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 Debate
System
Posts: 1,919 MFP Staff
This discussion was created from comments split from: Sugar Addict.
0
Replies
-
Glycogen is needed to energize muscles to work. Glycogen comes from glucose with comes mainly from the breaking down of sugars (carbs). It's natural to want sugar in the body because of how it fuels not only the body BUT THE BRAIN.
It's NOT AN ADDICTION. You don't moderate addiction and you need glucose to function properly. You don't moderate alcohol as an alcoholic, nor cocaine if you're a drug addict. The reason why people are so drawn to sugar is it's hyper palatable. Even animals are attracted to things that have sugar in them.
So just eat things that have sugar in them naturally like fruit. And don't be afraid to moderate eating things like candy or ice cream either but learn habitually how to limit how much you eat.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
4 -
I agree with Ninerbuff - it isn't an addiction. It is a habit, it may be due to having the temptation around, and subpar diet overall. I don't have any sweets in the house, ever. I don't miss it if it isn't there. Others have also given good advice about substituting with fruit and not being too restrictive during the week.2
-
Glycogen is needed to energize muscles to work. Glycogen comes from glucose with comes mainly from the breaking down of sugars (carbs). It's natural to want sugar in the body because of how it fuels not only the body BUT THE BRAIN.
It's NOT AN ADDICTION. You don't moderate addiction and you need glucose to function properly. You don't moderate alcohol as an alcoholic, nor cocaine if you're a drug addict. The reason why people are so drawn to sugar is it's hyper palatable. Even animals are attracted to things that have sugar in them.
So just eat things that have sugar in them naturally like fruit. And don't be afraid to moderate eating things like candy or ice cream either but learn habitually how to limit how much you eat.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Yeah, not addictive in the true sense of the definition. Hyperpalatable is probably a good definition. Sweet taste and not necessarily granular sugar has an effect on quite a few people and that sweet taste release opioids and dopamine which are neurotransmitters connected to our reward center of the brain and we feel good/excited. Part of the problem is the more sugary foods consumed in this population the less opioids and dopamine is released which then requires more sugary foods for the same hit and our psychological state has a big influence on that landscape as well. It's difficult for these people and I don't think saying it's not an addiction is very helpful and some recognition would be more helpful, imo of course. Cheers6 -
neanderthin wrote: »Glycogen is needed to energize muscles to work. Glycogen comes from glucose with comes mainly from the breaking down of sugars (carbs). It's natural to want sugar in the body because of how it fuels not only the body BUT THE BRAIN.
It's NOT AN ADDICTION. You don't moderate addiction and you need glucose to function properly. You don't moderate alcohol as an alcoholic, nor cocaine if you're a drug addict. The reason why people are so drawn to sugar is it's hyper palatable. Even animals are attracted to things that have sugar in them.
So just eat things that have sugar in them naturally like fruit. And don't be afraid to moderate eating things like candy or ice cream either but learn habitually how to limit how much you eat.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Yeah, not addictive in the true sense of the definition. Hyperpalatable is probably a good definition. Sweet taste and not necessarily granular sugar has an effect on quite a few people and that sweet taste release opioids and dopamine which are neurotransmitters connected to our reward center of the brain and we feel good/excited. Part of the problem is the more sugary foods consumed in this population the less opioids and dopamine is released which then requires more sugary foods for the same hit and our psychological state has a big influence on that landscape as well. It's difficult for these people and I don't think saying it's not an addiction is very helpful and some recognition would be more helpful, imo of course. Cheers
Absolutely!!!!!! Wonderful points neanderthin.1 -
neanderthin wrote: »Glycogen is needed to energize muscles to work. Glycogen comes from glucose with comes mainly from the breaking down of sugars (carbs). It's natural to want sugar in the body because of how it fuels not only the body BUT THE BRAIN.
It's NOT AN ADDICTION. You don't moderate addiction and you need glucose to function properly. You don't moderate alcohol as an alcoholic, nor cocaine if you're a drug addict. The reason why people are so drawn to sugar is it's hyper palatable. Even animals are attracted to things that have sugar in them.
So just eat things that have sugar in them naturally like fruit. And don't be afraid to moderate eating things like candy or ice cream either but learn habitually how to limit how much you eat.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Yeah, not addictive in the true sense of the definition. Hyperpalatable is probably a good definition. Sweet taste and not necessarily granular sugar has an effect on quite a few people and that sweet taste release opioids and dopamine which are neurotransmitters connected to our reward center of the brain and we feel good/excited. Part of the problem is the more sugary foods consumed in this population the less opioids and dopamine is released which then requires more sugary foods for the same hit and our psychological state has a big influence on that landscape as well. It's difficult for these people and I don't think saying it's not an addiction is very helpful and some recognition would be more helpful, imo of course. Cheers
I feel like there's a way to recognize that it's an incredibly difficult problem for some people without jumping to the "addiction" language.
One of the things I dislike about "sugar is an addiction" is that it seems to imply that the person is completely powerless in the face of an uncontrollable force. That's a disservice.
Mindset is an incredibly powerful part of change-making. In the case of weight management, creating just that small chink of self-definition maneuvering room between "I'm a sugar addict" and something like "I currently eat too much sugar, too often" . . . that can be a useful thing to make the road to change look like a way one can travel, even if the road is bumpy ahead.
JMO as always, though.6 -
neanderthin wrote: »Glycogen is needed to energize muscles to work. Glycogen comes from glucose with comes mainly from the breaking down of sugars (carbs). It's natural to want sugar in the body because of how it fuels not only the body BUT THE BRAIN.
It's NOT AN ADDICTION. You don't moderate addiction and you need glucose to function properly. You don't moderate alcohol as an alcoholic, nor cocaine if you're a drug addict. The reason why people are so drawn to sugar is it's hyper palatable. Even animals are attracted to things that have sugar in them.
So just eat things that have sugar in them naturally like fruit. And don't be afraid to moderate eating things like candy or ice cream either but learn habitually how to limit how much you eat.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Yeah, not addictive in the true sense of the definition. Hyperpalatable is probably a good definition. Sweet taste and not necessarily granular sugar has an effect on quite a few people and that sweet taste release opioids and dopamine which are neurotransmitters connected to our reward center of the brain and we feel good/excited. Part of the problem is the more sugary foods consumed in this population the less opioids and dopamine is released which then requires more sugary foods for the same hit and our psychological state has a big influence on that landscape as well. It's difficult for these people and I don't think saying it's not an addiction is very helpful and some recognition would be more helpful, imo of course. Cheers
I feel like there's a way to recognize that it's an incredibly difficult problem for some people without jumping to the "addiction" language.
One of the things I dislike about "sugar is an addiction" is that it seems to imply that the person is completely powerless in the face of an uncontrollable force. That's a disservice.
Mindset is an incredibly powerful part of change-making. In the case of weight management, creating just that small chink of self-definition maneuvering room between "I'm a sugar addict" and something like "I currently eat too much sugar, too often" . . . that can be a useful thing to make the road to change look like a way one can travel, even if the road is bumpy ahead.
JMO as always, though.
Humans are hardwired (neurons) to seek out sweet things and evolutionarily speaking we probably, no, most definitely wouldn't have survived without it. Unfortunately, the difficulty is the "seeking out" part of this equation has changed, alot, a world of difference, literally, and when foods are engineered to be highly palatable, easily accessible, easier to consume than more labor-intensive alternatives (whole foods) and cheaper, it has to contribute to some degree to the situation we see now and less we forget how much humans love sweet things.
There's a lot of blaming that should be going on before we blame individuals that find themselves in this situation, but I also believe that most people have a sense that consuming too many sugary things isn't good for them. I'm referring to in excess of EB calories and not in moderation where EB is baseline then sugar is not a problem for the most part.
It appears that people find in almost impossible to give up the dopamine hit and accept the consequences but alternatively I find people either need to completely remove sugary foods from their diet or move to a lifestyle change where the foods they consume are from almost all whole food where some higher GI carbs can be included like berries for example or dairy where some sugar is evident......there is no easy solution, and every person requires and deserves to be examined and looked after by whatever health care system is in place and the overall healthcare cost would come down. I do get carried away, sorry for the diatribe, again. cheers.
4 -
neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »Glycogen is needed to energize muscles to work. Glycogen comes from glucose with comes mainly from the breaking down of sugars (carbs). It's natural to want sugar in the body because of how it fuels not only the body BUT THE BRAIN.
It's NOT AN ADDICTION. You don't moderate addiction and you need glucose to function properly. You don't moderate alcohol as an alcoholic, nor cocaine if you're a drug addict. The reason why people are so drawn to sugar is it's hyper palatable. Even animals are attracted to things that have sugar in them.
So just eat things that have sugar in them naturally like fruit. And don't be afraid to moderate eating things like candy or ice cream either but learn habitually how to limit how much you eat.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Yeah, not addictive in the true sense of the definition. Hyperpalatable is probably a good definition. Sweet taste and not necessarily granular sugar has an effect on quite a few people and that sweet taste release opioids and dopamine which are neurotransmitters connected to our reward center of the brain and we feel good/excited. Part of the problem is the more sugary foods consumed in this population the less opioids and dopamine is released which then requires more sugary foods for the same hit and our psychological state has a big influence on that landscape as well. It's difficult for these people and I don't think saying it's not an addiction is very helpful and some recognition would be more helpful, imo of course. Cheers
I feel like there's a way to recognize that it's an incredibly difficult problem for some people without jumping to the "addiction" language.
One of the things I dislike about "sugar is an addiction" is that it seems to imply that the person is completely powerless in the face of an uncontrollable force. That's a disservice.
Mindset is an incredibly powerful part of change-making. In the case of weight management, creating just that small chink of self-definition maneuvering room between "I'm a sugar addict" and something like "I currently eat too much sugar, too often" . . . that can be a useful thing to make the road to change look like a way one can travel, even if the road is bumpy ahead.
JMO as always, though.
Humans are hardwired (neurons) to seek out sweet things and evolutionarily speaking we probably, no, most definitely wouldn't have survived without it. Unfortunately, the difficulty is the "seeking out" part of this equation has changed, alot, a world of difference, literally, and when foods are engineered to be highly palatable, easily accessible, easier to consume than more labor-intensive alternatives (whole foods) and cheaper, it has to contribute to some degree to the situation we see now and less we forget how much humans love sweet things.
There's a lot of blaming that should be going on before we blame individuals that find themselves in this situation, but I also believe that most people have a sense that consuming too many sugary things isn't good for them. I'm referring to in excess of EB calories and not in moderation where EB is baseline then sugar is not a problem for the most part.
It appears that people find in almost impossible to give up the dopamine hit and accept the consequences but alternatively I find people either need to completely remove sugary foods from their diet or move to a lifestyle change where the foods they consume are from almost all whole food where some higher GI carbs can be included like berries for example or dairy where some sugar is evident......there is no easy solution, and every person requires and deserves to be examined and looked after by whatever health care system is in place and the overall healthcare cost would come down. I do get carried away, sorry for the diatribe, again. cheers.
My intention is not to "blame" individuals, but rather to encourage them to seek a mindset - a self-conception - that empowers them at least a little - that gives them, inside their own heads, a space where they can find a path toward change.
As with anything, I'm not arguing that this is a panacea, or even universally helpful or necessary. I'm speaking out of a self-perception that I make better progress if I can reasonably define obstacles as something to be gotten over, around, through or otherwise past (a problem-solving approach) rather than irresistible total blocks to progress. For me, the latter is posture of powerlessness, maybe even victimhood, that doesn't help me.
Are there unconquerable obstacles? Sure. For the majority of people, I don't think that a strong taste or craving for sugar is one of them.
As you say, people can try cutting out added sugars entirely, focusing on a mostly-whole-foods diet; or, as I and others have said, try eating more fruit, getting sweets out of the house, etc. Are all or any of those strategies guaranteed to work? Of course not. But they're worth a try.
"I can't control my sugar intake" is not a great starting point for trying things with an open mind.
Will some people fail no matter what? Maybe. I don't know. I do see people here try various things, and find strategies that help them. That encourages me to believe that others can find such strategies, too. Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems like believing there's some strategy that could possibly work seems like an important element.
I'm also not arguing that people should just go ahead and Eat All The Sugar. I believe that good overall nutrition. at sensible calories, is important. I suspect that better nutrition might reduce sugar cravings for some . . . but I have no proof, and I suspect that it would take a period of time to see the effect, if it exists - not great for anyone looking for a quick solution. But that's speculative.1 -
People use language to convey their experience. If I say "I really enjoy food", you'll have one understanding of what that means. If I say "I'm addicted to food" then you have a different, perhap more accurate, understanding of my experience. Using the term addicted generally intimates that the individual is unable to moderate their use of that particular thing. And yes, being addicted to sugar is a very real experience. And nobody should deny the op her experience. If she feels addicted to sugar, then she feels addicted to sugar. All of your guy's semantics are useless and devaluing the op's experience, whether you like what she said or not.11
-
sollyn23l2 wrote: »People use language to convey their experience. If I say "I really enjoy food", you'll have one understanding of what that means. If I say "I'm addicted to food" then you have a different, perhap more accurate, understanding of my experience. Using the term addicted generally intimates that the individual is unable to moderate their use of that particular thing. And yes, being addicted to sugar is a very real experience. And nobody should deny the op her experience. If she feels addicted to sugar, then she feels addicted to sugar. All of your guy's semantics are useless and devaluing the op's experience, whether you like what she said or not.
I understand what you're saying, I think. I'm not minimizing the difficulty.
Still, I don't think it's wrong to suggest to suggest that people examine their own thought patterns or preconceptions. Sometimes, those have an effect on progress or outcomes. Often, I suspect. I know they do for me. I'm rarely unique.
If they're literally unable to moderate the thing, is there an escape route from that? If so, what might it be? Should they just give up?
3 -
People use language tosollyn23l2 wrote: »People use language to convey their experience. If I say "I really enjoy food", you'll have one understanding of what that means. If I say "I'm addicted to food" then you have a different, perhap more accurate, understanding of my experience. Using the term addicted generally intimates that the individual is unable to moderate their use of that particular thing. And yes, being addicted to sugar is a very real experience. And nobody should deny the op her experience. If she feels addicted to sugar, then she feels addicted to sugar. All of your guy's semantics are useless and devaluing the op's experience, whether you like what she said or not.
I understand what you're saying, I think. I'm not minimizing the difficulty.
Still, I don't think it's wrong to suggest to suggest that people examine their own thought patterns or preconceptions. Sometimes, those have an effect on progress or outcomes. Often, I suspect. I know they do for me. I'm rarely unique.
If they're literally unable to moderate the thing, is there an escape route from that? If so, what might it be? Should they just give up?
Anne, your previous post had some very valid points, and I agree that yes, examination of thought patterns is helpful. It's how we find coping mechanisms. And I think that's what the op is really looking for... coping mechanisms. And people just telling her "but you're not ACTUALLY addicted, I mean, it's not an illegal drug" isn't really helpful for her.9 -
Glycogen is needed to energize muscles to work. Glycogen comes from glucose with comes mainly from the breaking down of sugars (carbs). It's natural to want sugar in the body because of how it fuels not only the body BUT THE BRAIN.
It's NOT AN ADDICTION. You don't moderate addiction and you need glucose to function properly. You don't moderate alcohol as an alcoholic, nor cocaine if you're a drug addict. The reason why people are so drawn to sugar is it's hyper palatable. Even animals are attracted to things that have sugar in them.
So just eat things that have sugar in them naturally like fruit. And don't be afraid to moderate eating things like candy or ice cream either but learn habitually how to limit how much you eat.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
you dont need carbohydrates to fuel or function properly. you can fuel on keytones perfectly fine and its a preferred source for brain function for certain medical cases. ie, epilepsy.3 -
Not to mention, with our brains on overload with all stimulus from work, social media, stress, etc., the brain will work on trying to refuel as well. Vicious circle.neanderthin wrote: »Glycogen is needed to energize muscles to work. Glycogen comes from glucose with comes mainly from the breaking down of sugars (carbs). It's natural to want sugar in the body because of how it fuels not only the body BUT THE BRAIN.
It's NOT AN ADDICTION. You don't moderate addiction and you need glucose to function properly. You don't moderate alcohol as an alcoholic, nor cocaine if you're a drug addict. The reason why people are so drawn to sugar is it's hyper palatable. Even animals are attracted to things that have sugar in them.
So just eat things that have sugar in them naturally like fruit. And don't be afraid to moderate eating things like candy or ice cream either but learn habitually how to limit how much you eat.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Yeah, not addictive in the true sense of the definition. Hyperpalatable is probably a good definition. Sweet taste and not necessarily granular sugar has an effect on quite a few people and that sweet taste release opioids and dopamine which are neurotransmitters connected to our reward center of the brain and we feel good/excited. Part of the problem is the more sugary foods consumed in this population the less opioids and dopamine is released which then requires more sugary foods for the same hit and our psychological state has a big influence on that landscape as well. It's difficult for these people and I don't think saying it's not an addiction is very helpful and some recognition would be more helpful, imo of course. Cheers
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition 1 -
"Feeling" addicted isn't the same as "physically" relying on a substance. Sorry, but I deal with this with many clients and yes I deny them this out. Because it's NOT addictive. When people get into that mindset, then they believe they have no chance to have sugar at all. Like I stated, you CAN'T moderate an addiction. You quit it altogether or you'll be stuck on whatever substance you're addicted to. People "addicted" to sugar won't steal from family, rob people, do "side jobs" to just get money to attain it, nor lick or scoop sugar off the ground, drink mouthwash, etc. That's devaluing people who truly are addicted to substances. So I emphatically believe it's not semantics but the correct use of the word. Hyper palability is the correct phrase to use. And since this is a public forum, whether you want to agree or not, I believe it's right to make sure people know the correct definition. Don't believe me? How many people end up in a rehab clinic for "sugar addiction"?sollyn23l2 wrote: »People use language to convey their experience. If I say "I really enjoy food", you'll have one understanding of what that means. If I say "I'm addicted to food" then you have a different, perhap more accurate, understanding of my experience. Using the term addicted generally intimates that the individual is unable to moderate their use of that particular thing. And yes, being addicted to sugar is a very real experience. And nobody should deny the op her experience. If she feels addicted to sugar, then she feels addicted to sugar. All of your guy's semantics are useless and devaluing the op's experience, whether you like what she said or not.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
4 -
Not to mention, with our brains on overload with all stimulus from work, social media, stress, etc., the brain will work on trying to refuel as well. Vicious circle.neanderthin wrote: »Glycogen is needed to energize muscles to work. Glycogen comes from glucose with comes mainly from the breaking down of sugars (carbs). It's natural to want sugar in the body because of how it fuels not only the body BUT THE BRAIN.
It's NOT AN ADDICTION. You don't moderate addiction and you need glucose to function properly. You don't moderate alcohol as an alcoholic, nor cocaine if you're a drug addict. The reason why people are so drawn to sugar is it's hyper palatable. Even animals are attracted to things that have sugar in them.
So just eat things that have sugar in them naturally like fruit. And don't be afraid to moderate eating things like candy or ice cream either but learn habitually how to limit how much you eat.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Yeah, not addictive in the true sense of the definition. Hyperpalatable is probably a good definition. Sweet taste and not necessarily granular sugar has an effect on quite a few people and that sweet taste release opioids and dopamine which are neurotransmitters connected to our reward center of the brain and we feel good/excited. Part of the problem is the more sugary foods consumed in this population the less opioids and dopamine is released which then requires more sugary foods for the same hit and our psychological state has a big influence on that landscape as well. It's difficult for these people and I don't think saying it's not an addiction is very helpful and some recognition would be more helpful, imo of course. Cheers
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Not to mention, with our brains on overload with all stimulus from work, social media, stress, etc., the brain will work on trying to refuel as well. Vicious circle.neanderthin wrote: »Glycogen is needed to energize muscles to work. Glycogen comes from glucose with comes mainly from the breaking down of sugars (carbs). It's natural to want sugar in the body because of how it fuels not only the body BUT THE BRAIN.
It's NOT AN ADDICTION. You don't moderate addiction and you need glucose to function properly. You don't moderate alcohol as an alcoholic, nor cocaine if you're a drug addict. The reason why people are so drawn to sugar is it's hyper palatable. Even animals are attracted to things that have sugar in them.
So just eat things that have sugar in them naturally like fruit. And don't be afraid to moderate eating things like candy or ice cream either but learn habitually how to limit how much you eat.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Yeah, not addictive in the true sense of the definition. Hyperpalatable is probably a good definition. Sweet taste and not necessarily granular sugar has an effect on quite a few people and that sweet taste release opioids and dopamine which are neurotransmitters connected to our reward center of the brain and we feel good/excited. Part of the problem is the more sugary foods consumed in this population the less opioids and dopamine is released which then requires more sugary foods for the same hit and our psychological state has a big influence on that landscape as well. It's difficult for these people and I don't think saying it's not an addiction is very helpful and some recognition would be more helpful, imo of course. Cheers
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Very true. Cheers.
0 -
sollyn23l2 wrote: »People use language to convey their experience. If I say "I really enjoy food", you'll have one understanding of what that means. If I say "I'm addicted to food" then you have a different, perhap more accurate, understanding of my experience. Using the term addicted generally intimates that the individual is unable to moderate their use of that particular thing. And yes, being addicted to sugar is a very real experience. And nobody should deny the op her experience. If she feels addicted to sugar, then she feels addicted to sugar. All of your guy's semantics are useless and devaluing the op's experience, whether you like what she said or not.
I can never understand this problem. You'd think people would be overjoyed to learn that they are not "addicted" to something. The thing I've always liked about MFP is that it has the courage to correct misinformation.2 -
snowflake954 wrote: »sollyn23l2 wrote: »People use language to convey their experience. If I say "I really enjoy food", you'll have one understanding of what that means. If I say "I'm addicted to food" then you have a different, perhap more accurate, understanding of my experience. Using the term addicted generally intimates that the individual is unable to moderate their use of that particular thing. And yes, being addicted to sugar is a very real experience. And nobody should deny the op her experience. If she feels addicted to sugar, then she feels addicted to sugar. All of your guy's semantics are useless and devaluing the op's experience, whether you like what she said or not.
I can never understand this problem. You'd think people would be overjoyed to learn that they are not "addicted" to something. The thing I've always liked about MFP is that it has the courage to correct misinformation.
Well, I'm sure as the word gets out to all the people that feel addicted and now find out they aren't, and it's all in their heads, they'll be very grateful. lol Cheers4 -
neanderthin wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »sollyn23l2 wrote: »People use language to convey their experience. If I say "I really enjoy food", you'll have one understanding of what that means. If I say "I'm addicted to food" then you have a different, perhap more accurate, understanding of my experience. Using the term addicted generally intimates that the individual is unable to moderate their use of that particular thing. And yes, being addicted to sugar is a very real experience. And nobody should deny the op her experience. If she feels addicted to sugar, then she feels addicted to sugar. All of your guy's semantics are useless and devaluing the op's experience, whether you like what she said or not.
I can never understand this problem. You'd think people would be overjoyed to learn that they are not "addicted" to something. The thing I've always liked about MFP is that it has the courage to correct misinformation.
Well, I'm sure as the word gets out to all the people that feel addicted and now find out they aren't, and it's all in their heads, they'll be very grateful. lol Cheers
Ha! Talking about sugar, to be clear. You have to admit there is a certain drama to "I am addicted to sugar" rather than "I tend to overeat sweets".1 -
snowflake954 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »sollyn23l2 wrote: »People use language to convey their experience. If I say "I really enjoy food", you'll have one understanding of what that means. If I say "I'm addicted to food" then you have a different, perhap more accurate, understanding of my experience. Using the term addicted generally intimates that the individual is unable to moderate their use of that particular thing. And yes, being addicted to sugar is a very real experience. And nobody should deny the op her experience. If she feels addicted to sugar, then she feels addicted to sugar. All of your guy's semantics are useless and devaluing the op's experience, whether you like what she said or not.
I can never understand this problem. You'd think people would be overjoyed to learn that they are not "addicted" to something. The thing I've always liked about MFP is that it has the courage to correct misinformation.
Well, I'm sure as the word gets out to all the people that feel addicted and now find out they aren't, and it's all in their heads, they'll be very grateful. lol Cheers
Ha! Talking about sugar, to be clear. You have to admit there is a certain drama to "I am addicted to sugar" rather than "I tend to overeat sweets".
Well, if those 2 statements are the only 2 realities, then yes, what remains would be "certain drama". The 1st reality is a person feels hopelessly a slave to a sweet taste while the second reality would dictate that they could take it or leave it.
Here's another reality. When we consume sugar it travels down the limbic system to our brain which also controls neurochemical messaging but also has an effect on our behavior and when someone has a problem with sugar, brain scans show that the same pathways that cocaine and other drugs use and produce similar events, and studies show that sugar not only can replace the "hit" people get from drugs but that it even has a greater initial "hit" effect.
Basically it's a nuanced conversation that normally gets squashed with the conventional bias or beliefs because sugar isn't a substance that in the strictest definition, is not addicting.
6 -
I always find this debate odd.
The definition of addiction has been very clear for a long time. It's the compulsive seeking and engagement of a behaviour or substance despite predictably negative outcomes for the seeker. It features persistent invasive thoughts in the form of cravings, which are the product of altered brain circuitry in response to the stimulus.
Some drugs make this rewiring very easy and rapid, our so-called 'addictive substances,' but they are by no means the only substances people can become addicted to, they're just highly likely to generate addiction in most brains.
So some people's behaviours with food absolutely constitute addiction. Other people's don't.
Where things get muddy are that the well established definitions of addiction don't disseminate well into the general public discourse because so much of that discourse is shaped by the recovery industry, which has its own ideological ideas about addiction. And they have much better PR.
11 -
neanderthin wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »sollyn23l2 wrote: »People use language to convey their experience. If I say "I really enjoy food", you'll have one understanding of what that means. If I say "I'm addicted to food" then you have a different, perhap more accurate, understanding of my experience. Using the term addicted generally intimates that the individual is unable to moderate their use of that particular thing. And yes, being addicted to sugar is a very real experience. And nobody should deny the op her experience. If she feels addicted to sugar, then she feels addicted to sugar. All of your guy's semantics are useless and devaluing the op's experience, whether you like what she said or not.
I can never understand this problem. You'd think people would be overjoyed to learn that they are not "addicted" to something. The thing I've always liked about MFP is that it has the courage to correct misinformation.
Well, I'm sure as the word gets out to all the people that feel addicted and now find out they aren't, and it's all in their heads, they'll be very grateful. lol Cheers
Ha! Talking about sugar, to be clear. You have to admit there is a certain drama to "I am addicted to sugar" rather than "I tend to overeat sweets".
Well, if those 2 statements are the only 2 realities, then yes, what remains would be "certain drama". The 1st reality is a person feels hopelessly a slave to a sweet taste while the second reality would dictate that they could take it or leave it.
Here's another reality. When we consume sugar it travels down the limbic system to our brain which also controls neurochemical messaging but also has an effect on our behavior and when someone has a problem with sugar, brain scans show that the same pathways that cocaine and other drugs use and produce similar events, and studies show that sugar not only can replace the "hit" people get from drugs but that it even has a greater initial "hit" effect.
Basically it's a nuanced conversation that normally gets squashed with the conventional bias or beliefs because sugar isn't a substance that in the strictest definition, is not addicting.
OK. Because I always respect your posts, what do you think should be done differently with someone who has a sugar addiction verses someone who tends to overeat and is very over weight and needs to lose?
How would the approach differ? Can a sugar addiction be cured? Or, is it abstinence forever?
0 -
/qsnowflake954 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »sollyn23l2 wrote: »People use language to convey their experience. If I say "I really enjoy food", you'll have one understanding of what that means. If I say "I'm addicted to food" then you have a different, perhap more accurate, understanding of my experience. Using the term addicted generally intimates that the individual is unable to moderate their use of that particular thing. And yes, being addicted to sugar is a very real experience. And nobody should deny the op her experience. If she feels addicted to sugar, then she feels addicted to sugar. All of your guy's semantics are useless and devaluing the op's experience, whether you like what she said or not.
I can never understand this problem. You'd think people would be overjoyed to learn that they are not "addicted" to something. The thing I've always liked about MFP is that it has the courage to correct misinformation.
Well, I'm sure as the word gets out to all the people that feel addicted and now find out they aren't, and it's all in their heads, they'll be very grateful. lol Cheers
Ha! Talking about sugar, to be clear. You have to admit there is a certain drama to "I am addicted to sugar" rather than "I tend to overeat sweets".
Well, if those 2 statements are the only 2 realities, then yes, what remains would be "certain drama". The 1st reality is a person feels hopelessly a slave to a sweet taste while the second reality would dictate that they could take it or leave it.
Here's another reality. When we consume sugar it travels down the limbic system to our brain which also controls neurochemical messaging but also has an effect on our behavior and when someone has a problem with sugar, brain scans show that the same pathways that cocaine and other drugs use and produce similar events, and studies show that sugar not only can replace the "hit" people get from drugs but that it even has a greater initial "hit" effect.
Basically it's a nuanced conversation that normally gets squashed with the conventional bias or beliefs because sugar isn't a substance that in the strictest definition, is not addicting.
OK. Because I always respect your posts, what do you think should be done differently with someone who has a sugar addiction verses someone who tends to overeat and is very over weight and needs to lose?
How would the approach differ? Can a sugar addiction be cured? Or, is it abstinence forever?
Well, first off, I have my own biases so I will, as I generally do, try and keep that out of this conversation, but suspect some of that will creep in.
The problem with overeating and obesity is, it's multifaceted so there isn't a blanket recommendation that will fit all circumstances, and some may have nothing to do with sugar "addiction". But sugar does loom large in this demographic, no doubt about it.
The road I've lately been going down thinking about this is to try and find a root cause as opposed to trying to find ways to finger *kitten* it and tell people to take responsibility to eat less and move more, because as we know, that been a total failure and actually the numbers only go higher.
Without getting into the weeds and sighting literature I believe if we focused more on our fasting insulin sensitivity as opposed to blood sugar that medical advice would have been more focused at a much earlier age, at childhood for example as opposed to 2, 3 or 4 decades later where insulin resistance started to steadily increase and with dietary habits well entrenched by then which makes it very difficult for change and generally evolving into diabetes and of course diabetes is prevelant in the obese population along with many other health issues.
If we took fasting insulin levels from the get go it would have become very clear that higher levels of insulin in the blood were the result from the consumption of a diet with a higher percentage coming from ultra processed and to a lesser degree processed foods. Basically, a chronically elevated level of insulin ensures blood sugars are kept low but over time the pancreas just can't continue to pump out insulin at that elevated rate indefinitely. What happens is blood sugars creep up because insulin can't keep up. Basically the Y asis of blood sugar that held steady for many years starts to go up while the X axis of insulin begins to go down and worst case scenario is people with diabetes are given insulin injections after yrs on metformin because of this simple fact so yeah, finding the root cause is paramount imo.
Anyway sugar lol. I think we all have a pretty good idea that consuming large amounts, which the US population does of ultra and processed foods that it's not good for our health. Anyway the early fasting insulin blood testing would have put these foods directly at the bullseye and possibly the advice to remove and go to a more whole food diet when we were still kids might have changed to some degree what people eat, or at least I'm believing that would have had some influence. Would this have affected how many people have a problem with sugar now, I'm betting it would have. Kinda late though.
Saying all that, a more of a whole food diet and a low carb diet for people that have a sugar "addiction" would be my recommendations. Keep in mind that people that have no problem managing their energy balance and are of normal weight this hypothesis is not applicable, even though I would suggest getting fasting insulin testing going forward. Losing weight and being close to a normal BMI with a regularly monitored normal energy balance is a good place to be, obviously.
See I didn't get into too many weeds lol. Cheers
3 -
"Feeling" addicted isn't the same as "physically" relying on a substance. Sorry, but I deal with this with many clients and yes I deny them this out. Because it's NOT addictive. When people get into that mindset, then they believe they have no chance to have sugar at all. Like I stated, you CAN'T moderate an addiction. You quit it altogether or you'll be stuck on whatever substance you're addicted to. People "addicted" to sugar won't steal from family, rob people, do "side jobs" to just get money to attain it, nor lick or scoop sugar off the ground, drink mouthwash, etc. That's devaluing people who truly are addicted to substances. So I emphatically believe it's not semantics but the correct use of the word. Hyper palability is the correct phrase to use. And since this is a public forum, whether you want to agree or not, I believe it's right to make sure people know the correct definition. Don't believe me? How many people end up in a rehab clinic for "sugar addiction"?sollyn23l2 wrote: »People use language to convey their experience. If I say "I really enjoy food", you'll have one understanding of what that means. If I say "I'm addicted to food" then you have a different, perhap more accurate, understanding of my experience. Using the term addicted generally intimates that the individual is unable to moderate their use of that particular thing. And yes, being addicted to sugar is a very real experience. And nobody should deny the op her experience. If she feels addicted to sugar, then she feels addicted to sugar. All of your guy's semantics are useless and devaluing the op's experience, whether you like what she said or not.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Re: the first bolded, would you disagree that people can become addicted to gambling?
Re: the second bolded, would you argue that "functional alcoholics" are not addicts?
Re: the third bolded, I'm going to replace "sugar addiction" with "food addiction" and ask if you have ever watched My 600 Pound Life.5 -
neanderthin wrote: »/qsnowflake954 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »sollyn23l2 wrote: »People use language to convey their experience. If I say "I really enjoy food", you'll have one understanding of what that means. If I say "I'm addicted to food" then you have a different, perhap more accurate, understanding of my experience. Using the term addicted generally intimates that the individual is unable to moderate their use of that particular thing. And yes, being addicted to sugar is a very real experience. And nobody should deny the op her experience. If she feels addicted to sugar, then she feels addicted to sugar. All of your guy's semantics are useless and devaluing the op's experience, whether you like what she said or not.
I can never understand this problem. You'd think people would be overjoyed to learn that they are not "addicted" to something. The thing I've always liked about MFP is that it has the courage to correct misinformation.
Well, I'm sure as the word gets out to all the people that feel addicted and now find out they aren't, and it's all in their heads, they'll be very grateful. lol Cheers
Ha! Talking about sugar, to be clear. You have to admit there is a certain drama to "I am addicted to sugar" rather than "I tend to overeat sweets".
Well, if those 2 statements are the only 2 realities, then yes, what remains would be "certain drama". The 1st reality is a person feels hopelessly a slave to a sweet taste while the second reality would dictate that they could take it or leave it.
Here's another reality. When we consume sugar it travels down the limbic system to our brain which also controls neurochemical messaging but also has an effect on our behavior and when someone has a problem with sugar, brain scans show that the same pathways that cocaine and other drugs use and produce similar events, and studies show that sugar not only can replace the "hit" people get from drugs but that it even has a greater initial "hit" effect.
Basically it's a nuanced conversation that normally gets squashed with the conventional bias or beliefs because sugar isn't a substance that in the strictest definition, is not addicting.
OK. Because I always respect your posts, what do you think should be done differently with someone who has a sugar addiction verses someone who tends to overeat and is very over weight and needs to lose?
How would the approach differ? Can a sugar addiction be cured? Or, is it abstinence forever?
Well, first off, I have my own biases so I will, as I generally do, try and keep that out of this conversation, but suspect some of that will creep in.
The problem with overeating and obesity is, it's multifaceted so there isn't a blanket recommendation that will fit all circumstances, and some may have nothing to do with sugar "addiction". But sugar does loom large in this demographic, no doubt about it.
The road I've lately been going down thinking about this is to try and find a root cause as opposed to trying to find ways to finger *kitten* it and tell people to take responsibility to eat less and move more, because as we know, that been a total failure and actually the numbers only go higher.
Without getting into the weeds and sighting literature I believe if we focused more on our fasting insulin sensitivity as opposed to blood sugar that medical advice would have been more focused at a much earlier age, at childhood for example as opposed to 2, 3 or 4 decades later where insulin resistance started to steadily increase and with dietary habits well entrenched by then which makes it very difficult for change and generally evolving into diabetes and of course diabetes is prevelant in the obese population along with many other health issues.
If we took fasting insulin levels from the get go it would have become very clear that higher levels of insulin in the blood were the result from the consumption of a diet with a higher percentage coming from ultra processed and to a lesser degree processed foods. Basically, a chronically elevated level of insulin ensures blood sugars are kept low but over time the pancreas just can't continue to pump out insulin at that elevated rate indefinitely. What happens is blood sugars creep up because insulin can't keep up. Basically the Y asis of blood sugar that held steady for many years starts to go up while the X axis of insulin begins to go down and worst case scenario is people with diabetes are given insulin injections after yrs on metformin because of this simple fact so yeah, finding the root cause is paramount imo.
Anyway sugar lol. I think we all have a pretty good idea that consuming large amounts, which the US population does of ultra and processed foods that it's not good for our health. Anyway the early fasting insulin blood testing would have put these foods directly at the bullseye and possibly the advice to remove and go to a more whole food diet when we were still kids might have changed to some degree what people eat, or at least I'm believing that would have had some influence. Would this have affected how many people have a problem with sugar now, I'm betting it would have. Kinda late though.
Saying all that, a more of a whole food diet and a low carb diet for people that have a sugar "addiction" would be my recommendations. Keep in mind that people that have no problem managing their energy balance and are of normal weight this hypothesis is not applicable, even though I would suggest getting fasting insulin testing going forward. Losing weight and being close to a normal BMI with a regularly monitored normal energy balance is a good place to be, obviously.
See I didn't get into too many weeds lol. Cheers
Anyway--back to my question. A whole food, low carb diet would be your recommendation for a "sugar addict" to lose weight. But then what recommendation would you give a very over weight person, who is not addicted to sugar, and needs to lose? Would your approach be different and why?
This is never addressed in the debates on sugar addiction.0 -
snowflake954 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »/qsnowflake954 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »sollyn23l2 wrote: »People use language to convey their experience. If I say "I really enjoy food", you'll have one understanding of what that means. If I say "I'm addicted to food" then you have a different, perhap more accurate, understanding of my experience. Using the term addicted generally intimates that the individual is unable to moderate their use of that particular thing. And yes, being addicted to sugar is a very real experience. And nobody should deny the op her experience. If she feels addicted to sugar, then she feels addicted to sugar. All of your guy's semantics are useless and devaluing the op's experience, whether you like what she said or not.
I can never understand this problem. You'd think people would be overjoyed to learn that they are not "addicted" to something. The thing I've always liked about MFP is that it has the courage to correct misinformation.
Well, I'm sure as the word gets out to all the people that feel addicted and now find out they aren't, and it's all in their heads, they'll be very grateful. lol Cheers
Ha! Talking about sugar, to be clear. You have to admit there is a certain drama to "I am addicted to sugar" rather than "I tend to overeat sweets".
Well, if those 2 statements are the only 2 realities, then yes, what remains would be "certain drama". The 1st reality is a person feels hopelessly a slave to a sweet taste while the second reality would dictate that they could take it or leave it.
Here's another reality. When we consume sugar it travels down the limbic system to our brain which also controls neurochemical messaging but also has an effect on our behavior and when someone has a problem with sugar, brain scans show that the same pathways that cocaine and other drugs use and produce similar events, and studies show that sugar not only can replace the "hit" people get from drugs but that it even has a greater initial "hit" effect.
Basically it's a nuanced conversation that normally gets squashed with the conventional bias or beliefs because sugar isn't a substance that in the strictest definition, is not addicting.
OK. Because I always respect your posts, what do you think should be done differently with someone who has a sugar addiction verses someone who tends to overeat and is very over weight and needs to lose?
How would the approach differ? Can a sugar addiction be cured? Or, is it abstinence forever?
Well, first off, I have my own biases so I will, as I generally do, try and keep that out of this conversation, but suspect some of that will creep in.
The problem with overeating and obesity is, it's multifaceted so there isn't a blanket recommendation that will fit all circumstances, and some may have nothing to do with sugar "addiction". But sugar does loom large in this demographic, no doubt about it.
The road I've lately been going down thinking about this is to try and find a root cause as opposed to trying to find ways to finger *kitten* it and tell people to take responsibility to eat less and move more, because as we know, that been a total failure and actually the numbers only go higher.
Without getting into the weeds and sighting literature I believe if we focused more on our fasting insulin sensitivity as opposed to blood sugar that medical advice would have been more focused at a much earlier age, at childhood for example as opposed to 2, 3 or 4 decades later where insulin resistance started to steadily increase and with dietary habits well entrenched by then which makes it very difficult for change and generally evolving into diabetes and of course diabetes is prevelant in the obese population along with many other health issues.
If we took fasting insulin levels from the get go it would have become very clear that higher levels of insulin in the blood were the result from the consumption of a diet with a higher percentage coming from ultra processed and to a lesser degree processed foods. Basically, a chronically elevated level of insulin ensures blood sugars are kept low but over time the pancreas just can't continue to pump out insulin at that elevated rate indefinitely. What happens is blood sugars creep up because insulin can't keep up. Basically the Y asis of blood sugar that held steady for many years starts to go up while the X axis of insulin begins to go down and worst case scenario is people with diabetes are given insulin injections after yrs on metformin because of this simple fact so yeah, finding the root cause is paramount imo.
Anyway sugar lol. I think we all have a pretty good idea that consuming large amounts, which the US population does of ultra and processed foods that it's not good for our health. Anyway the early fasting insulin blood testing would have put these foods directly at the bullseye and possibly the advice to remove and go to a more whole food diet when we were still kids might have changed to some degree what people eat, or at least I'm believing that would have had some influence. Would this have affected how many people have a problem with sugar now, I'm betting it would have. Kinda late though.
Saying all that, a more of a whole food diet and a low carb diet for people that have a sugar "addiction" would be my recommendations. Keep in mind that people that have no problem managing their energy balance and are of normal weight this hypothesis is not applicable, even though I would suggest getting fasting insulin testing going forward. Losing weight and being close to a normal BMI with a regularly monitored normal energy balance is a good place to be, obviously.
See I didn't get into too many weeds lol. Cheers
Anyway--back to my question. A whole food, low carb diet would be your recommendation for a "sugar addict" to lose weight. But then what recommendation would you give a very over weight person, who is not addicted to sugar, and needs to lose? Would your approach be different and why?
This is never addressed in the debates on sugar addiction.
Same recommendations. There is no magic and motivation is going to have to be paramount. Do people love to overeat to the point it affects every aspect of their lives including an early death, I can't answer that, but it looks like they do. Why is the mystery, and my above post kind of addresses it.
EDIT: My recommendations were for a whole food or a low carb, but low carb generally ends being a more whole food diet.0 -
Subjective point of view from me would be possibly. People get a rush from some physical things like holding a baby or petting a dog. But I don't those physical action become addictive or we'd have lawsuits all over the place with people who think they are addicted.kshama2001 wrote: »
"Feeling" addicted isn't the same as "physically" relying on a substance. Sorry, but I deal with this with many clients and yes I deny them this out. Because it's NOT addictive. When people get into that mindset, then they believe they have no chance to have sugar at all. Like I stated, you CAN'T moderate an addiction. You quit it altogether or you'll be stuck on whatever substance you're addicted to. People "addicted" to sugar won't steal from family, rob people, do "side jobs" to just get money to attain it, nor lick or scoop sugar off the ground, drink mouthwash, etc. That's devaluing people who truly are addicted to substances. So I emphatically believe it's not semantics but the correct use of the word. Hyper palability is the correct phrase to use. And since this is a public forum, whether you want to agree or not, I believe it's right to make sure people know the correct definition. Don't believe me? How many people end up in a rehab clinic for "sugar addiction"?sollyn23l2 wrote: »People use language to convey their experience. If I say "I really enjoy food", you'll have one understanding of what that means. If I say "I'm addicted to food" then you have a different, perhap more accurate, understanding of my experience. Using the term addicted generally intimates that the individual is unable to moderate their use of that particular thing. And yes, being addicted to sugar is a very real experience. And nobody should deny the op her experience. If she feels addicted to sugar, then she feels addicted to sugar. All of your guy's semantics are useless and devaluing the op's experience, whether you like what she said or not.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Re: the first bolded, would you disagree that people can become addicted to gambling?
They are addicts. Just because they can function while on it doesn't make them a non addict.Re: the second bolded, would you argue that "functional alcoholics" are not addicts?Re: the third bolded, I'm going to replace "sugar addiction" with "food addiction" and ask if you have ever watched My 600 Pound Life.
Yes and their eating is a disorder not really an addiction because you CAN'T stop eating if you want to live.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
Lol, try telling that to a competitive athlete. Having competed several times, the go to was keto for competition readiness. And any competitor will tell you that they are NO WHERE near energy output on keto when compared to carbing up.peggy_polenta wrote: »Glycogen is needed to energize muscles to work. Glycogen comes from glucose with comes mainly from the breaking down of sugars (carbs). It's natural to want sugar in the body because of how it fuels not only the body BUT THE BRAIN.
It's NOT AN ADDICTION. You don't moderate addiction and you need glucose to function properly. You don't moderate alcohol as an alcoholic, nor cocaine if you're a drug addict. The reason why people are so drawn to sugar is it's hyper palatable. Even animals are attracted to things that have sugar in them.
So just eat things that have sugar in them naturally like fruit. And don't be afraid to moderate eating things like candy or ice cream either but learn habitually how to limit how much you eat.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
you dont need carbohydrates to fuel or function properly. you can fuel on keytones perfectly fine and its a preferred source for brain function for certain medical cases. ie, epilepsy.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
2 -
neanderthin wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »/qsnowflake954 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »sollyn23l2 wrote: »People use language to convey their experience. If I say "I really enjoy food", you'll have one understanding of what that means. If I say "I'm addicted to food" then you have a different, perhap more accurate, understanding of my experience. Using the term addicted generally intimates that the individual is unable to moderate their use of that particular thing. And yes, being addicted to sugar is a very real experience. And nobody should deny the op her experience. If she feels addicted to sugar, then she feels addicted to sugar. All of your guy's semantics are useless and devaluing the op's experience, whether you like what she said or not.
I can never understand this problem. You'd think people would be overjoyed to learn that they are not "addicted" to something. The thing I've always liked about MFP is that it has the courage to correct misinformation.
Well, I'm sure as the word gets out to all the people that feel addicted and now find out they aren't, and it's all in their heads, they'll be very grateful. lol Cheers
Ha! Talking about sugar, to be clear. You have to admit there is a certain drama to "I am addicted to sugar" rather than "I tend to overeat sweets".
Well, if those 2 statements are the only 2 realities, then yes, what remains would be "certain drama". The 1st reality is a person feels hopelessly a slave to a sweet taste while the second reality would dictate that they could take it or leave it.
Here's another reality. When we consume sugar it travels down the limbic system to our brain which also controls neurochemical messaging but also has an effect on our behavior and when someone has a problem with sugar, brain scans show that the same pathways that cocaine and other drugs use and produce similar events, and studies show that sugar not only can replace the "hit" people get from drugs but that it even has a greater initial "hit" effect.
Basically it's a nuanced conversation that normally gets squashed with the conventional bias or beliefs because sugar isn't a substance that in the strictest definition, is not addicting.
OK. Because I always respect your posts, what do you think should be done differently with someone who has a sugar addiction verses someone who tends to overeat and is very over weight and needs to lose?
How would the approach differ? Can a sugar addiction be cured? Or, is it abstinence forever?
Well, first off, I have my own biases so I will, as I generally do, try and keep that out of this conversation, but suspect some of that will creep in.
The problem with overeating and obesity is, it's multifaceted so there isn't a blanket recommendation that will fit all circumstances, and some may have nothing to do with sugar "addiction". But sugar does loom large in this demographic, no doubt about it.
The road I've lately been going down thinking about this is to try and find a root cause as opposed to trying to find ways to finger *kitten* it and tell people to take responsibility to eat less and move more, because as we know, that been a total failure and actually the numbers only go higher.
Without getting into the weeds and sighting literature I believe if we focused more on our fasting insulin sensitivity as opposed to blood sugar that medical advice would have been more focused at a much earlier age, at childhood for example as opposed to 2, 3 or 4 decades later where insulin resistance started to steadily increase and with dietary habits well entrenched by then which makes it very difficult for change and generally evolving into diabetes and of course diabetes is prevelant in the obese population along with many other health issues.
If we took fasting insulin levels from the get go it would have become very clear that higher levels of insulin in the blood were the result from the consumption of a diet with a higher percentage coming from ultra processed and to a lesser degree processed foods. Basically, a chronically elevated level of insulin ensures blood sugars are kept low but over time the pancreas just can't continue to pump out insulin at that elevated rate indefinitely. What happens is blood sugars creep up because insulin can't keep up. Basically the Y asis of blood sugar that held steady for many years starts to go up while the X axis of insulin begins to go down and worst case scenario is people with diabetes are given insulin injections after yrs on metformin because of this simple fact so yeah, finding the root cause is paramount imo.
Anyway sugar lol. I think we all have a pretty good idea that consuming large amounts, which the US population does of ultra and processed foods that it's not good for our health. Anyway the early fasting insulin blood testing would have put these foods directly at the bullseye and possibly the advice to remove and go to a more whole food diet when we were still kids might have changed to some degree what people eat, or at least I'm believing that would have had some influence. Would this have affected how many people have a problem with sugar now, I'm betting it would have. Kinda late though.
Saying all that, a more of a whole food diet and a low carb diet for people that have a sugar "addiction" would be my recommendations. Keep in mind that people that have no problem managing their energy balance and are of normal weight this hypothesis is not applicable, even though I would suggest getting fasting insulin testing going forward. Losing weight and being close to a normal BMI with a regularly monitored normal energy balance is a good place to be, obviously.
See I didn't get into too many weeds lol. Cheers
Anyway--back to my question. A whole food, low carb diet would be your recommendation for a "sugar addict" to lose weight. But then what recommendation would you give a very over weight person, who is not addicted to sugar, and needs to lose? Would your approach be different and why?
This is never addressed in the debates on sugar addiction.
Same recommendations. There is no magic and motivation is going to have to be paramount. Do people love to overeat to the point it affects every aspect of their lives including an early death, I can't answer that, but it looks like they do. Why is the mystery, and my above post kind of addresses it.
Well, I would think that addiction would be handled in a different way since it's overwhelming, taking away all self control.
And I have a question for your mystery. As I've mentioned before, I've lived in Rome, Italy for 37 years. Strange, but I've never heard "sugar addiction" mentioned here. Reading the papers, magazines, TV--zip, nulla, doesn't exist for the Italians. Now this is VERY strange because this is carb heaven. We also have many beloved pastry shops with long lines of skinny people waiting to enter and buy sweets. Wouldn't they turn into "sugar addicts" and develop obesity problems consuming all those carbs and that sugar? I don't know if the rest of Europe is also free of this addiction. Why would some countries have it and others not? We're all human with the same problems more or less.
That is basically my problem when this discussion comes up. I'd prefer you'd call it something else.2 -
snowflake954 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »/qsnowflake954 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »sollyn23l2 wrote: »People use language to convey their experience. If I say "I really enjoy food", you'll have one understanding of what that means. If I say "I'm addicted to food" then you have a different, perhap more accurate, understanding of my experience. Using the term addicted generally intimates that the individual is unable to moderate their use of that particular thing. And yes, being addicted to sugar is a very real experience. And nobody should deny the op her experience. If she feels addicted to sugar, then she feels addicted to sugar. All of your guy's semantics are useless and devaluing the op's experience, whether you like what she said or not.
I can never understand this problem. You'd think people would be overjoyed to learn that they are not "addicted" to something. The thing I've always liked about MFP is that it has the courage to correct misinformation.
Well, I'm sure as the word gets out to all the people that feel addicted and now find out they aren't, and it's all in their heads, they'll be very grateful. lol Cheers
Ha! Talking about sugar, to be clear. You have to admit there is a certain drama to "I am addicted to sugar" rather than "I tend to overeat sweets".
Well, if those 2 statements are the only 2 realities, then yes, what remains would be "certain drama". The 1st reality is a person feels hopelessly a slave to a sweet taste while the second reality would dictate that they could take it or leave it.
Here's another reality. When we consume sugar it travels down the limbic system to our brain which also controls neurochemical messaging but also has an effect on our behavior and when someone has a problem with sugar, brain scans show that the same pathways that cocaine and other drugs use and produce similar events, and studies show that sugar not only can replace the "hit" people get from drugs but that it even has a greater initial "hit" effect.
Basically it's a nuanced conversation that normally gets squashed with the conventional bias or beliefs because sugar isn't a substance that in the strictest definition, is not addicting.
OK. Because I always respect your posts, what do you think should be done differently with someone who has a sugar addiction verses someone who tends to overeat and is very over weight and needs to lose?
How would the approach differ? Can a sugar addiction be cured? Or, is it abstinence forever?
Well, first off, I have my own biases so I will, as I generally do, try and keep that out of this conversation, but suspect some of that will creep in.
The problem with overeating and obesity is, it's multifaceted so there isn't a blanket recommendation that will fit all circumstances, and some may have nothing to do with sugar "addiction". But sugar does loom large in this demographic, no doubt about it.
The road I've lately been going down thinking about this is to try and find a root cause as opposed to trying to find ways to finger *kitten* it and tell people to take responsibility to eat less and move more, because as we know, that been a total failure and actually the numbers only go higher.
Without getting into the weeds and sighting literature I believe if we focused more on our fasting insulin sensitivity as opposed to blood sugar that medical advice would have been more focused at a much earlier age, at childhood for example as opposed to 2, 3 or 4 decades later where insulin resistance started to steadily increase and with dietary habits well entrenched by then which makes it very difficult for change and generally evolving into diabetes and of course diabetes is prevelant in the obese population along with many other health issues.
If we took fasting insulin levels from the get go it would have become very clear that higher levels of insulin in the blood were the result from the consumption of a diet with a higher percentage coming from ultra processed and to a lesser degree processed foods. Basically, a chronically elevated level of insulin ensures blood sugars are kept low but over time the pancreas just can't continue to pump out insulin at that elevated rate indefinitely. What happens is blood sugars creep up because insulin can't keep up. Basically the Y asis of blood sugar that held steady for many years starts to go up while the X axis of insulin begins to go down and worst case scenario is people with diabetes are given insulin injections after yrs on metformin because of this simple fact so yeah, finding the root cause is paramount imo.
Anyway sugar lol. I think we all have a pretty good idea that consuming large amounts, which the US population does of ultra and processed foods that it's not good for our health. Anyway the early fasting insulin blood testing would have put these foods directly at the bullseye and possibly the advice to remove and go to a more whole food diet when we were still kids might have changed to some degree what people eat, or at least I'm believing that would have had some influence. Would this have affected how many people have a problem with sugar now, I'm betting it would have. Kinda late though.
Saying all that, a more of a whole food diet and a low carb diet for people that have a sugar "addiction" would be my recommendations. Keep in mind that people that have no problem managing their energy balance and are of normal weight this hypothesis is not applicable, even though I would suggest getting fasting insulin testing going forward. Losing weight and being close to a normal BMI with a regularly monitored normal energy balance is a good place to be, obviously.
See I didn't get into too many weeds lol. Cheers
Anyway--back to my question. A whole food, low carb diet would be your recommendation for a "sugar addict" to lose weight. But then what recommendation would you give a very over weight person, who is not addicted to sugar, and needs to lose? Would your approach be different and why?
This is never addressed in the debates on sugar addiction.
Same recommendations. There is no magic and motivation is going to have to be paramount. Do people love to overeat to the point it affects every aspect of their lives including an early death, I can't answer that, but it looks like they do. Why is the mystery, and my above post kind of addresses it.
Well, I would think that addiction would be handled in a different way since it's overwhelming, taking away all self control.
And I have a question for your mystery. As I've mentioned before, I've lived in Rome, Italy for 37 years. Strange, but I've never heard "sugar addiction" mentioned here. Reading the papers, magazines, TV--zip, nulla, doesn't exist for the Italians. Now this is VERY strange because this is carb heaven. We also have many beloved pastry shops with long lines of skinny people waiting to enter and buy sweets. Wouldn't they turn into "sugar addicts" and develop obesity problems consuming all those carbs and that sugar? I don't know if the rest of Europe is also free of this addiction. Why would some countries have it and others not? We're all human with the same problems more or less.
That is basically my problem when this discussion comes up. I'd prefer you'd call it something else.
I really couldn't say why. I travelled throughout Europe in the 70's and like here in Canada obesity and any nutritional focus were pretty much nonexistent. I think Italy still has a fairly low obesity rate and I suspect the focus or obsession on weight or nutrition is probably not as prevalent. I suspect that Italian family values and customs are still alive and well for the most part. It seems like until we were told what we were eating was wrong, along with a paradigm shift occurring with direction from gov't and health agencies to a low fat diet and all that that entailed seems to have had some repercussions that weren't expected and one being a steady rise in obesity and chronic diseases. That era also saw the steady increase in alternative processed foods. When you remove one macronutrient and replace it with another while at the same time consuming more calories, it's difficult to blame protein. Again, a correlation but one that is believed to be fairly accurate.
2 -
I'm just here to add that while sugar overconsumption is definitely a huge problem in America, it's also the simple fact that we have an overconsumption problem, period. We simply eat too much. Too many calories in too large portions, and eat too often, for too many different reasons. Could this be oversimplified by calling it a mindset of gluttony? I think it's pretty accurate, for the most part.5
-
kshama2001 wrote: »
"Feeling" addicted isn't the same as "physically" relying on a substance. Sorry, but I deal with this with many clients and yes I deny them this out. Because it's NOT addictive. When people get into that mindset, then they believe they have no chance to have sugar at all. Like I stated, you CAN'T moderate an addiction. You quit it altogether or you'll be stuck on whatever substance you're addicted to. People "addicted" to sugar won't steal from family, rob people, do "side jobs" to just get money to attain it, nor lick or scoop sugar off the ground, drink mouthwash, etc. That's devaluing people who truly are addicted to substances. So I emphatically believe it's not semantics but the correct use of the word. Hyper palability is the correct phrase to use. And since this is a public forum, whether you want to agree or not, I believe it's right to make sure people know the correct definition. Don't believe me? How many people end up in a rehab clinic for "sugar addiction"?sollyn23l2 wrote: »People use language to convey their experience. If I say "I really enjoy food", you'll have one understanding of what that means. If I say "I'm addicted to food" then you have a different, perhap more accurate, understanding of my experience. Using the term addicted generally intimates that the individual is unable to moderate their use of that particular thing. And yes, being addicted to sugar is a very real experience. And nobody should deny the op her experience. If she feels addicted to sugar, then she feels addicted to sugar. All of your guy's semantics are useless and devaluing the op's experience, whether you like what she said or not.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Re: the first bolded, would you disagree that people can become addicted to gambling?
Re: the second bolded, would you argue that "functional alcoholics" are not addicts?
Re: the third bolded, I'm going to replace "sugar addiction" with "food addiction" and ask if you have ever watched My 600 Pound Life.
Gambling is an interesting one because it is considered a behavioral disorder and it is currently the only behavioral disorder to be recognized in DSM-5 as a non-substance addiction.
Alcohol is the one I'm most familiar with as it has been something I've been dealing with for the last couple of years and, at least diagnostic wise, there is a distinction between alcohol abuser and alcoholic, with abuser being a behavioral issue and alcoholic or AUD being someone who is physically addicted to alcohol and can't function normally without it. Roughly 95% of alcohol abusers don't fit the diagnostic criteria of AUD or "alcoholic" (the latter term being less commonly used these days due to stigma). I was actually quite relieved when I started treatment and they told me I had a behavioral problem and a bad habit but not an addiction (yet). It was empowering for me I guess as I had plenty of experience altering behavior to get fit and lose weight and I felt like it was something I could control more so than "addiction"...maybe that was just psychological, IDK. It is one of the reasons that I personally don't really like to talk about food or sugar as "addiction"...it just gives off this energy of powerlessness.
I was a functioning abuser but had no physical withdrawal from alcohol and only drank in the evenings (heavily most of the time). Most of my treatment was along the lines of CBT and just looking at my behavior and why I was engaging in that behavior...lots of journaling, etc. The hardest thing for me was just adopting a new routine as alcohol had been a primary form of entertainment for awhile. My biggest obstacle was just adopting a new routine and accepting some boredom from time to time, which isn't the case for addicts that I've known.
On the other hand, I once had a boss who was a functioning alcoholic. He kept a bottle of vodka in his desk drawer and would take a shot every hour or two throughout the day just to stave off the shakes and be able to function at work. He drank all day, everyday and ultimately had to go through medically supervised detox. I also had a buddy who was a heroine addict and that was just god awful to witness.
As for My 600 Lb life, I've never seen it but my immediate inclination would be eating disorder, just opposite of what we usually think of when we think of an eating disorder. In general, I'm of the opinion that there are many things which can be abused and behaviors that can be disordered that don't actually rise to the level of addiction and that most don't rise to the level of medical diagnostic addiction...and that in general, the term is often used very loosely to describe any kind of behavioral pattern or habit that is difficult to break.6
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