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.
Addicted to sugar DEBATE
Replies
-
joelrivard wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
I know a lot about addiction.
I really don't understand this idea that if your tastes run to sugar you must be an addict, but people with different preferences and different foods they have control over cannot understand the difficulties of sugar addiction.
Without even looking up brain studies I'm going to say that for most people sugar causes a brief but intense release of a host of brain chemicals including dopamine and seratonin.
I have experience with addiction and a good sugar buzz could be momentarily compared to a low dose opiate buzz. The sugar high is fleeting but it's real. Not every sugar user is an addict and sugar use doesn't cause your brain to grow new sugar receptors which have to be filled constantly or withdrawals result (like opiates).
But choosing to ingest sugar to feel better does become habit forming.
You lost me at the bolded. We should just accept your feels on the subject?4 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Highly patatable and sugar are definitely two different categories, but if the cravings are specifically towards high sugar items, rather than greasy, salty, or just tasty, than the addiction is the sugar. I can easily eat myself sick with pixie sticks and sugar cubes, but though I absolutely love pizza, I'm not going to go out of my way to pigout on it, especially if I don't feel great.
Someone else may be addicted to the highly palatable, or high carb, or spicy or salty items. Just like someone can be addicted to heroin AND cocaine, but not necessarily Vicodine or alchohol. Another might be addicted to more than one category. In my case, it is the sugar.
To call it a sugar addiction because you eat too much candy but not too much fruit is like saying an alcoholic is addicted to beer but not whiskey. If the issue is sugar, you'd go for bananas as fast as you'd go for a twinkie because the substance is in both, just like alcohol is in both wine and whiskey.
Does your "addiction" cause you to overeat fruit or does fruit satisfy your cravings for sweets? If no to either question, you are not addicted to sugar. You just eat too much of the foods you like because you like them.
I'm not a scientist, so you can "woo" this if you want, but the difference between fruit and and refined/processed sweets, is the type of sugar and also that the fruit has fiber and other things in it to mediate the sugar use/transport in the body.7 -
lucerorojo wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Highly patatable and sugar are definitely two different categories, but if the cravings are specifically towards high sugar items, rather than greasy, salty, or just tasty, than the addiction is the sugar. I can easily eat myself sick with pixie sticks and sugar cubes, but though I absolutely love pizza, I'm not going to go out of my way to pigout on it, especially if I don't feel great.
Someone else may be addicted to the highly palatable, or high carb, or spicy or salty items. Just like someone can be addicted to heroin AND cocaine, but not necessarily Vicodine or alchohol. Another might be addicted to more than one category. In my case, it is the sugar.
To call it a sugar addiction because you eat too much candy but not too much fruit is like saying an alcoholic is addicted to beer but not whiskey. If the issue is sugar, you'd go for bananas as fast as you'd go for a twinkie because the substance is in both, just like alcohol is in both wine and whiskey.
Does your "addiction" cause you to overeat fruit or does fruit satisfy your cravings for sweets? If no to either question, you are not addicted to sugar. You just eat too much of the foods you like because you like them.
I'm not a scientist, so you can "woo" this if you want, but the difference between fruit and and refined/processed sweets, is the type of sugar and also that the fruit has fiber and other things in it to mediate the sugar use/transport in the body.
Sugar is sugar...
So, eat a varied diet with plenty of fiber. Problem solved...
2 -
lucerorojo wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Highly patatable and sugar are definitely two different categories, but if the cravings are specifically towards high sugar items, rather than greasy, salty, or just tasty, than the addiction is the sugar. I can easily eat myself sick with pixie sticks and sugar cubes, but though I absolutely love pizza, I'm not going to go out of my way to pigout on it, especially if I don't feel great.
Someone else may be addicted to the highly palatable, or high carb, or spicy or salty items. Just like someone can be addicted to heroin AND cocaine, but not necessarily Vicodine or alchohol. Another might be addicted to more than one category. In my case, it is the sugar.
To call it a sugar addiction because you eat too much candy but not too much fruit is like saying an alcoholic is addicted to beer but not whiskey. If the issue is sugar, you'd go for bananas as fast as you'd go for a twinkie because the substance is in both, just like alcohol is in both wine and whiskey.
Does your "addiction" cause you to overeat fruit or does fruit satisfy your cravings for sweets? If no to either question, you are not addicted to sugar. You just eat too much of the foods you like because you like them.
I'm not a scientist, so you can "woo" this if you want, but the difference between fruit and and refined/processed sweets, is the type of sugar and also that the fruit has fiber and other things in it to mediate the sugar use/transport in the body.
That’s the thing...it’s the type of sugar. Fruit contains fructose, glucose and sucrose (which is a compound molecule of glucose and fructose and breaks apart into a 50/50 split of those two within seconds of entering the intestines). Added sugar (refined/processed, as you call it) is typically either sucrose or high fructose corn syrup (which is 55% fructose and 45% glucose).
They are the exact same chemical substance.
There is no difference.
Your body recognizes “candy sugar” and “fruit sugar” as fructose and glucose. They are the same thing.
This “type of sugar” myth is tiring.9 -
Highly patatable and sugar are definitely two different categories, but if the cravings are specifically towards high sugar items, rather than greasy, salty, or just tasty, than the addiction is the sugar. I can easily eat myself sick with pixie sticks and sugar cubes, but though I absolutely love pizza, I'm not going to go out of my way to pigout on it, especially if I don't feel great.
Someone else may be addicted to the highly palatable, or high carb, or spicy or salty items. Just like someone can be addicted to heroin AND cocaine, but not necessarily Vicodine or alchohol. Another might be addicted to more than one category. In my case, it is the sugar.
If it was sugar then people could and would also get their "fix" eating an apple...but I don't see that happening.
You CAN be addicted to beer and not whiskey.
Not really...I've seen alcoholics...they may have a preference, but if they're an alcoholic they will go for anything. When I was in boot camp I saw guys drink Listerine to get their fix...
3 -
This content has been removed.
-
joelrivard wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
I know a lot about addiction.
I really don't understand this idea that if your tastes run to sugar you must be an addict, but people with different preferences and different foods they have control over cannot understand the difficulties of sugar addiction.
Without even looking up brain studies I'm going to say that for most people sugar causes a brief but intense release of a host of brain chemicals including dopamine and seratonin.
Same with fat, any palatable food, or many other pleasurable experiences.
So back to my question about why sugar is being treated as different.3 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I am sorry if I misread you. My way of reading people who jump in and complain about how others have posted and then proclaim something (what matters is not what we call it, but the specifics and what can help) is that they are assuming no one else made that same point and were instead posting, well, wrongly. Here, I think a lot of the posts in the thread have made that point (that when it comes to advice what it's called doesn't matter, as well as that the specifics matter) and not just been debating.
Also, this was split from a prior thread so that thread could be all about advice and not the debate, and the intent was that this one focus on the topic of "sugar addiction."
I may be oversensitive, since I do think it's important to provide helpful advice (although I think we need to know more details to really do so than that OP feels out of control around certain foods or in his or her eating), and thus IMO always do or try to. This thread is really about a lot of things (none relating to the specific OP, that's why it's here).
As I reread my earlier post, I can see why it would be taken as a lecture, so I apologize for my tone. I actually did read several of the responses before posting, but what I wrote was not in response to any of the posts I read in this particular thread. I enjoy reading threads, but rarely comment (due to time, my introverted nature, and honestly, a fear of being "woo-d"). (Thanks for those, whoever! Lol) This topic is very meaningful to me because so often I see very interesting parallels between addiction/recovery and binge eating/weight loss and maintenance in the prevention/intervention field, and I want to share them! But I never have the time to do the topic justice, so I just read what other people post and keep all thoughts to myself. The above was a bit of that, plus some misplaced frustration. I get kind of worked up when I read posts written by people who compare their compulsion to binge eat sugary foods to addiction and are promptly shut down by those who are (understandably) tired of the cocaine comparisons (which, I absolutely agree, inspire derailment). More than anything, I meant to be helpful. And apparently I really suck at that here! Lol
I just want to say I appreciate this, and I don't think you suck at being helpful. I just think it's tough sometimes to jump into a thread way into it.
I also see interesting parallels, but as someone who had a serious addiction I get bothered by how addiction is sometimes caricatured in making the parallels. But a serious discussion (not the "it's just like cocaine" stuff you and I both dislike) is interesting, and I do think eating can be an addiction for sure (although I DON'T think that needs to be behind weight gain or usually is).1 -
lucerorojo wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Highly patatable and sugar are definitely two different categories, but if the cravings are specifically towards high sugar items, rather than greasy, salty, or just tasty, than the addiction is the sugar. I can easily eat myself sick with pixie sticks and sugar cubes, but though I absolutely love pizza, I'm not going to go out of my way to pigout on it, especially if I don't feel great.
Someone else may be addicted to the highly palatable, or high carb, or spicy or salty items. Just like someone can be addicted to heroin AND cocaine, but not necessarily Vicodine or alchohol. Another might be addicted to more than one category. In my case, it is the sugar.
To call it a sugar addiction because you eat too much candy but not too much fruit is like saying an alcoholic is addicted to beer but not whiskey. If the issue is sugar, you'd go for bananas as fast as you'd go for a twinkie because the substance is in both, just like alcohol is in both wine and whiskey.
Does your "addiction" cause you to overeat fruit or does fruit satisfy your cravings for sweets? If no to either question, you are not addicted to sugar. You just eat too much of the foods you like because you like them.
I'm not a scientist, so you can "woo" this if you want, but the difference between fruit and and refined/processed sweets, is the type of sugar and also that the fruit has fiber and other things in it to mediate the sugar use/transport in the body.
The sugar is not different. Fruit has sucrose, glucose, and fructose (and sucrose is broken down into glucose and fructose). Table sugar is sucrose. Edit: I see Carlos already explained this better than I did.
Yes, fiber (although not all fruits have much fiber, some have very little) slows down how quickly it affects your body, but to some extent so does fat, and all that would mean is that by eating something with sugar WITH something with fiber (or adding it to, say, oats) it would be different in effect.
More likely explanation is that it's not "sugar," that is the issue, but specific hyperpalatable treats which often contain sugar along with other ingredients. This is also why most who have trouble moderating cookies don't go to the sugar bowl any more than they go to apples (I'd go to an apple before plain sugar) -- and before anyone posts yes, I know some people enjoy the taste of plain sugar a lot, but some like plain vinegar or plain oil too, most people don't consume sugar straight.
The benefit of this explanation is also that is explains why many foods that people have trouble moderating have no sugar at all.6 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lucerorojo wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Highly patatable and sugar are definitely two different categories, but if the cravings are specifically towards high sugar items, rather than greasy, salty, or just tasty, than the addiction is the sugar. I can easily eat myself sick with pixie sticks and sugar cubes, but though I absolutely love pizza, I'm not going to go out of my way to pigout on it, especially if I don't feel great.
Someone else may be addicted to the highly palatable, or high carb, or spicy or salty items. Just like someone can be addicted to heroin AND cocaine, but not necessarily Vicodine or alchohol. Another might be addicted to more than one category. In my case, it is the sugar.
To call it a sugar addiction because you eat too much candy but not too much fruit is like saying an alcoholic is addicted to beer but not whiskey. If the issue is sugar, you'd go for bananas as fast as you'd go for a twinkie because the substance is in both, just like alcohol is in both wine and whiskey.
Does your "addiction" cause you to overeat fruit or does fruit satisfy your cravings for sweets? If no to either question, you are not addicted to sugar. You just eat too much of the foods you like because you like them.
I'm not a scientist, so you can "woo" this if you want, but the difference between fruit and and refined/processed sweets, is the type of sugar and also that the fruit has fiber and other things in it to mediate the sugar use/transport in the body.
The sugar is not different. Fruit has sucrose, glucose, and fructose (and sucrose is broken down into glucose and fructose). Table sugar is sucrose. Edit: I see Carlos already explained this better than I did.
Yes, fiber (although not all fruits have much fiber, some have very little) slows down how quickly it affects your body, but to some extent so does fat, and all that would mean is that by eating something with sugar WITH something with fiber (or adding it to, say, oats) it would be different in effect.
More likely explanation is that it's not "sugar," that is the issue, but specific hyperpalatable treats which often contain sugar along with other ingredients. This is also why most who have trouble moderating cookies don't go to the sugar bowl any more than they go to apples (I'd go to an apple before plain sugar) -- and before anyone posts yes, I know some people enjoy the taste of plain sugar a lot, but some like plain vinegar or plain oil too, most people don't consume sugar straight.
The benefit of this explanation is also that is explains why many foods that people have trouble moderating have no sugar at all.
But the effect IS different when one eats an apple and eats a piece of candy or chocolate. (Chocolate has caffeine and fat and caffeine adds another component to this). If a person unknowingly craves a sugar high, then the piece of candy is going to give it to them faster than an apple, so they will reach for that before the apple (or other fruit).2 -
I get way more of a sugar buzz/energy hit off of an apple or banana than I do off of a piece of chocolate.1
-
Not reading every reply... Table sugar is probably best to be minimized for sure. Same with high fructose corn syrup and any other overly processed sweetener.. but fruit is healthy. For years I would avoid eating fruit in fear of weight gain
or diabetes ect (runs rampant through my family) but with some research and experience, I know, for myself and my body that fruit is incredibly healthy. Not sure of the validity of my tactic but I try to eat fruit in the morning or earlier in the day, to give myself time throughout the day to burn it off.13 -
monicapiazza wrote: »Not reading every reply... Table sugar is probably best to be minimized for sure. Same with high fructose corn syrup and any other overly processed sweetener.. but fruit is healthy. For years I would avoid eating fruit in fear of weight gain
or diabetes ect (runs rampant through my family) but with some research and experience, I know, for myself and my body that fruit is incredibly healthy. Not sure of the validity of my tactic but I try to eat fruit in the morning or earlier in the day, to give myself time throughout the day to burn it off.
From what I understand (and someone can correct me if I'm wrong) the sugar in fruits is absorbed slower than other sources, so you're less likely to get a spike than if you have say candy of some kind.2 -
-
lucerorojo wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lucerorojo wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Highly patatable and sugar are definitely two different categories, but if the cravings are specifically towards high sugar items, rather than greasy, salty, or just tasty, than the addiction is the sugar. I can easily eat myself sick with pixie sticks and sugar cubes, but though I absolutely love pizza, I'm not going to go out of my way to pigout on it, especially if I don't feel great.
Someone else may be addicted to the highly palatable, or high carb, or spicy or salty items. Just like someone can be addicted to heroin AND cocaine, but not necessarily Vicodine or alchohol. Another might be addicted to more than one category. In my case, it is the sugar.
To call it a sugar addiction because you eat too much candy but not too much fruit is like saying an alcoholic is addicted to beer but not whiskey. If the issue is sugar, you'd go for bananas as fast as you'd go for a twinkie because the substance is in both, just like alcohol is in both wine and whiskey.
Does your "addiction" cause you to overeat fruit or does fruit satisfy your cravings for sweets? If no to either question, you are not addicted to sugar. You just eat too much of the foods you like because you like them.
I'm not a scientist, so you can "woo" this if you want, but the difference between fruit and and refined/processed sweets, is the type of sugar and also that the fruit has fiber and other things in it to mediate the sugar use/transport in the body.
The sugar is not different. Fruit has sucrose, glucose, and fructose (and sucrose is broken down into glucose and fructose). Table sugar is sucrose. Edit: I see Carlos already explained this better than I did.
Yes, fiber (although not all fruits have much fiber, some have very little) slows down how quickly it affects your body, but to some extent so does fat, and all that would mean is that by eating something with sugar WITH something with fiber (or adding it to, say, oats) it would be different in effect.
More likely explanation is that it's not "sugar," that is the issue, but specific hyperpalatable treats which often contain sugar along with other ingredients. This is also why most who have trouble moderating cookies don't go to the sugar bowl any more than they go to apples (I'd go to an apple before plain sugar) -- and before anyone posts yes, I know some people enjoy the taste of plain sugar a lot, but some like plain vinegar or plain oil too, most people don't consume sugar straight.
The benefit of this explanation is also that is explains why many foods that people have trouble moderating have no sugar at all.
But the effect IS different when one eats an apple and eats a piece of candy or chocolate. (Chocolate has caffeine and fat and caffeine adds another component to this). If a person unknowingly craves a sugar high, then the piece of candy is going to give it to them faster than an apple, so they will reach for that before the apple (or other fruit).
Agreed the effect is (for most) different. That supports my point that it's NOT the sugar, which is not different.
The effect is different when one eats a banana and a cookie too, usually, even though the banana may give the sugar high (which I believe is a misnomer) FASTER than the cookie. I don't think it's the sugar, I think it's the hyperpalatability, which is often due to a mix of ingredients (although for some candy may be hyperpalatable).
Let's do a comparison:
There's a chocolate I like, dark chocolate (Chocolove 88%) that has about 180 cal, 4 g of sugar per serving (and 4 g of fiber). A 100 g banana has 89 cal, over 12 g of sugar, only 2.6 g fiber. A small (150 g) apple has about 80 cal, and 15.5 g of sugar (3.6 g fiber). Apple juice has more sugar, essentially no fiber. And my chocolate chip cookies in my recipe box have over 200 cal, 12 g of sugar (tiny bit of fiber). Oh, for good measure, my low carb cardamom ice cream has 172 cal, 2 g sugar, no fiber.
The fiber in the banana is not really enough to slow down the sugar "hit" -- that's why people consume bananas before or immediately after running events. I don't think the apple is either, and of course juice is not. The other ingredients in the cookie and chocolate WOULD slow down the fit, likely (walnuts in the cookies, plus fat), and the chocolate is much LOWER in sugar anyway.
Yet despite all this, the foods that I think most would have trouble not consuming more than they intended of is the ice cream (believe me, it's delicious), the chocolate, and the cookies. Despite juice being something I don't consume because of the calories and I think whole fruit is better for you and I prefer it, I never had an issue being unable to stop at a glass of orange juice or apple juice. That one could probably mindlessly drink a bunch without getting full is not the issue.8 -
-
MichelleSilverleaf wrote: »monicapiazza wrote: »Not reading every reply... Table sugar is probably best to be minimized for sure. Same with high fructose corn syrup and any other overly processed sweetener.. but fruit is healthy. For years I would avoid eating fruit in fear of weight gain
or diabetes ect (runs rampant through my family) but with some research and experience, I know, for myself and my body that fruit is incredibly healthy. Not sure of the validity of my tactic but I try to eat fruit in the morning or earlier in the day, to give myself time throughout the day to burn it off.
From what I understand (and someone can correct me if I'm wrong) the sugar in fruits is absorbed slower than other sources, so you're less likely to get a spike than if you have say candy of some kind.
No, as explained above, the sugar is the same. Fruit does not have different, slower absorbing sugar (sucrose = fructose and glucose and gets broken down into the two; fruit has sucrose, fructose, and glucose).
To get more nerdy, so called sugar spikes -- which are not a problem for most people -- are caused by glucose (which you get from starches too) and not fructose, but the worst effects of sugar is from an overload in your liver which is from fructose. In moderate amounts, no sugar is a problem and this distinction doesn't matter.
Some fruit and other foods (like oats, which some add sugar to) will have fiber and fiber slows down the digestion of the food, including the sugar in it. Many fruits are not that high in fiber, though, which is why a banana is good pre or during race fuel for many.
Some candies are basically just sugar (IMO the least appealing ones I would never overconsume, but people's tastes are different) and those are like consuming just sugar, sure (same with pop or juice). Other so called candies -- chocolate, for example, or my favorite, chocolate covered nuts, have a slower sugar "hit" than most fruits, I expect. Yet, that does not mean chocolate covered nuts are less "addictive" (trust me, they can be impossible to stop eating).
Now foods are different, and fruit has not that many calories and lots of micronutrients, so I think it would be silly to stop eating it if you like it (I love it), and the time of day doesn't matter a bit, that's another diet myth. But that fruit is different from a cookie has nothing to do with the sugar, it's that the fruit has different micros and essentially no fat, and the cookie is much higher cal due to the fat and has fewer micros, usually. Not that a cookie can't fit into a decent diet is one likes cookies.5 -
HappyGrape wrote: »
I honestly have no idea what the difference is?0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »MichelleSilverleaf wrote: »monicapiazza wrote: »Not reading every reply... Table sugar is probably best to be minimized for sure. Same with high fructose corn syrup and any other overly processed sweetener.. but fruit is healthy. For years I would avoid eating fruit in fear of weight gain
or diabetes ect (runs rampant through my family) but with some research and experience, I know, for myself and my body that fruit is incredibly healthy. Not sure of the validity of my tactic but I try to eat fruit in the morning or earlier in the day, to give myself time throughout the day to burn it off.
From what I understand (and someone can correct me if I'm wrong) the sugar in fruits is absorbed slower than other sources, so you're less likely to get a spike than if you have say candy of some kind.
No, as explained above, the sugar is the same. Fruit does not have different, slower absorbing sugar (sucrose = fructose and glucose and gets broken down into the two; fruit has sucrose, fructose, and glucose).
To get more nerdy, so called sugar spikes -- which are not a problem for most people -- are caused by glucose (which you get from starches too) and not fructose, but the worst effects of sugar is from an overload in your liver which is from fructose. In moderate amounts, no sugar is a problem and this distinction doesn't matter.
Some fruit and other foods (like oats, which some add sugar to) will have fiber and fiber slows down the digestion of the food, including the sugar in it. Many fruits are not that high in fiber, though, which is why a banana is good pre or during race fuel for many.
Some candies are basically just sugar (IMO the least appealing ones I would never overconsume, but people's tastes are different) and those are like consuming just sugar, sure (same with pop or juice). Other so called candies -- chocolate, for example, or my favorite, chocolate covered nuts, have a slower sugar "hit" than most fruits, I expect. Yet, that does not mean chocolate covered nuts are less "addictive" (trust me, they can be impossible to stop eating).
Now foods are different, and fruit has not that many calories and lots of micronutrients, so I think it would be silly to stop eating it if you like it (I love it), and the time of day doesn't matter a bit, that's another diet myth. But that fruit is different from a cookie has nothing to do with the sugar, it's that the fruit has different micros and essentially no fat, and the cookie is much higher cal due to the fat and has fewer micros, usually. Not that a cookie can't fit into a decent diet is one likes cookies.
The bolded is what I was trying to say (albeit very poorly), not to insinuate that sugar in fruit was somehow different.0 -
MichelleSilverleaf wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »MichelleSilverleaf wrote: »monicapiazza wrote: »Not reading every reply... Table sugar is probably best to be minimized for sure. Same with high fructose corn syrup and any other overly processed sweetener.. but fruit is healthy. For years I would avoid eating fruit in fear of weight gain
or diabetes ect (runs rampant through my family) but with some research and experience, I know, for myself and my body that fruit is incredibly healthy. Not sure of the validity of my tactic but I try to eat fruit in the morning or earlier in the day, to give myself time throughout the day to burn it off.
From what I understand (and someone can correct me if I'm wrong) the sugar in fruits is absorbed slower than other sources, so you're less likely to get a spike than if you have say candy of some kind.
No, as explained above, the sugar is the same. Fruit does not have different, slower absorbing sugar (sucrose = fructose and glucose and gets broken down into the two; fruit has sucrose, fructose, and glucose).
To get more nerdy, so called sugar spikes -- which are not a problem for most people -- are caused by glucose (which you get from starches too) and not fructose, but the worst effects of sugar is from an overload in your liver which is from fructose. In moderate amounts, no sugar is a problem and this distinction doesn't matter.
Some fruit and other foods (like oats, which some add sugar to) will have fiber and fiber slows down the digestion of the food, including the sugar in it. Many fruits are not that high in fiber, though, which is why a banana is good pre or during race fuel for many.
Some candies are basically just sugar (IMO the least appealing ones I would never overconsume, but people's tastes are different) and those are like consuming just sugar, sure (same with pop or juice). Other so called candies -- chocolate, for example, or my favorite, chocolate covered nuts, have a slower sugar "hit" than most fruits, I expect. Yet, that does not mean chocolate covered nuts are less "addictive" (trust me, they can be impossible to stop eating).
Now foods are different, and fruit has not that many calories and lots of micronutrients, so I think it would be silly to stop eating it if you like it (I love it), and the time of day doesn't matter a bit, that's another diet myth. But that fruit is different from a cookie has nothing to do with the sugar, it's that the fruit has different micros and essentially no fat, and the cookie is much higher cal due to the fat and has fewer micros, usually. Not that a cookie can't fit into a decent diet is one likes cookies.
The bolded is what I was trying to say (albeit very poorly), not to insinuate that sugar in fruit was somehow different.
Got it. It's just a pet peeve that some seem to think that the sugar is actually different, so for example that in a banana is slow digesting and sugar added to steel cut oats would be fast digesting, when the latter has more fiber. If it weren't misunderstood so often I wouldn't feel the need to be so darned pedantic! ;-)0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »MichelleSilverleaf wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »MichelleSilverleaf wrote: »monicapiazza wrote: »Not reading every reply... Table sugar is probably best to be minimized for sure. Same with high fructose corn syrup and any other overly processed sweetener.. but fruit is healthy. For years I would avoid eating fruit in fear of weight gain
or diabetes ect (runs rampant through my family) but with some research and experience, I know, for myself and my body that fruit is incredibly healthy. Not sure of the validity of my tactic but I try to eat fruit in the morning or earlier in the day, to give myself time throughout the day to burn it off.
From what I understand (and someone can correct me if I'm wrong) the sugar in fruits is absorbed slower than other sources, so you're less likely to get a spike than if you have say candy of some kind.
No, as explained above, the sugar is the same. Fruit does not have different, slower absorbing sugar (sucrose = fructose and glucose and gets broken down into the two; fruit has sucrose, fructose, and glucose).
To get more nerdy, so called sugar spikes -- which are not a problem for most people -- are caused by glucose (which you get from starches too) and not fructose, but the worst effects of sugar is from an overload in your liver which is from fructose. In moderate amounts, no sugar is a problem and this distinction doesn't matter.
Some fruit and other foods (like oats, which some add sugar to) will have fiber and fiber slows down the digestion of the food, including the sugar in it. Many fruits are not that high in fiber, though, which is why a banana is good pre or during race fuel for many.
Some candies are basically just sugar (IMO the least appealing ones I would never overconsume, but people's tastes are different) and those are like consuming just sugar, sure (same with pop or juice). Other so called candies -- chocolate, for example, or my favorite, chocolate covered nuts, have a slower sugar "hit" than most fruits, I expect. Yet, that does not mean chocolate covered nuts are less "addictive" (trust me, they can be impossible to stop eating).
Now foods are different, and fruit has not that many calories and lots of micronutrients, so I think it would be silly to stop eating it if you like it (I love it), and the time of day doesn't matter a bit, that's another diet myth. But that fruit is different from a cookie has nothing to do with the sugar, it's that the fruit has different micros and essentially no fat, and the cookie is much higher cal due to the fat and has fewer micros, usually. Not that a cookie can't fit into a decent diet is one likes cookies.
The bolded is what I was trying to say (albeit very poorly), not to insinuate that sugar in fruit was somehow different.
Got it. It's just a pet peeve that some seem to think that the sugar is actually different, so for example that in a banana is slow digesting and sugar added to steel cut oats would be fast digesting, when the latter has more fiber. If it weren't misunderstood so often I wouldn't feel the need to be so darned pedantic! ;-)
No worries, I appreciate the explanation you provided. My mom was just officially diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and is trying to figure out the sugar since our current doc is less-than-helpful explaining anything, so been trying to do all the proper research and learning.1 -
Chocolate is a complete different issue--it has caffeine, along with sugar and fat. Caffeine is addictive--many people who stop drinking/eating caffeine and are used to eating/drinking it, will get a headache (withdrawal symptom).0
-
I doubt many people are consuming that much chocolate and no other sources of caffeine.1
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »I doubt many people are consuming that much chocolate and no other sources of caffeine.
Yeah, I was going to say that you'd have to be consuming an awful lot of chocolate to become dependent on the caffeine it provides.1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I doubt many people are consuming that much chocolate and no other sources of caffeine.
Yeah, I was going to say that you'd have to be consuming an awful lot of chocolate to become dependent on the caffeine it provides.
I never even knew it had any. But yeah, 200 grams of chcocolate have about as much as a cup of coffee. That's a lot of chocolate.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I doubt many people are consuming that much chocolate and no other sources of caffeine.
Yeah, I was going to say that you'd have to be consuming an awful lot of chocolate to become dependent on the caffeine it provides.
That wasn't my point. If you are going to get specific about the fructose, glucose, sucrose, that sugar isn't the cause it's the "other things" in the food, being reasons why people overeat or abuse them, you need to consider that there is an additional substance in chocolate and that is CAFFEINE. If also causes a high/buzz/spike. Coupled with the sugar and fat, it is a powerful mouthful. There is not that much in chocolate compared to other substances, true. However, there is none in an apple, and none in baked goods not made of chocolate.
I personally consume very little caffeine and for about 6 months this year consumed NONE in any other source, except for an occasional chocolate kiss. Now I'm drinking decaf coffee again and it has some caffeine in it. I am extremely sensitive to caffeine. A cup of regular coffee will keep me awake for 48 hours. I won't sleep if I drink it. Even a few chocolate kisses, or a piece of dark chocolate affects my sleep, although just a couple of hours.0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »Highly patatable and sugar are definitely two different categories, but if the cravings are specifically towards high sugar items, rather than greasy, salty, or just tasty, than the addiction is the sugar. I can easily eat myself sick with pixie sticks and sugar cubes, but though I absolutely love pizza, I'm not going to go out of my way to pigout on it, especially if I don't feel great.
Someone else may be addicted to the highly palatable, or high carb, or spicy or salty items. Just like someone can be addicted to heroin AND cocaine, but not necessarily Vicodine or alchohol. Another might be addicted to more than one category. In my case, it is the sugar.
If it was sugar then people could and would also get their "fix" eating an apple...but I don't see that happening.
You CAN be addicted to beer and not whiskey.
Not really...I've seen alcoholics...they may have a preference, but if they're an alcoholic they will go for anything. When I was in boot camp I saw guys drink Listerine to get their fix...
LOL, yup!! had 3 or 4 guys who went through a bottle every 3 days.
Some time later(2000ish) they stopped stocking the high test Listerine at the Trainee BX/PXs.0 -
monicapiazza wrote: »Not reading every reply... Table sugar is probably best to be minimized for sure. Same with high fructose corn syrup and any other overly processed sweetener.. but fruit is healthy. For years I would avoid eating fruit in fear of weight gain
or diabetes ect (runs rampant through my family) but with some research and experience, I know, for myself and my body that fruit is incredibly healthy. Not sure of the validity of my tactic but I try to eat fruit in the morning or earlier in the day, to give myself time throughout the day to burn it off.
Tangent warning.
FOR ME: the physiological and psychological effects of HFCS are different than Table sugar or fruit.
For lack of a better description, sugars tend to make me "weird" at certain dosages... HFCS does it much faster and at much lower dosages.3 -
lucerorojo wrote: »A cup of regular coffee will keep me awake for 48 hours.
???2 -
Sugar is addicting, and I am a sugar addict.15
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K 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
- 426 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
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions