Sugar Lovers take note The Rats became addicted

ostrichagain

So... what you're saying is I should cut my cocaine with confectioners sugar, and it will give me a better high?

I've been telling DH this for years. I feel vindicated.

SStruthers13

Humans=/= Rats.

Human nutritional studies are completely unreliable because the variables cannot be controlled. So they tend to rely on food diaries and surveys.

Mice and rats have been used for 100s of years for research. Dismissing any study because it used animals shows a complete lack of understanding of science and research.

Here is a short list of some of the medical benefits that came from animals used in medical studies and research:

http://www.amprogress.org/animal-research-benefits

Yes, but most animal models are for legal purposes only or have no bearings at all on humans. I read a study on starved cats in nursing school for my nutrition course. They systematically and slowly starved cats and published the results in a HUMAN medical journal. Even a first semester nursing student like myself who was still doing prereq knew cats and humans have totally different reactions to starvation. Yet, these people got research money and were published. That is why I am against animal models.

scottaworley

Funny because cocaine is not addictive.

Says the non-rat.

Come on man...... do you even cocaine?

You mirin my drip brah?

likitisplit

Who thinks the OP is a troll? Posts for three days and then...this.

scottaworley

troll/10 would not bang

ThickMcRunFast

clearly I missed the 5 o'clock free sugar giveaway

cingle87

So what you're saying is, I will get the same buzz of snorting sugar? damn that will save me alot of money

RunFarLiveHappy

I totally feel ya...

I remember what it was like to be clean...Then Johnny Johnson came up to me man and was like "Hey man, you wanna try some food."

I was like "Food, what's food". He said it was the best thing ever and once I started I would never stop. i was like "no way man, i'm clean". Alas though, I gave into temptation.

It started out as a whole grain bagel on the weekends, Then wonderbread and Balogna on Wednesdays.

Its gotten so bad man, I'm doing food (giggity) 3-4 times a day. Its so bad, I'm spending hundreds of dollars on the stuff a month. Even worse, my wife is hooked on it also. I can barely function unless I get my fix in multiple times a day. I speak to a group of trouble youths about the dangers of food at the juvenile center here in town.

I'm just hoping my experiences can help others avoid the same mistakes I did. Thanks OP

MADE MY DAY!!! ????????????????????????

AndyLL180

Humans=/= Rats.

Human nutritional studies are completely unreliable because the variables cannot be controlled. So they tend to rely on food diaries and surveys.

Mice and rats have been used for 100s of years for research. Dismissing any study because it used animals shows a complete lack of understanding of science and research.

Here is a short list of some of the medical benefits that came from animals used in medical studies and research:

http://www.amprogress.org/animal-research-benefits

I see you left out the rest of my post, so I will ask again, did that study use the 12 hr on/off feeding protocol and if so, how does that relate to humans?

You don't read very well.

I made no comment on the validity of this specific study.

I commented on your very generalized statement "Humans=/= Rats"

Since you obviously have not read the study (based on you not knowing the protocol's they used) my assumption was that you were automatically dismissing the results of the study as they applied to humans since they used rats.

By inference I assumed you dismiss all the results of animal research as it applies to humans.

If that assumption is incorrect then you have my apology although I'd urge you to not post such generalized statements that would lead people to misinterpret your beliefs.

Thomasm198

Humans=/= Rats.

Human nutritional studies are completely unreliable because the variables cannot be controlled. So they tend to rely on food diaries and surveys.

Mice and rats have been used for 100s of years for research. Dismissing any study because it used animals shows a complete lack of understanding of science and research.

Here is a short list of some of the medical benefits that came from animals used in medical studies and research:

http://www.amprogress.org/animal-research-benefits

I see you left out the rest of my post, so I will ask again, did that study use the 12 hr on/off feeding protocol and if so, how does that relate to humans?

You don't read very well.

I made no comment on the validity of this specific study.

I commented on your very generalized statement "Humans=/= Rats"

Since you obviously have not read the study (based on you not knowing the protocol's they used) my assumption was that you were automatically dismissing the results of the study as they applied to humans since they used rats.

By inference I assumed you dismiss all the results of animal research as it applies to humans.

If that assumption is incorrect then you have my apology although I'd urge you to not post such generalized statements that would lead people to misinterpret your beliefs.

NickeeCoco

www.dailymail.co.uk

... you do know that the Daily Fail is about as reputable a source as the National Enquirer, right? You'd find more accurate science in a copy of the Beano (but considerably less racism, scaremongering and frankly creepy Diana worship).

There here's a long, detailed article about sugar that talks about this very thing in National Geographic.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2013/08/sugar/cohen-text

ajaxe432

:smokin:

Humans=/= Rats.

Human nutritional studies are completely unreliable because the variables cannot be controlled. So they tend to rely on food diaries and surveys.

Mice and rats have been used for 100s of years for research. Dismissing any study because it used animals shows a complete lack of understanding of science and research.

Here is a short list of some of the medical benefits that came from animals used in medical studies and research:

http://www.amprogress.org/animal-research-benefits

I see you left out the rest of my post, so I will ask again, did that study use the 12 hr on/off feeding protocol and if so, how does that relate to humans?

You don't read very well.

I made no comment on the validity of this specific study.

I commented on your very generalized statement "Humans=/= Rats"

Since you obviously have not read the study (based on you not knowing the protocol's they used) my assumption was that you were automatically dismissing the results of the study as they applied to humans since they used rats.

By inference I assumed you dismiss all the results of animal research as it applies to humans.

If that assumption is incorrect then you have my apology although I'd urge you to not post such generalized statements that would lead people to misinterpret your beliefs.

Uh oh! I feel its on now!!!!:smokin:

lauraleighsm

How about getting sugar the natural way through fresh fruits .

substitute honey, {a little honey} the body can process it easier.

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

You're so smart! I'm so glad there are MD's that know more then the Mayo Clnic on here! The fact is we don't know how our bodies process HFCS, but too much of any processed sugar is not good for you.

And sugar is addicting. I know it. And anyone with kids knows it too. Go eat a poptart.

eric_sg61

How about getting sugar the natural way through fresh fruits .

substitute honey, {a little honey} the body can process it easier.

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

You're so smart! I'm so glad there are MD's that know more then the Mayo Clnic on here! The fact is we don't know how our bodies process HFCS, but too much of any processed sugar is not good for you.

And sugar is addicting. I know it. And anyone with kids knows it too. Go eat a poptart.

ritchiedrama

How about getting sugar the natural way through fresh fruits .

substitute honey, {a little honey} the body can process it easier.

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

You're so smart! I'm so glad there are MD's that know more then the Mayo Clnic on here! The fact is we don't know how our bodies process HFCS, but too much of any processed sugar is not good for you.

And sugar is addicting. I know it. And anyone with kids knows it too. Go eat a poptart.

Sugar is addicting is this a fact? No.

Am I addicted to sugar? no

Can I stop eating sugar? yep

Fact: All carbs eventually get converted into glucose just like sugar already is - meaning all sugar ultimately is the same.

scottaworley

How about getting sugar the natural way through fresh fruits .

substitute honey, {a little honey} the body can process it easier.

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

You're so smart! I'm so glad there are MD's that know more then the Mayo Clnic on here! The fact is we don't know how our bodies process HFCS, but too much of any processed sugar is not good for you.

And sugar is addicting. I know it. And anyone with kids knows it too. Go eat a poptart.

Sugar is addicting is this a fact? No.

Am I addicted to sugar? no

Can I stop eating sugar? yep

Fact: All carbs eventually get converted into glucose just like sugar already is - meaning all sugar ultimately is the same.

Maybe the results of the study were misinterpreted. The study was actually attempting to prove that cocaine is no worse than simple sugar.

MsPudding

Something that's not from The Daily Mail:

http://www.thedoctorwillseeyounow.com/content/dieting/art3922.html interviewing researchers of this study:
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1555133

""Increases in fructose consumption have paralleled the increasing prevalence of obesity,” the authors point out, “and high-fructose diets are thought to promote weight gain and insulin resistance.” Other studies in non-human animals have found that fructose provokes feeding, while glucose promotes feelings of being full. In other words, because fructose doesn’t trigger the same cascade of events leading us to feel satisfied after eating, we might continue our hunt for food (and open another bag of potato chips) in an effort to arrive at that feeling of satiation.

Cutting fructose out of the diet completely is probably not the answer. Foods that naturally contain fructose (like fruits) offer important nutrients, and the amount of fructose they contain is not nearly as high as that of foods sweetened with HFCS. But cutting down on processed foods and drinks sweetened with high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is probably a good idea, the researchers say."

lauraleighsm

Humans=/= Rats.

Human nutritional studies are completely unreliable because the variables cannot be controlled. So they tend to rely on food diaries and surveys.

Mice and rats have been used for 100s of years for research. Dismissing any study because it used animals shows a complete lack of understanding of science and research.

Here is a short list of some of the medical benefits that came from animals used in medical studies and research:

http://www.amprogress.org/animal-research-benefits

Yes, but most animal models are for legal purposes only or have no bearings at all on humans. I read a study on starved cats in nursing school for my nutrition course. They systematically and slowly starved cats and published the results in a HUMAN medical journal. Even a first semester nursing student like myself who was still doing prereq knew cats and humans have totally different reactions to starvation. Yet, these people got research money and were published. That is why I am against animal models.

I 100% do not believe this and would need to see a link. Animal testing is regulated and this kind of study would never be allowed. Everyone also knows in the medical field that animal testing has to come before human studies. Cochlear implants were tested first on animals, as were experimental cancer drugs (one of which my FIL is taking) and many other life saving medications. It is a law that these types of drugs be tested in animals first. I have never met anyone in the medical field "against" the animal model because it is the first step. I've worked in the medical field for 10 years and have never seen anyone say this before because it's a ridiculous notion.

Ophidion

Maybe the results of the study were misinterpreted. The study was actually attempting to prove that cocaine is no worse than simple sugar.

Sweet, will take that as a pass to have cocaine in my coffee from now on...don't worry tho will switch to decaf.

UsedToBeHusky

Maybe the results of the study were misinterpreted. The study was actually attempting to prove that cocaine is no worse than simple sugar.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

I like you!