Sugar Lovers take note The Rats became addicted
Options
Replies
-
Yeah it looks disgusting, but tasted like heaven, I just chucked it in a bowl, I'm no woman I just wanna eat and get swole homie.
Edit: Second photo = same bowl as the ice cream so the chocolates everywhere
! 0 -
I LIKE TAQUITOS!!!!!
best response in this thread0 -
Did this thread not start with 'science', which was dismissed because rats. Then personal experience were dismissed because ? So, what science would make you happy exactly, aside from the kind with conclusions you agree with?Just because my 4 old would sell his soul for a handful of Skittles and a half a Snickers bar doesn’t mean that sugar is addictive.
I’m sure there is no absolutely no correlation between the staggering rise in obesity, hypertension, and type 2 diabetes and the fact that Americans went from consuming about 9gs of sugar per day in the 19th century to consuming 155gs per day in 2012.
Correlation is not causation soooooooooo.
Come back with science
For centuries people used the same logic to argue against the danger of tobacco.
And then they came back with science.
Yes, they came "back with science", which indeed proved a correlation between tobacco and lung disease. It is amazing when scientific proof catches up with common sense.0 -
I tried sugar once........and again yesterday:glasses:0
-
My dangerous comment was made as more of a broad philosophical statement. It's probably not harmful to reduce or eliminate sugar from one's diet, but it is not shown to have any benefits in healthy individuals either. Any scare tactic to get people to stop eating a certain type of food I am against.
I guess the posting of a study could be considered a scare tactic, albeit a mild one.
There are far too many people claiming “I eat ______ and it hasn’t harmed my health, so therefore everyone should eat ________ because it is obviously safe.” (I haven’t seen that from you, but from too many others). That may be the worst rationale I’ve ever heard for doing something!
There are nearly 700k users on MFP, and while there are is a certain population that are here to share their half-naked / shaved chest selfies and hone their high level of fitness, a lot are desperate to reverse years of bad nutrition and fitness habits. Reducing their sugar intake would probably be helpful in that endeavor.
I can't eat whatever I want because I am trying to control my cholesterol (never really had a diet that was particularly conducive to bad cholesterol, just bad genetics.) That being said, everyone with any sense on these forums is about macros. There are a few people who believe in straight calories, but they tend to starve to lose weight. When you meet your macros you are forced to eat healthy foods. The difference is those of us who meet our macros can have treats occasionally or even daily. So when someone says "I ate XYZ and I'm losing weight/am ripped/so swoll" have a look at their diary. Most of the time XYZ is interspersed with plenty of veggies, fiber, and other non-processed foods.
I agree with you that most of the developed should probably reduce their sugar intake, but sugar in any form is not bad in and of itself.0 -
I tried sugar once........and again yesterday:glasses:
You have a serious problem that needs to be sorted out. I'm 90% sure I saw you take a few packets to the face, signs of trouble my friend. Soon you'll be sniffing it, melting it down and injecting it, god only knows. Gateway disaccharide.0 -
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....0 -
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.0 -
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...0 -
Did this thread not start with 'science', which was dismissed because rats. Then personal experience were dismissed because ? So, what science would make you happy exactly, aside from the kind with conclusions you agree with?Just because my 4 old would sell his soul for a handful of Skittles and a half a Snickers bar doesn’t mean that sugar is addictive.
I’m sure there is no absolutely no correlation between the staggering rise in obesity, hypertension, and type 2 diabetes and the fact that Americans went from consuming about 9gs of sugar per day in the 19th century to consuming 155gs per day in 2012.
Correlation is not causation soooooooooo.
Come back with science
For centuries people used the same logic to argue against the danger of tobacco.
And then they came back with science.
Yes, they came "back with science", which indeed proved a correlation between tobacco and lung disease. It is amazing when scientific proof catches up with common sense.
I have no problem with rat testing, but the results can not always be extrapolated to humans. It's a first step, sure, but I am not convinced that anyone will ever prove that "processed sugar" will ever be proven to be harmful to humans. I feel this way because the research that has been done that I have read has suggested that, in moderation, sugar does not have any significant negative effects.
As for sugar being as addictive as cocaine... Come on. First of all, comparing somethings addictive qualities to that of cocaine holds no water, because cocaine is not physically addictive. Further, anything, including sugar, sex, or working out, can be psychologically addictive. I'm not eliminating sex or exercise from my life, and I will not eliminate processed sugars either.
This thread was meant to scare people away from sugar. That is wrong. Knee jerk reactions to inconclusive studies which if anything only raise questions to be researched are what Dr. Oz makes a living off of. I'm not about to be in that boat, and I will always be the voice of reason against people who try to use science to scare people.0 -
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.0 -
Well, it's a good thing I'm not a rat. :laugh:0
-
To prove something is addictive, you have to provide substantial evidence, not the other way around.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....
This^ Plus they'll have to prove neurologically that it is addictive. You can't have a study where you give a person or animal simple sugar for a prolonged period of time every single day at the same time, cut them off entirely and then call it "addictive." What you've done is condition the body to release hunger signals at a set point in time as well as anabolic hormones such as insulin. Physiologically, your body has addapted nad you will get side effects because you disturbed a constant cycle. Try sleeping at the same time every night for a couple weeks and then don't sleep for an entire night. Let me know how you feel the next morning. Clearly sleep is addictive as well.
Edited for spelling0 -
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...
As scottaworley said, the study proved nothing.
Secondly, one study doesn't amount to anything.
Third, there is no third. I'm sick of the human race.0 -
Ritch weighs 20 pounds less than me and he's got a good 15 pounds of muscle more than me. Yeah.. underachiever.
Excuse me but so what?
This isn't about the fact that he's lost a bit of weight and gained some muscle... not an unusual story on this forum. It's about him constantly dressing himself up as some kind of health and fitness guru without as much as the smallest piece of paper to his name whilst constantly putting down qualified trainers, qualified nutritionists, researchers, on the basis of ripping off having read Lean Gains.
It's also about the fact that he constantly puts people down, belittles opinion, from his little pedestal of exactly what??
I gotta agree with you on this one. I don't get these forums on a whole any way. Being muscled and thin doesn't equal healthy. I work part time at a fitness store and come in contact with major athletes from ultra marathoners to crossfit champs. In speaking with them the number one advice they give me is diet related and fueling your body with good foods...not refined sugar. A little is fine, but I guarantee these people are not slurping down bowls of ice cream and posting pictures of it online. The point is to help eliminate cravings, which is done by limiting sugars.
I can't even believe I came back to this thread bc it's so silly.0 -
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:0 -
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?0 -
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?0 -
Holy crap this thread is intense.0
-
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?0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions