Need serious help with SUGAR!!!!
Options
Replies
-
Sorry. Statistically speaking, gambling is a diagnosable disorder.
"While gambling disorder is the only addictive disorder included in DSM-5 as a diagnosable condition,
Internet gaming disorder will be included in Section III of the manual. Disorders listed there require
further research before their consideration as formal disorders. This condition is included to reflect the
scientific literature on persistent and recurrent use of Internet games, and a preoccupation with them,
can result in clinically significant impairment or distress. Much of this literature comes from studies in
Asian countries. The condition criteria do not include general use of the Internet, gambling, or social
media at this time."
Instead of internet games, maybe...
Lots of folks quibble with the DSM and DSM V is quite controversial. Argue away...0 -
Anyways, OP (if you're still actually reading this thread anymore, haha), I have major problems with sugar, milk, carbs, chocolate, alcohol - not like as an alcoholic, but more like it makes me binge eat like crazy, even just a sip of white wine and I go off on eating binges. In the past I have tried to go cold turkey on the carbs, Atkins-induction-style, and I've made it a few times but wouldn't last very long.
Cold turkey may work for you but I know it does not work for me. Right now I try to keep my carb intake between 100-125g/day. I stay away from highly processed carbs or "whites" like bread, rice, etc.. I still do get cravings for sweets now, but nowhere near as bad as I used to and I can *usually* keep them at bay with willpower. Also, I have just started up exercising again. I don't know if you exercise, but when you do your body starts to store sugars and use them more efficiently instead of just flooding your bloodstream, which later causes you to crash and need more carbs. So, again, I don't know if you are exercising or not, but I thought I'd throw that out there too.0 -
Wikipeida? Let me quote what Wikipedia says about Wikipedia.I had a look at the Wikipedia entry for Sugar Addiction. Prior to July 2013 it appears that the wiki community leaned toward the idea of sugar addiction being valid. Now most of the earlier entry is still there, but laced with disclaimers like "factual accuracy is disputed", "dubious", and my favourite, "weasel words". At one time the term Internet Addiction Disorder (IAD) caught on, but now the term Problematic Internet Usage (PIU) is in vogue. Perhaps we can settle on PSU, obviously for Problematic Sugar Usage. (DSM authors, I hope you are reading this).Wikipedia is not considered a credible source. Wikipedia is increasingly used by people in the academic community, from freshman students to professors, as an easily accessible tertiary source for information about anything and everything. However, citation of Wikipedia in research papers may be considered unacceptable, because Wikipedia is not considered a credible or authoritative source.[1][2]
This is especially true considering anyone can edit the information given at any time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Academic_use0 -
So how much of the thread did you actually read? Try reading it.
And you know what I think? Every time somebody posts something that doesn't agree with what you and your cohorts think, you attack them, how about you keep your opinion of what I posted to yourself, I don't remember asking.
Just because someone posts something that isn't an agreement doesn't mean they're attacking you.
And, perhaps, someone is posting something that isn't opinion but rooted in fact - not factoids, or abstracts of studies that may or may not be completely misinterpreted.
Here's the thing. Nobody here is asking you to lend their words any more credence than you would another stranger on the internet. Believing us without question is the same as believing something from holistic-bullcrap.com without question.
What we do is we give you pertinent opposing information to then go off and research more fully for yourself.
If that strengthens your initial position, great. If it makes you change your beliefs, great. All that means is everybody is engaging in healthy - open-minded - debate and becoming more knowledgeable as a result, and how can that be a bad thing?0 -
Sorry. Statistically speaking, gambling is a diagnosable disorder.
"While gambling disorder is the only addictive disorder included in DSM-5 as a diagnosable condition,
Internet gaming disorder will be included in Section III of the manual. Disorders listed there require
further research before their consideration as formal disorders. This condition is included to reflect the
scientific literature on persistent and recurrent use of Internet games, and a preoccupation with them,
can result in clinically significant impairment or distress. Much of this literature comes from studies in
Asian countries. The condition criteria do not include general use of the Internet, gambling, or social
media at this time."
Instead of internet games, maybe...
Lots of folks quibble with the DSM and DSM V is quite controversial. Argue away...
Yes, but I'm trying to say that gambling is no more a physical addiction than food addiction, you don't snort or inject it, there are no receptors or buildup of tolerance or physical withdrawal. At least the parts of food themselves enter your bloodstream, yet people seem to accept gambling disorders as addictions more readily than food as an addiction for some people. I think it could be because more folks are able to relate to the effects of gambling addiction (losing money, your home, your family...) than food addiction, but I don't know.0 -
You won't even get me to take you the least bit seriously if I can't make a point (and I posted an abstract about from PubMed that agreed with that point) without everything I said being twisted around, there is such a thing as discussion, instead of "I don't see what that has to do with anything".So how much of the thread did you actually read? Try reading it.
And you know what I think? Every time somebody posts something that doesn't agree with what you and your cohorts think, you attack them, how about you keep your opinion of what I posted to yourself, I don't remember asking.
Just because someone posts something that isn't an agreement doesn't mean they're attacking you.
And, perhaps, someone is posting something that isn't opinion but rooted in fact - not factoids, or abstracts of studies that may or may not be completely misinterpreted.
Here's the thing. Nobody here is asking you to lend their words any more credence than you would another stranger on the internet. Believing us without question is the same as believing something from holistic-bullcrap.com without question.
What we do is we give you pertinent opposing information to then go off and research more fully for yourself.
If that strengthens your initial position, great. If it makes you change your beliefs, great. All that means is everybody is engaging in healthy - open-minded - debate and becoming more knowledgeable as a result, and how can that be a bad thing?0 -
Clearly the answer to sugar addiction is to eat sugar. That's why people recommend fruit to "sugar addicts."
If they meant substituting a piece of cake with an apple, that's probably not a horrible idea unless your life is miserable when you don't eat cake. If they meant fruit doesn't contain sugar... maybe um... avocado? Nope, still a little sugar there. I can't explain it.0 -
You won't even get me to take you the least bit seriously if I can't make a point (and I posted an abstract about from PubMed that agreed with that point) without everything I said being twisted around, there is such a thing as discussion, instead of "I don't see what that has to do with anything".
Nobody twisted anything you said.
Someone questioned its relevance.0 -
Yes, but I'm trying to say that gambling is no more a physical addiction than food addiction, you don't snort or inject it, there are no receptors or buildup of tolerance or physical withdrawal. At least the parts of food themselves enter your bloodstream, yet people seem to accept gambling disorders as addictions more readily than food as an addiction for some people. I think it could be because more folks are able to relate to the effects of gambling addiction (losing money, your home, your family...) than food addiction, but I don't know.
If you want the non-scientific answer, this is a site based around people that follow basic calorie counting and IIFYM style approaches to weight loss. It's not a site for overall health, healthy eating, or really any mentality for losing weight other than basic calorie counting and IIFYM. Browse the forums a bit and you'll see what I mean. There's almost a cult-like phenomenon where people will make posts that consist only of general weight loss bullet points that have been repeated millions of times, and yet you'll see dozens of people pile in to say "well said!" and "great post!" as if it's breakthrough research. In short, there's a very clear and one-sided mentality that dominates this forum. As a result, these forums are not a great place to suggest you want to limit your carb intake to lose weight, and if you are suggesting you may even exhibit addiction-like symptoms towards something like sugar? Well, you're fighting an uphill battle, because such a thought clashes with the basic IIFYM and eat whatever you want mentality that pervades this site.
I suppose that's why I said earlier in this thread that it's pointless to argue over whether it's actually a physical addiction or a mental compulsion/disorder/addiction/whatever (e.g., much like gambling is). The more important question is if someone does struggle with overeating on carbs, what's the best solution for that person so that they can achieve a sustainable caloric deficit.0 -
You won't even get me to take you the least bit seriously if I can't make a point (and I posted an abstract about from PubMed that agreed with that point) without everything I said being twisted around, there is such a thing as discussion, instead of "I don't see what that has to do with anything".So how much of the thread did you actually read? Try reading it.
And you know what I think? Every time somebody posts something that doesn't agree with what you and your cohorts think, you attack them, how about you keep your opinion of what I posted to yourself, I don't remember asking.
Just because someone posts something that isn't an agreement doesn't mean they're attacking you.
And, perhaps, someone is posting something that isn't opinion but rooted in fact - not factoids, or abstracts of studies that may or may not be completely misinterpreted.
Here's the thing. Nobody here is asking you to lend their words any more credence than you would another stranger on the internet. Believing us without question is the same as believing something from holistic-bullcrap.com without question.
What we do is we give you pertinent opposing information to then go off and research more fully for yourself.
If that strengthens your initial position, great. If it makes you change your beliefs, great. All that means is everybody is engaging in healthy - open-minded - debate and becoming more knowledgeable as a result, and how can that be a bad thing?
What's the point you're trying to make? You're kind of dancing around it, but haven't really come right out and said it.
I apologize if I missed it.0 -
I want to be attacked. But you have to yell "surprise! " first. Or it's no good.0
-
]You won't even get me to take you the least bit seriously if I can't make a point (and I posted an abstract about from PubMed that agreed with that point) without everything I said being twisted around, there is such a thing as discussion, instead of "I don't see what that has to do with anything".
FWIW, I thought your post was bang on. But I also think that the topic remains controversial. Not "a joke" as it is treated on these forums sometimes, just controversial.0 -
Ok, but here is my take on this whole experience in this topic today. I posted that I thought sugar might affect your sensors (I guess pathways would have been a better word) like alcohol does, I further extrapolated that maybe that is why alcoholics (at least the ones I know/have known which is unfortunately too many, and have lived with some like a Sister and Ex-Husband) eat sugar on their days off of drinking, this is true no matter how many days it was since they last drank, at least that is my observation.]You won't even get me to take you the least bit seriously if I can't make a point (and I posted an abstract about from PubMed that agreed with that point) without everything I said being twisted around, there is such a thing as discussion, instead of "I don't see what that has to do with anything".
FWIW, I thought your post was bang on. But I also think that the topic remains controversial. Not "a joke" as it is treated on these forums sometimes, just controversial.
Then somebody said (to me) sugar and alcohol have nothing to do with one another, to which I replied the obvious (about fermentation as obviously you could not have alcohol without it). From there, the topic went on a tangent about sugar in alcohol for I don't know how many posts, but I only said that in response as I already explained. I kept trying to bring it back to my original point, no dice, then I started getting frustrated. So, then I checked PubMed because it is a good source of information about studies to see if there was anything along those lines and there was, and I posted it.
Maybe I am just really bad at making a point, but I did have a valid point in the first place, and I guess if I had just ignored the poster who said sugar and alcohol have nothing to do with each other, this all would have turned out differently.0 -
Then somebody said (to me) sugar and alcohol have nothing to do with one another[...]
If you're referring to my post, which wasn't to you, you're absolutely incorrect. I did not even imply that, and it's been explained to you at least 3x already.
At this point it seems like you are simply unable to comprehend what was said.0 -
Yes, but I'm trying to say that gambling is no more a physical addiction than food addiction, you don't snort or inject it, there are no receptors or buildup of tolerance or physical withdrawal. At least the parts of food themselves enter your bloodstream, yet people seem to accept gambling disorders as addictions more readily than food as an addiction for some people. I think it could be because more folks are able to relate to the effects of gambling addiction (losing money, your home, your family...) than food addiction, but I don't know.
If you want the non-scientific answer, this is a site based around people that follow basic calorie counting and IIFYM style approaches to weight loss. It's not a site for overall health, healthy eating, or really any mentality for losing weight other than basic calorie counting and IIFYM. Browse the forums a bit and you'll see what I mean. There's almost a cult-like phenomenon where people will make posts that consist only of general weight loss bullet points that have been repeated millions of times, and yet you'll see dozens of people pile in to say "well said!" and "great post!" as if it's breakthrough research. In short, there's a very clear and one-sided mentality that dominates this forum. As a result, these forums are not a great place to suggest you want to limit your carb intake to lose weight, and if you are suggesting you may even exhibit addiction-like symptoms towards something like sugar? Well, you're fighting an uphill battle, because such a thought clashes with the basic IIFYM and eat whatever you want mentality that pervades this site.
I suppose that's why I said earlier in this thread that it's pointless to argue over whether it's actually a physical addiction or a mental compulsion/disorder/addiction/whatever (e.g., much like gambling is). The more important question is if someone does struggle with overeating on carbs, what's the best solution for that person so that they can achieve a sustainable caloric deficit.
You are exactly, EXACTLY right. And you have injected some sanity in this thread with your replies
I do agree that the true answer for OP is what the best solution is FOR OP, and it's not gonna be the same as me or anyone else here, so the best we can do is offer suggestions and OP will decide (which I noticed happened MANY pages ago in this thread :laugh: ).
What really bothers me is the absolutist statements being made, as if there is only ONE answer for everyone here. Well, there isn't. Sugar addiction is something I have been struggling with since childhood. There are great points made regarding nutrient deficiencies leading to cravings, and taking supplements has really helped me. Exercise has helped a great deal now and in the past as well. But the reality for me is there are foods and drinks I need to stay away from because they have proven over and over to be my undoing, as well as monitoring amounts and sources of sugar I AM ingesting. IIFYM is a great *guideline*, but some folks have their own personal issues to take into account as well, so it isn't right for others to be making blanket statements.
I'm not blaming my weight gain on sugar addiction - it's not my crutch. But this is my personal battle I have to face and think about it every day and constantly, along with IIFYM, exercise, caloric deficits. It's part of MY solution.0 -
:laugh:
Nothing like praisign constructive progress and immediately backsliding into addiction talk.
Admittedly, the persistsent talk about fictional sugar addiction does shed some light on why so many feel they fight a losing battle with a nonexistent enemy.0 -
Wow... I'm gone for a few hours and there are 14 freaken pages!! Ya'll are crazy!
I haven't had a chance to read everything where i left off yesterday and I can't guarantee reading it all today (gotta work) and my computer at home is broken :sad: I am buying a new one tomorrow though.
Thank you all for the friend requests and personal messages :flowerforyou: :smooched:0 -
Show me someone that goes through withdrawal symptoms similar to drug or alcohol addicts and watch them be "detoxed" and then MAYBE i will consider food addiction a real thing.
Why would the symptoms have to similar or as severe? Giving up smoking does not have similar symptoms to a heroin addict giving up heroin, yet few would argue that both were addictions.
Few would argue? Anyone "in the know" would agree that nicotine addiction is more severe than heroin addiction. Nicotine is the most difficult drug to quit. In fact, NIDA used to have a chart on this...
That was more or less my point. They are both addictive, but the reactions are not similar.
I don't really have an opinion on whether one can be addicted to sugar other than I doubt there is sufficient research for anyone to say deifinitively one way or the other.
They have been trying for decades to prove that sugar is addictive and have been unable to do so without intellectual dishonesty. :ohwell:
If they could definitvely say "No, not addictive" why would the studies continue? Although the move is away from saying anything is an "addiction" to saying "dependence".
Because they are after federal funding. The food nazis won't stop, only multiply.0 -
btw alcoholics and drug addicts don't "recover" - they abstain - if they use again they are back to square one
Here's some semantics....
recovery = learning to abstain0 -
I can definitely relate! I am currently on the detox diet, which over the years I have found to be very helpful. I am not eating meat, dairy, wheat, gluten, sugar, caffeine or alcohol. Although it is only really "necessary" to be on it for 28 days, for me it is a blueprint for my regular diet, being a vegan. In the past I have found that this really helps with my sugar cravings, just by eating good, wholesome food. I also find it easier to do my daily run and HIIT routine this way. Some advice I have is to make yourself accountable to someone, tell them! It feels horrible and embarassing, but it is so worth it. Since Sunday when I told my mum about the problems I have, I have lost 4.3lbs! Also, empty your cupboards of anything tempting so that if you get a craving, you're going to have to leave the house to get some sugar. I also find that trying to wait it out for at least half an hour has been doing the trick initially. Hope I helped 0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions