Sugar Lovers take note The Rats became addicted

ritchiedrama

i briefly read through this thread so excuse me for asking...

for all the people saying sugar is NOT addictive... did they ever provide scientific evidence that it ISN'T addictive? Or did they just point to themselves and say IT CANT BE ADDICTIVE LOOK AT THIS BODY and then tell anyone who disagreed that they were fat and middle aged?

just want to make sure we're all on the same page here....

To prove something is addictive, you have to provide substantial evidence, not the other way around.

so the study they provided is absolutely irrelevant in comparison to your anecdotal evidence? :laugh:

Seems silly to say that you're "right" when you don't have anything to prove that...

The study didn't actually prove anything.

it didn't NOT prove anything did it?

Does anyone have evidence that sugar is in fact, not addictive? No? Then isn't it safe to assume that it very well could (or could not) be addictive?

My point was simply that there isn't enough evidence at this time to definitively say if it is or isnt. And point blank disagreeing is equally as wrong as saying it's fact.

There was no debate whatsoever other than some fear monger saying LOOK WHAT IT DID TO RATS and some egocentrical douche saying UH LOOK AT MY BODY CLEARLY... etc.

This whole thread was a waste of time. :smokin:

No-one needs to prove if its NOT addictive...

People have to prove it _IS_ addictive..

HOW CAN YOU NOT SEE THIS?

Did you even read? what are you not getting? I said there's not enough evidence to prove either point so arguing that you are correct is completely irrelevant....seriously?

................. Because no-one has to prove that it isn't addictive...... why would they??????????

This is about a study (with no good evidence) saying it is addictive, and as you've said there is no evidence, but you keep mentioning the otherside of it as if I have to conduct studies/or someone else does to find out.

More to the point, every single post you've made on this thread is irrelevant.

PixieGoddess

Is there a way to remove a thread from "My Topics"? I posted on this thread when the topic was still sugar, and I really just want to stop seeing it in my list b/c it has devolved into pure stupidity.

scottaworley

Ridiculous claim -> good logic, analytical thinking, and sense -> backpedaling to safe ground/making personal attacks.
COME ON PEOPLE

rainbowbow

i briefly read through this thread so excuse me for asking...

for all the people saying sugar is NOT addictive... did they ever provide scientific evidence that it ISN'T addictive? Or did they just point to themselves and say IT CANT BE ADDICTIVE LOOK AT THIS BODY and then tell anyone who disagreed that they were fat and middle aged?

just want to make sure we're all on the same page here....

To prove something is addictive, you have to provide substantial evidence, not the other way around.

so the study they provided is absolutely irrelevant in comparison to your anecdotal evidence? :laugh:

Seems silly to say that you're "right" when you don't have anything to prove that...

The study didn't actually prove anything.

it didn't NOT prove anything did it?

Does anyone have evidence that sugar is in fact, not addictive? No? Then isn't it safe to assume that it very well could (or could not) be addictive?

My point was simply that there isn't enough evidence at this time to definitively say if it is or isnt. And point blank disagreeing is equally as wrong as saying it's fact.

There was no debate whatsoever other than some fear monger saying LOOK WHAT IT DID TO RATS and some egocentrical douche saying UH LOOK AT MY BODY CLEARLY... etc.

This whole thread was a waste of time. :smokin:

Come back to me when you prove that water is not addictive.
Until then you better stop drinking it. Because why would you assume?

Did i say sugar is addictive? No. Seriously? I said it's a waste of time for you to even be arguing. people need to make an informed decision and do whatever the hell they want. What i said was wrong was telling them its completely false when there isnt enough evidence to substantiate that.

rainbowbow

i briefly read through this thread so excuse me for asking...

for all the people saying sugar is NOT addictive... did they ever provide scientific evidence that it ISN'T addictive? Or did they just point to themselves and say IT CANT BE ADDICTIVE LOOK AT THIS BODY and then tell anyone who disagreed that they were fat and middle aged?

just want to make sure we're all on the same page here....

To prove something is addictive, you have to provide substantial evidence, not the other way around.

so the study they provided is absolutely irrelevant in comparison to your anecdotal evidence? :laugh:

Seems silly to say that you're "right" when you don't have anything to prove that...

The study didn't actually prove anything.

it didn't NOT prove anything did it?

Does anyone have evidence that sugar is in fact, not addictive? No? Then isn't it safe to assume that it very well could (or could not) be addictive?

My point was simply that there isn't enough evidence at this time to definitively say if it is or isnt. And point blank disagreeing is equally as wrong as saying it's fact.

There was no debate whatsoever other than some fear monger saying LOOK WHAT IT DID TO RATS and some egocentrical douche saying UH LOOK AT MY BODY CLEARLY... etc.

This whole thread was a waste of time. :smokin:

No-one needs to prove if its NOT addictive...

People have to prove it _IS_ addictive..

HOW CAN YOU NOT SEE THIS?

Did you even read? what are you not getting? I said there's not enough evidence to prove either point so arguing that you are correct is completely irrelevant....seriously?

................. Because no-one has to prove that it isn't addictive...... why would they??????????

This is about a study (with no good evidence) saying it is addictive, and as you've said there is no evidence, but you keep mentioning the otherside of it as if I have to conduct studies/or someone else does to find out.

More to the point, every single post you've made on this thread is irrelevant.

Yeah, almost as irrelevant as the numerous pages of this thread where you personally attack people because clearly we're all "middle age and overweight" right?

ritchiedrama

i briefly read through this thread so excuse me for asking...

for all the people saying sugar is NOT addictive... did they ever provide scientific evidence that it ISN'T addictive? Or did they just point to themselves and say IT CANT BE ADDICTIVE LOOK AT THIS BODY and then tell anyone who disagreed that they were fat and middle aged?

just want to make sure we're all on the same page here....

To prove something is addictive, you have to provide substantial evidence, not the other way around.

so the study they provided is absolutely irrelevant in comparison to your anecdotal evidence? :laugh:

Seems silly to say that you're "right" when you don't have anything to prove that...

The study didn't actually prove anything.

it didn't NOT prove anything did it?

Does anyone have evidence that sugar is in fact, not addictive? No? Then isn't it safe to assume that it very well could (or could not) be addictive?

My point was simply that there isn't enough evidence at this time to definitively say if it is or isnt. And point blank disagreeing is equally as wrong as saying it's fact.

There was no debate whatsoever other than some fear monger saying LOOK WHAT IT DID TO RATS and some egocentrical douche saying UH LOOK AT MY BODY CLEARLY... etc.

This whole thread was a waste of time. :smokin:

Come back to me when you prove that water is not addictive.
Until then you better stop drinking it. Because why would you assume?

Did i say sugar is addictive? No. Seriously? I said it's a waste of time for you to even be arguing. people need to make an informed decision and do whatever the hell they want. What i said was wrong was telling them its completely false when there isnt enough evidence to substantiate that.

No you didn't but you say people should be proving that it isn't addictive..

ritchiedrama

i briefly read through this thread so excuse me for asking...

for all the people saying sugar is NOT addictive... did they ever provide scientific evidence that it ISN'T addictive? Or did they just point to themselves and say IT CANT BE ADDICTIVE LOOK AT THIS BODY and then tell anyone who disagreed that they were fat and middle aged?

just want to make sure we're all on the same page here....

To prove something is addictive, you have to provide substantial evidence, not the other way around.

so the study they provided is absolutely irrelevant in comparison to your anecdotal evidence? :laugh:

Seems silly to say that you're "right" when you don't have anything to prove that...

The study didn't actually prove anything.

it didn't NOT prove anything did it?

Does anyone have evidence that sugar is in fact, not addictive? No? Then isn't it safe to assume that it very well could (or could not) be addictive?

My point was simply that there isn't enough evidence at this time to definitively say if it is or isnt. And point blank disagreeing is equally as wrong as saying it's fact.

There was no debate whatsoever other than some fear monger saying LOOK WHAT IT DID TO RATS and some egocentrical douche saying UH LOOK AT MY BODY CLEARLY... etc.

This whole thread was a waste of time. :smokin:

No-one needs to prove if its NOT addictive...

People have to prove it _IS_ addictive..

HOW CAN YOU NOT SEE THIS?

Did you even read? what are you not getting? I said there's not enough evidence to prove either point so arguing that you are correct is completely irrelevant....seriously?

................. Because no-one has to prove that it isn't addictive...... why would they??????????

This is about a study (with no good evidence) saying it is addictive, and as you've said there is no evidence, but you keep mentioning the otherside of it as if I have to conduct studies/or someone else does to find out.

More to the point, every single post you've made on this thread is irrelevant.

Yeah, almost as irrelevant as the numerous pages of this thread where you personally attack people because clearly we're all "middle age and overweight" right?

Why did I resort to saying that? Not that it makes it right, but for the past week and a half the same two women have constantly "personally" attacked me - of course I'll respond.

rainbowbow

i briefly read through this thread so excuse me for asking...

for all the people saying sugar is NOT addictive... did they ever provide scientific evidence that it ISN'T addictive? Or did they just point to themselves and say IT CANT BE ADDICTIVE LOOK AT THIS BODY and then tell anyone who disagreed that they were fat and middle aged?

just want to make sure we're all on the same page here....

To prove something is addictive, you have to provide substantial evidence, not the other way around.

so the study they provided is absolutely irrelevant in comparison to your anecdotal evidence? :laugh:

Seems silly to say that you're "right" when you don't have anything to prove that...

The study didn't actually prove anything.

it didn't NOT prove anything did it?

Does anyone have evidence that sugar is in fact, not addictive? No? Then isn't it safe to assume that it very well could (or could not) be addictive?

My point was simply that there isn't enough evidence at this time to definitively say if it is or isnt. And point blank disagreeing is equally as wrong as saying it's fact.

There was no debate whatsoever other than some fear monger saying LOOK WHAT IT DID TO RATS and some egocentrical douche saying UH LOOK AT MY BODY CLEARLY... etc.

This whole thread was a waste of time. :smokin:

Come back to me when you prove that water is not addictive.
Until then you better stop drinking it. Because why would you assume?

Did i say sugar is addictive? No. Seriously? I said it's a waste of time for you to even be arguing. people need to make an informed decision and do whatever the hell they want. What i said was wrong was telling them its completely false when there isnt enough evidence to substantiate that.

No you didn't but you say people should be proving that it isn't addictive..

before you jump on your high horse and start telling everyone they're overweight and wrong you should probably have some evidence to back that up.

auntiebabs

How about just having any sugar? It all gets processed the same way in the end.

Let's see am I going to believe a Princeton University Study (http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/) that says:
"...as a result of the manufacturing process for high-fructose corn syrup, the fructose molecules in the sweetener are free and unbound, ready for absorption and utilization. In contrast, every fructose molecule in sucrose that comes from cane sugar or beet sugar is bound to a corresponding glucose molecule and must go through an extra metabolic step before it can be utilized."

... or You?

Um, let's see... I'll go with who've is cuter.

ajaxe432

:laugh: Anybody have any popcorn? Second argument of the day! Intense!!!!!

histora

So whilst this ridiculous topic carried on, my addiction to sugar was too much to handle, had to run to the shops and purchase all this sugar.. ))

I eat sugar, I have no cravings. I eat sugar, I have no cravings. I eat sugar, I have no cravings. I eat sugar, I have no cravings. I eat sugar, I have no cravings. I eat sugar, I have no cravings.

Ya see sugar, ya gotta run out and buy some and make a huge bowl of slop, parade it around on the nets, and then scarf it. Nope, doesn't sound like cravings at all.

And before you start in on the insults, lemme do all the heavy lifting for ya, brah.

I'm fat, I'm middle aged, I'm a woman, I'm American.

There.

auntiebabs

I knew it! It's all part of the conspiracy to keep us fat!

No, no, that's just the by-product..
they just add a ton more sweeteners to foods that were previously healthy foods, because sugars and artificial sweeteners increase your appetite. You eat more, they sell more. It's the more you get, the more you want cycle. For all parties concerned.

SoDamnHungry

I don't need an article to tell me there's something up with sugar. Every time I try to cut back on sugar I'm ready to shank someone for a Snickers.

scottaworley

So whilst this ridiculous topic carried on, my addiction to sugar was too much to handle, had to run to the shops and purchase all this sugar.. ))

I eat sugar, I have no cravings. I eat sugar, I have no cravings. I eat sugar, I have no cravings. I eat sugar, I have no cravings. I eat sugar, I have no cravings. I eat sugar, I have no cravings.

Ya see sugar, ya gotta run out and buy some and make a huge bowl of slop, parade it around on the nets, and then scarf it. Nope, doesn't sound like cravings at all.

And before you start in on the insults, lemme do all the heavy lifting for ya, brah.

I'm fat, I'm middle aged, I'm a woman, I'm American.

There.

Would you care to share how you would get 2500+ calories?
Dude meets his macros on the daily.

histora

So whilst this ridiculous topic carried on, my addiction to sugar was too much to handle, had to run to the shops and purchase all this sugar.. ))

I eat sugar, I have no cravings. I eat sugar, I have no cravings. I eat sugar, I have no cravings. I eat sugar, I have no cravings. I eat sugar, I have no cravings. I eat sugar, I have no cravings.

Ya see sugar, ya gotta run out and buy some and make a huge bowl of slop, parade it around on the nets, and then scarf it. Nope, doesn't sound like cravings at all.

And before you start in on the insults, lemme do all the heavy lifting for ya, brah.

I'm fat, I'm middle aged, I'm a woman, I'm American.

There.

Would you care to share how you would get 2500+ calories?
Dude meets his macros on the daily.

Totes not why I posted it, dude.
Srsly. Not banging on the dudes choice of food to meet macros, but his snide i ain't craving crap 'tude wasn't funny when he "had" to run out and buy some disgusting slop o food like it was something to be proud of.
Tchus.

Acg67

How about just having any sugar? It all gets processed the same way in the end.

Let's see am I going to believe a Princeton University Study (http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/) that says:
"...as a result of the manufacturing process for high-fructose corn syrup, the fructose molecules in the sweetener are free and unbound, ready for absorption and utilization. In contrast, every fructose molecule in sucrose that comes from cane sugar or beet sugar is bound to a corresponding glucose molecule and must go through an extra metabolic step before it can be utilized."

... or You?

Um, let's see... I'll go with who've is cuter.

Why would you use a rodent study when there are plenty of human studies that have looked at HFCS vs sucrose?

ritchiedrama

So whilst this ridiculous topic carried on, my addiction to sugar was too much to handle, had to run to the shops and purchase all this sugar.. ))

I eat sugar, I have no cravings. I eat sugar, I have no cravings. I eat sugar, I have no cravings. I eat sugar, I have no cravings. I eat sugar, I have no cravings. I eat sugar, I have no cravings.

Ya see sugar, ya gotta run out and buy some and make a huge bowl of slop, parade it around on the nets, and then scarf it. Nope, doesn't sound like cravings at all.

And before you start in on the insults, lemme do all the heavy lifting for ya, brah.

I'm fat, I'm middle aged, I'm a woman, I'm American.

There.

Would you care to share how you would get 2500+ calories?
Dude meets his macros on the daily.

Totes not why I posted it, dude.
Srsly. Not banging on the dudes choice of food to meet macros, but his snide i ain't craving crap 'tude wasn't funny when he "had" to run out and buy some disgusting slop o food like it was something to be proud of.
Tchus.

I did it on purpose today to prove a point. I'll have a few days of low sugar now if you want? How many days do you want me to go?

HeidiCooksSupper

How about just having any sugar? It all gets processed the same way in the end.

No. Read some endocrinology. Different sugars are processed differently by the body. Like climate change, denying it all you want won't make it any less true.

histora

So whilst this ridiculous topic carried on, my addiction to sugar was too much to handle, had to run to the shops and purchase all this sugar.. ))

I eat sugar, I have no cravings. I eat sugar, I have no cravings. I eat sugar, I have no cravings. I eat sugar, I have no cravings. I eat sugar, I have no cravings. I eat sugar, I have no cravings.

Ya see sugar, ya gotta run out and buy some and make a huge bowl of slop, parade it around on the nets, and then scarf it. Nope, doesn't sound like cravings at all.

And before you start in on the insults, lemme do all the heavy lifting for ya, brah.

I'm fat, I'm middle aged, I'm a woman, I'm American.

There.

Would you care to share how you would get 2500+ calories?
Dude meets his macros on the daily.

Totes not why I posted it, dude.
Srsly. Not banging on the dudes choice of food to meet macros, but his snide i ain't craving crap 'tude wasn't funny when he "had" to run out and buy some disgusting slop o food like it was something to be proud of.
Tchus.

I did it on purpose today to prove a point. I'll have a few days of low sugar now if you want? How many days do you want me to go?

:laugh:
"I don't have a problem, I can quit any time I want! Yeah! Yeah, I'll quit right now!"

idgaf, dude.

Mgregory723

Seems Legit!