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.

Sugar Addiction Myths

24567…12

Replies

  • Packerjohn
    Packerjohn Posts: 4,855 Member
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    stevencloser wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    anyway, I found it interesting and it is no way peer reviewed...

    It's just one guy's thoughts. If you look at his LinkedIn profile his education is a bachelor's in psychology/law and a master's in IT. No background at all to discuss the pluses and minuses of anything related to nutrition.

    Personally don't think sugar is physically addictive, psychologically maybe.

    Many people with no more nutritional education than that write diet books or make "documentaries" telling you sugar is horrible for you too.

    Exhibit A: Gary Taubes is a journalist with no nutritional/medical training whatsoever.

    Incidentally, he's one of the biggest demonizers of carbs, has written several books and is often quoted as a "source" by low-carb/anti-sugar people. No background at all to discuss the pluses and minuses of anything related to nutrition. Kim Kardashian or Snooki would have just as much credibility regarding nutrition. And their books would probably sell better.

    Agree. Doesn't it suck? The dumbing down continues.
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,136 Member
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    stevencloser wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    anyway, I found it interesting and it is no way peer reviewed...

    It's just one guy's thoughts. If you look at his LinkedIn profile his education is a bachelor's in psychology/law and a master's in IT. No background at all to discuss the pluses and minuses of anything related to nutrition.

    Personally don't think sugar is physically addictive, psychologically maybe.

    Many people with no more nutritional education than that write diet books or make "documentaries" telling you sugar is horrible for you too.

    Oh I agree.

    My challenge with the original post is the article debunks a lot of myths, but the "debunking" is done by an individual with no applicable background and no references to any science backing his statements.

    No better/worse than sugar demonizers with no background that write blog posts.

    Are they myths or not?
  • ashbabe25
    ashbabe25 Posts: 173 Member
    My addiction is sour candies. I've cut down to almost none because I stopped in February and had some sours the other day and they tasted flat out nasty to me now.
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,136 Member
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    stevencloser wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    anyway, I found it interesting and it is no way peer reviewed...

    It's just one guy's thoughts. If you look at his LinkedIn profile his education is a bachelor's in psychology/law and a master's in IT. No background at all to discuss the pluses and minuses of anything related to nutrition.

    Personally don't think sugar is physically addictive, psychologically maybe.

    Many people with no more nutritional education than that write diet books or make "documentaries" telling you sugar is horrible for you too.

    Oh I agree.

    My challenge with the original post is the article debunks a lot of myths, but the "debunking" is done by an individual with no applicable background and no references to any science backing his statements.

    No better/worse than sugar demonizers with no background that write blog posts.

    Are they myths or not?

    Like most agenda driven articles this has some truth, some BS and a lot of spin.

    Such as?
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,136 Member
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    stevencloser wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    anyway, I found it interesting and it is no way peer reviewed...

    It's just one guy's thoughts. If you look at his LinkedIn profile his education is a bachelor's in psychology/law and a master's in IT. No background at all to discuss the pluses and minuses of anything related to nutrition.

    Personally don't think sugar is physically addictive, psychologically maybe.

    Many people with no more nutritional education than that write diet books or make "documentaries" telling you sugar is horrible for you too.

    Oh I agree.

    My challenge with the original post is the article debunks a lot of myths, but the "debunking" is done by an individual with no applicable background and no references to any science backing his statements.

    No better/worse than sugar demonizers with no background that write blog posts.

    Are they myths or not?

    Like most agenda driven articles this has some truth, some BS and a lot of spin.

    Such as?
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    stevencloser wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    anyway, I found it interesting and it is no way peer reviewed...

    It's just one guy's thoughts. If you look at his LinkedIn profile his education is a bachelor's in psychology/law and a master's in IT. No background at all to discuss the pluses and minuses of anything related to nutrition.

    Personally don't think sugar is physically addictive, psychologically maybe.

    Many people with no more nutritional education than that write diet books or make "documentaries" telling you sugar is horrible for you too.

    Oh I agree.

    My challenge with the original post is the article debunks a lot of myths, but the "debunking" is done by an individual with no applicable background and no references to any science backing his statements.

    No better/worse than sugar demonizers with no background that write blog posts.

    Are they myths or not?

    Like most agenda driven articles this has some truth, some BS and a lot of spin.

    Such as?

    I noticed a few. I'm sure you have good reading comprehension and critical thinking skills. Why don't you read the article again, think about it and post what you've identified as biases?

    Because I'm not asking myself, I am asking you....
  • Gamliela
    Gamliela Posts: 2,468 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Gamliela wrote: »
    It could be just me, but apple pie doesn't really need sugar, or strawberry shortcake imo.

    You don't need a lot, but most recipes I've enjoyed include some, and I think it's better with it than it would be without.

    I'm not a strawberry shortcake fan (assuming good strawberries, I'd always rather just have strawberries and plain whipping cream or just add the strawberries to some pancakes or waffles, perhaps, or some vanilla ice cream, but I digress...). Here's a pretty standard recipe: https://cooking.nytimes.com/recipes/11823-strawberry-shortcake. The shortcake normally has sugar in it.

    Obviously the apples and strawberries also have sugar, which is what actually relates to the point I was making.

    tbh I didn't read your post carefully enough. I think I wanted to put here though that once I experienced leaving off most processed sugary foods and drinks I came to a place where desserts made with sugar, or veg with added sugar, disgusts my taste buds, I don't like the feeling it gives me in my mouth. I have a lemon tree out in the garden and I eat whole lemons like they were oranges. As I remarked in my post, taste has something to do with it.

  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited May 2017
    Gamliela wrote: »
    once I experienced leaving off most processed sugary foods and drinks I came to a place where desserts made with sugar, or veg with added sugar, disgusts my taste buds, I don't like the feeling it gives me in my mouth.

    If that pleases you, that's great.

    I am someone who never found that eating some sweet things affected my enjoyment of other, less sweet foods. I still taste fruit as very sweet when consuming sweet foods.* Even when I drank lots of diet coke, I preferred my wine completely dry and never enjoyed sugar in tea or coffee. (But I've also always had much more of a weakness for savory foods than sweet, so I never really overloaded my palate with supersweet things, and find that other than fruit I rarely care for sweet without fat (there are occasional exceptions).)

    So even though now I don't eat a lot of added sugar (I don't think the word "processed" adds much here), I eat some (well, not at this exact moment since I'm playing around with low carb, but normally) and am quite pleased I do still enjoy it. My taste has always rejected some desserts as being too sweet for my preference, but not to the point of preferring apple pie without any added sugar.

    Ironically, I listened to the Freakonomics podcast mentioned above, and apparently even Lustig agrees with the sugar in apple pie bit: "LUSTIG: Sugar’s celebratory! Sugar’s fun! Sugar’s Apple Pie. Sugar is reward — but once a week."

    ;-)

    Anyway, like I said, my actual point was somewhat different, although if it doesn't interest you, that's cool.

    *My dad always ate lemons, and I used to do it too, as a kid. The issue for my mother and sister (who thought this was weird and unpleasant) wasn't lack of sweetness, but extreme sourness, which is a taste that I have always rather liked, although I don't think I'd eat a whole lemon now.
  • Gamliela
    Gamliela Posts: 2,468 Member
    I think we've got off the original topic of the OP !

    I realize now that I was really trying to say that eating low sugars, as in a lchf, leads to sweet things tasting sweeter than before.
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,136 Member
    NorthCascades wrote: »
    This is a terrible article. Somebody "debunked" the "myth" that sugar is empty calories by pointing out that it has calories. Stupidest thing I've read in a long time.

    how so? If something provides energy, it can't be empty. If anything the empty calorie argument is the dump one.
  • nvmomketo
    nvmomketo Posts: 12,019 Member
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    NorthCascades wrote: »
    This is a terrible article. Somebody "debunked" the "myth" that sugar is empty calories by pointing out that it has calories. Stupidest thing I've read in a long time.

    how so? If something provides energy, it can't be empty. If anything the empty calorie argument is the dump one.

    I think some call sugar an empty calorie because it just has calories.

    I guess we could call diet soda "empty flavor" because it just provides flavor... well, and water. And maybe on occasion some micronutrients.
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,136 Member
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    NorthCascades wrote: »
    This is a terrible article. Somebody "debunked" the "myth" that sugar is empty calories by pointing out that it has calories. Stupidest thing I've read in a long time.

    how so? If something provides energy, it can't be empty. If anything the empty calorie argument is the dump one.

    I think some call sugar an empty calorie because it just has calories.

    I guess we could call diet soda "empty flavor" because it just provides flavor... well, and water. And maybe on occasion some micronutrients.

    If you can derive energy out of something it is not empty.
  • Verdenal
    Verdenal Posts: 625 Member
    stevencloser wrote: »
    Verdenal wrote: »
    The writer wants to grab attention by writing a contrarian article. But many of his arguments are weak. Other people have already talked about his lack of background and credentials.


    --As someone else pointed out, the writer's claim about sugar not being empty calories makes no sense. Just because a food has calories doesn't mean those calories are as nutritionally valuable as those in other foods. Calories that fall far short in providing nutrition are called "empty" by nutritionists.

    --Never have heard anyone argue that sugar wasn't a necessary ingredient in most sweet deserts. That's a Straw Man argument, or should I call it a Gingerbread Man argument?

    --It has been reported since this article appeared that Big Sugar HAS plotted to keep people eating sugar. It paid research scientists starting in the 1960s to minimize the health problems with sugar while making fat the enemy.

    Macronutrients are nutrients. Anything with calories provides some sort of nutrition and what "falls short" depends entirely on the situation. A chicken breast will fall short in providing me with what I need during a long run, where some sugary whatever will do the trick.

    And I have seen the article you mention. It failed miserably at providing anything more than circumstancial anecdotes.

    It wasn't one article, but several.


    The scientists conducted a literature review.

  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,968 Member
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    NorthCascades wrote: »
    This is a terrible article. Somebody "debunked" the "myth" that sugar is empty calories by pointing out that it has calories. Stupidest thing I've read in a long time.

    how so? If something provides energy, it can't be empty. If anything the empty calorie argument is the dump one.

    You're just playing word games.
  • nvmomketo
    nvmomketo Posts: 12,019 Member
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    NorthCascades wrote: »
    This is a terrible article. Somebody "debunked" the "myth" that sugar is empty calories by pointing out that it has calories. Stupidest thing I've read in a long time.

    how so? If something provides energy, it can't be empty. If anything the empty calorie argument is the dump one.

    I think some call sugar an empty calorie because it just has calories.

    I guess we could call diet soda "empty flavor" because it just provides flavor... well, and water. And maybe on occasion some micronutrients.

    If you can derive energy out of something it is not empty.

    Possibly. You could just as easily say the calories in sugar are empty of anything else though. They are just calories.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited May 2017
    NorthCascades wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    NorthCascades wrote: »
    This is a terrible article. Somebody "debunked" the "myth" that sugar is empty calories by pointing out that it has calories. Stupidest thing I've read in a long time.

    how so? If something provides energy, it can't be empty. If anything the empty calorie argument is the dump one.

    You're just playing word games.

    Yep. It really is just a semantic argument.

    If someone is struggling with lack of food, living in a famine, whatever, there are no empty calories. (Although that's not 100% true, as there's rabbit starvation and the like.)

    When the issue is most people eating an excess of calories, calories without more are probably at a premium to be cut. That's what the USDA, etc., means with empty calories (which they use for sugar and solid fats, apparently, and ought to use for all the added vegetable oils in stuff if they do not).

    The nit I'd pick with the argument isn't that sugar is empty calories, as that is currently defined, but the idea that sugar being empty calories means that it's always bad/needs to be eliminated. You can have a healthy diet that meets micro and macro needs without eliminating sugar, and clearly even in the obese areas of the world there are some uses for sugar, like as a supplement for endurance sports at times. I wouldn't think that consuming some sports beans during a marathon (or even regular jelly beans) lacks benefit. It does provide, simply, easily used calories.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited May 2017
    To add to that, are the people arguing over the term "empty calories" actually arguing over anything substantive with respect to sugar? I don't think so.
  • stealthq
    stealthq Posts: 4,298 Member
    On the topic of empty calories, I presume nutritionists don't find the actual carbohydrate molecules to be of any worth.

    Based on @PackerJohn's posted definition of empty calories, makes me wonder why things like Crisco don't seem to qualify.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    stealthq wrote: »
    On the topic of empty calories, I presume nutritionists don't find the actual carbohydrate molecules to be of any worth.

    Based on @PackerJohn's posted definition of empty calories, makes me wonder why things like Crisco don't seem to qualify.

    They do, I think.
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,136 Member
    NorthCascades wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    NorthCascades wrote: »
    This is a terrible article. Somebody "debunked" the "myth" that sugar is empty calories by pointing out that it has calories. Stupidest thing I've read in a long time.

    how so? If something provides energy, it can't be empty. If anything the empty calorie argument is the dump one.

    You're just playing word games.

    not sure how it is a word game to say that sugar is not an empty calorie when one derives energy from it.



This discussion has been closed.

Categories