syrup, Glucose solids
But -- at least in the US -- all of those will be listed on the label as a single count for sugar. It doesn't matter how you split it up on the ingredients list, you still need to report total sugars. And unless you're claiming that active fraud is going on, it's hard to understand how something is "hidden" if a label tells me there are 12 grams of sugar in a serving and there are actually 12 grams of sugar in a serving.
The total sugar portion of the label actually makes it *easier* for me to understand how much sugar is in something. I don't need to know all the various names for sugar. I just need to look at that line to understand how much I'm getting per serving.22 -
Chef_Barbell wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Have any of the people here who think we don't naturally like sweet things ever tasted breast milk?
My baby is addicted to the stuff. :devil:
I've seen my nephew fiend for it. Won't calm down until he gets what he wants.8 -
singingflutelady wrote: »
Hidden sugars? They're listed in the ingredients (don't know about cigarettes but for food items). Nothing hidden about them.
Oh, but they are, and deliberately so—ever since requirements for food labelling were introduced. The most common way of doing this is instead of listing the total sugar content of a food the manufacturer will divide that total between several confusing synonyms. Remember that your average man on the street is not a food detective, unlike your average MFP user!
Just some of the many synonyms used for sugar on food labelling:
Cane juice, Dehydrated cane juice, Cane juice solids, Cane juice crystals, Dextrin, Maltodextrin, Dextran, Barley malt, Beet sugar, Corn syrup, Corn syrup solids, Caramel, Buttered syrup, Carob syrup, Brown sugar, Date sugar, Malt syrup, Diatase, Diatastic malt, Fruit juice, Fruit juice concentrate, Dehydrated fruit juice, Fruit juice crystals, Golden syrup, Turbinado, Sorghum syrup, Refiner's syrup, Ethyl maltol, Maple syrup, Yellow sugar
Apart from the obvious:
Sucrose, Maltose, Dextrose, Fructose, Glucose, Galactose, Lactose, High fructose corn syrup, Glucose solids
Don't confuse the ingredients label with the nutrition facts label. Yes, there are a lot of names for what amounts to the same thing (sugar). But the carbs are always listed, and under than the amount of sugar (in g per serving) and fiber (in g per serving). The remainder of carbs are starch. You can figure out how much sugar is in a serving of any given product, without memorizing the various names of different sources of sugar. And with the new labels "added sugar" will be a separate line item. So if the goal is to reduce added sugar, you will have an easier time ferreting out how much is naturally occurring and how much was added (not that it much matters, sugar is sugar).
6 -
-
janejellyroll wrote: »
Agreed - this is why I eat cigarettes during a long run.26 -
janicelo1971 wrote: »I have to admit i never knew the part about "As for tobacco, sugar was, and still is, a critical ingredient in the American blended-tobacco cigarette, the first of which was Camel. It’s this “marriage of tobacco and sugar”, as a sugar-industry report described it in 1950, that makes for the “mild” experience of smoking cigarettes as compared with cigars and, perhaps more important, makes it possible for most of us to inhale cigarette smoke and draw it deep into our lungs." Interesting article, but yes, you will get slammed on this site talking about sugar being a drug or addictive. I also have a hard time eating sugar in moderation and find natural sugars in fruit to be enough in my diet. to keep my blood work levels "good" i limit all added sugar so i see/understand your point. Not many people are going to be positive towards this though.
so natural sugar is not addictive but other sugar is? You do realize that sugar = sugar, right?9 -
Look up "mead". It's a drink that can be traced back to around 2800 BC in what's now known as Europe. It's honey (that's sugar, in case you didn't know) fermented with water, fruits, spices, grains and hops. There are many varieties which used various fruits. So it's not like fruit just appeared in Europe in the last few years or anything.
As I understand it mead is a highly alcoholic beverage (up to 20%) but not necessarily a sweet drink. You can get 'dry' mead as well. The honey is there to provide fermentation and the fruits are an optional extra.
1 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
Agreed - this is why I eat cigarettes during a long run. 0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »Again, I don't eat much in the way of added sugar...but on a molecular level, what's the difference? There is none...sugar is sugar...refined sugar is just sugar cane (a plant) that has been processed. Your body is going to treat sugar as sugar regardless of source...this is just fear mongering.
Addictive drugs are addictive in their 'refined' state but not when consumed in their natural (plant) state. The same theory is now being applied to sugar.
The problem has been exacerbated in recent years with the increased consumption of manufactured snacks, fizzy drinks and hidden sugars in diet/low fat foods and breakfast cereals etc (and cigarettes apparently) that are relatively high in refined sugars.
Sooooooooooooo....if I eat my honey from a bear squeeze bottle, it's addictive, but if I break into a bee tree and eat it out of the comb with muh bear paws...it's not addictive? Please explain. I don't know about you, but my Northern European ancestors have been separating honey from the comb and indeed brewing it into mead and creating sweets for millenia.16 -
@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.10 -
All I'm gonna say is that I've had friend's and family who were drug addicts...I've seen them in withdrawal and recovery and I see how they continue to struggle even years later...when I gave up Mt Dew it wasn't even remotely the same thing...
"Sugar addiction" is a bunch of BS...19 -
French_Peasant wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »Again, I don't eat much in the way of added sugar...but on a molecular level, what's the difference? There is none...sugar is sugar...refined sugar is just sugar cane (a plant) that has been processed. Your body is going to treat sugar as sugar regardless of source...this is just fear mongering.
Addictive drugs are addictive in their 'refined' state but not when consumed in their natural (plant) state. The same theory is now being applied to sugar.
The problem has been exacerbated in recent years with the increased consumption of manufactured snacks, fizzy drinks and hidden sugars in diet/low fat foods and breakfast cereals etc (and cigarettes apparently) that are relatively high in refined sugars.
Sooooooooooooo....if I eat my honey from a bear squeeze bottle, it's addictive, but if I break into a bee tree and eat it out of the comb with muh bear paws...it's not addictive? Please explain. I don't know about you, but my Northern European ancestors have been separating honey from the comb and indeed brewing it into mead and creating sweets for millenia.
maybe that is why all the bees are dying...9
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.2K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 421 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions