Need serious help with SUGAR!!!!

paganstar71

I can't believe I read all 20 pages of this and no one posted the below study. My head seriously hurts from it, :laugh:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20056521

Conclusion: There is no support from the human literature for the hypothesis that sucrose may be physically addictive or that addiction to sugar plays a role in eating disorders.

So it goes back to a handful of people say, it's a habit. Just like the reason why children become fat when both parents are fat... they form unhealthy habits.


http://www.wsro.org/Portals/12/Docs/position-statement-sugar-and-addiction-2012.pdf

"In summary, the current evidence does not support the idea that human addiction to sugar is a valid concept or that it is a characteristic of individuals who are obese"

While the first study is certainly valid, the second one is literally a position paper from the sugar industry.

And the first study was partially funded by the World Sugar Research Organization. I wonder why?
http://www.clinicalnutritionjournal.com/article/S0261-5614(09)00239-8/fulltext#sec7

HappyStack

No one has argued against cheat meals in this thread. My original post was defending someone's choice to eat a piece of fruit rather than a dessert. Choosing a piece of fruit over a dessert to control cravings is a good idea! If it's time for a cheat meal, go ahead and have that (hopefully small) slice of cake. If it's not, then yes, the fruit is the healthier option.

Consider also that the person who started the thread has had a lifelong struggle controlling themselves around sugar. Restricting serving size didn't work. Don't you think a period of cold turkey could potentially be beneficial?

Potentially. But why partake in something that has a 50/50 chance of failure because of unsustainability? why not increase those chances exponentially by operating in a way that you can still have the things you feel you'll crave, as long as all of your other food goals are in check.

By the way, as I said previously in this thread, sugar and carbs are synonyms. Carbs (as a whole) contain C, H and O atoms in varying amounts. Sugar's molecular formula is C12H22O11.

Greytfish

So would you support the sentence: "A piece of cake or cookie is 100% perfectly healthy provided that the consumption of said cake or cookie does not prevent you from reaching that day's nutritional goals"?

Sure. But I'd recognize that for the vast majority of people in the vast majority of situations, such a statement is irrelevant. As such, defining it as healthy seems, to steal another poster's term, disingenuous, because it's an unhealthy choice in the vast majority of situations.

So your basic answer is "overconsumption", yes? let's leave out the fact that some people, especially those not logging here, eat a lot of calorie dense and less nutritionally dense food, because that's not who we're addressing. We're addressing the people who come here specifically to lose weight, gain a healthy respect for food, and become more healthy. The people who would be reading things like, "sugar is bad for you" or whatever.

I never said sugar is bad for you. I'm saying that certain choices are generally better for your health, making them healthier than other choices as a general matter. As for ignoring the majority of people who don't log their food, I see no reason to ignore them in this discussion. Something doesn't suddenly become "health food" just because you keep a food log.

Again, if you actually read what I'm saying, never did I say sugar is bad, nor have I said you can't fit foods like cake into your macros. I just think there's a middle ground between explicitly saying "cake is healthy!" and saying "cake is always unhealthy and should NEVER be consumed!" Just because you recognize some foods as generally unhealthy doesn't mean you have a "bad relationship" with food, whatever that means.

It's not irrelevant, because telling people "donuts are unhealthy; fruit is healthy" is unproductive fear-mongering. It sets them up to feel guilty about eating "bad" food when they should be eating "good" food.

This stuff matters. I understand you're fairly new here and have a ways to go yourself, but when you've been around and seen person after person after person after person with serious anxiety and fear about "bad food" subsequently fail because of an inability to avoid said "bad food" you will understand why it's not irrelevant or meaningless to tell people "this stuff isn't bad.

It's only unproductive fear-mongering to people who already have a skewed relationship with food intake wherein they eat more for pleasure and misdirected emotions than for the purpose of feeding the body and keeping it healthy.

If you have a healthy relationship with food, you can absolutely acknowledge that a piece of fruit is - in most instances - the healthier and more nutritious choice than a piece of cake without suffering any ill effects. You can then choose to eat the apple or the cake knowing that one single choice will never outweigh all of the other choices you make.

alicebot

I can't believe I read all 20 pages of this and no one posted the below study. My head seriously hurts from it, :laugh:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20056521

Conclusion: There is no support from the human literature for the hypothesis that sucrose may be physically addictive or that addiction to sugar plays a role in eating disorders.

So it goes back to a handful of people say, it's a habit. Just like the reason why children become fat when both parents are fat... they form unhealthy habits.



http://www.wsro.org/Portals/12/Docs/position-statement-sugar-and-addiction-2012.pdf

"In summary, the current evidence does not support the idea that human addiction to sugar is a valid concept or that it is a characteristic of individuals who are obese"

I did refer to this study on page 19 of this discussion.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2235907/

rejectuf

Potentially. But why partake in something that has a 50/50 chance of failure because of unsustainability? why not increase those chances exponentially by operating in a way that you can still have the things you feel you'll crave, as long as all of your other food goals are in check.

By the way, as I said previously in this thread, sugar and carbs are synonyms. Carbs (as a whole) contain C, H and O atoms in varying amounts. Sugar's molecular formula is C12H22O11.

Because it sounds like they tried your way, failed and could benefit from trying something different?

And just because they all contain carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen doesn't mean your body will take them in the same way. Why do medical organizations, including AHA, recommend limiting sugar intake to 36g a day for men? If all carbs are indeed equal, shouldn't I be able to ingest 150g of sugar a day and be ok?

Fragezeichen

OK, I didn't read all of this. But the bits I did - interesting discussion.
I only started on this website a few days ago. And am also wondering about my sugar intake: Calories in check, as are total carbs, fat, protein. Sugars - always more than "allowed" by the website. Looking through what I eat, most of the sugars come from fruit, no "junk" in there. So - do I now feel riddled by guilt because of this high sugar intake, do I cut down fruit and live on cucumber or tomatoes, or do I simply ignore it, because I like fruit and it really is meant to be good for you - whatever that exactly means?

jonnythan

For those arguing in favor of cookies and cakes, can you please tell me what your recommended daily intake for sugar is?

My recommended daily intake of sugar is: exactly the amount you want to consume that makes you happiest while meeting your nutrient goals.

parkscs

Potentially. But why partake in something that has a 50/50 chance of failure because of unsustainability? why not increase those chances exponentially by operating in a way that you can still have the things you feel you'll crave, as long as all of your other food goals are in check.

By the way, as I said previously in this thread, sugar and carbs are synonyms. Carbs (as a whole) contain C, H and O atoms in varying amounts. Sugar's molecular formula is C12H22O11.

Because it sounds like they tried your way, failed and could benefit from trying something different?

And just because they all contain carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen doesn't mean your body will take them in the same way. Why do medical organizations, including AHA, recommend limiting sugar intake to 36g a day for men? If all carbs are indeed equal, shouldn't I be able to ingest 150g of sugar a day and be ok?

It's probably worth pointing out also that it's nonsense that dieters who don't eat cake have a 50% success rate and those that do don't have an exponentially greater chance of success... whatever that even means, as "exponentially greater" normal applies to a rate and not a percentage chance of success. In any event, the actual odds of long-term success are much more grim, regardless of how you choose to lose weight.

parkscs

OK, I didn't read all of this. But the bits I did - interesting discussion.
I only started on this website a few days ago. And am also wondering about my sugar intake: Calories in check, as are total carbs, fat, protein. Sugars - always more than "allowed" by the website. Looking through what I eat, most of the sugars come from fruit, no "junk" in there. So - do I now feel riddled by guilt because of this high sugar intake, do I cut down fruit and live on cucumber or tomatoes, or do I simply ignore it, because I like fruit and it really is meant to be good for you - whatever that exactly means?

There's nothing special about MFP's default sugar recommendation, and thus there's no need to feel guilty because you didn't satisfy an arbitrary value. Feel free to customize your macro/micronutrient goals as you see fit and as you discover what works best for you.

jonnythan

OK, I didn't read all of this. But the bits I did - interesting discussion.
I only started on this website a few days ago. And am also wondering about my sugar intake: Calories in check, as are total carbs, fat, protein. Sugars - always more than "allowed" by the website. Looking through what I eat, most of the sugars come from fruit, no "junk" in there. So - do I now feel riddled by guilt because of this high sugar intake, do I cut down fruit and live on cucumber or tomatoes, or do I simply ignore it, because I like fruit and it really is meant to be good for you - whatever that exactly means?

Unless you have blood sugar control problems (diabetes, hypoglycemia, etc) then there's no reason for you to even track sugar. Go to your diary, click Settings, and track something else like fiber instead.

HappyStack

Potentially. But why partake in something that has a 50/50 chance of failure because of unsustainability? why not increase those chances exponentially by operating in a way that you can still have the things you feel you'll crave, as long as all of your other food goals are in check.

By the way, as I said previously in this thread, sugar and carbs are synonyms. Carbs (as a whole) contain C, H and O atoms in varying amounts. Sugar's molecular formula is C12H22O11.

Because it sounds like they tried your way, failed and could benefit from trying something different?

And just because they all contain carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen doesn't mean your body will take them in the same way. Why do medical organizations, including AHA, recommend limiting sugar intake to 36g a day for men? If all carbs are indeed equal, shouldn't I be able to ingest 150g of sugar a day and be ok?

Conventional dieting is actually "accomplished" more using "your" way.

Being synonymous as a term doesn't mean they're created equal. You're talking about nutrient density. Nobody is arguing about the importance of micro and macronutrients. The RDI for sugar all sugar - including fruit sugar - is a guideline designed to help people choose foods which are higher in micros.

At this point, you're just being silly.

rejectuf

Potentially. But why partake in something that has a 50/50 chance of failure because of unsustainability? why not increase those chances exponentially by operating in a way that you can still have the things you feel you'll crave, as long as all of your other food goals are in check.

By the way, as I said previously in this thread, sugar and carbs are synonyms. Carbs (as a whole) contain C, H and O atoms in varying amounts. Sugar's molecular formula is C12H22O11.

Because it sounds like they tried your way, failed and could benefit from trying something different?

And just because they all contain carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen doesn't mean your body will take them in the same way. Why do medical organizations, including AHA, recommend limiting sugar intake to 36g a day for men? If all carbs are indeed equal, shouldn't I be able to ingest 150g of sugar a day and be ok?

Conventional dieting is actually "accomplished" more using "your" way.

Being synonymous as a term doesn't mean they're created equal. You're talking about nutrient density. Nobody is arguing about the importance of micro and macronutrients. The RDI for sugar all sugar - including fruit sugar - is a guideline designed to help people choose foods which are higher in micros.

At this point, you're just being silly.

Right back at you. I'd love to indulge you and get more and more pedantic about carbohydrates but at this point it's tiring. I'll continue eating a moderate amount of fruit daily and limiting my sugar intake otherwise, and you go ahead and eat all the cake/cookies/ice cream you please.

ninerbuff

I can't believe I read all 20 pages of this and no one posted the below study. My head seriously hurts from it, :laugh:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20056521

Conclusion: There is no support from the human literature for the hypothesis that sucrose may be physically addictive or that addiction to sugar plays a role in eating disorders.

So it goes back to a handful of people say, it's a habit. Just like the reason why children become fat when both parents are fat... they form unhealthy habits.


http://www.wsro.org/Portals/12/Docs/position-statement-sugar-and-addiction-2012.pdf

"In summary, the current evidence does not support the idea that human addiction to sugar is a valid concept or that it is a characteristic of individuals who are obese"

How can I sticky this?

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

Fragezeichen

Grin - now here's a thought!

Found it quite enlightening, though. Let's see what other surprises come up if I track something else.

psuLemon

I can't believe I read all 20 pages of this and no one posted the below study. My head seriously hurts from it, :laugh:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20056521

Conclusion: There is no support from the human literature for the hypothesis that sucrose may be physically addictive or that addiction to sugar plays a role in eating disorders.

So it goes back to a handful of people say, it's a habit. Just like the reason why children become fat when both parents are fat... they form unhealthy habits.



http://www.wsro.org/Portals/12/Docs/position-statement-sugar-and-addiction-2012.pdf

"In summary, the current evidence does not support the idea that human addiction to sugar is a valid concept or that it is a characteristic of individuals who are obese"

I did refer to this study on page 19 of this discussion.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2235907/

You lost me at "In this animal model".. If you can show me a plausible study with humans, I might concur. But personally, I hold little value in animal models since many times, they are given a extraordinary amount that a human could not or would not normally consume. Also, how many humans eat with the same pattern as the rats?

psuLemon

I can't believe I read all 20 pages of this and no one posted the below study. My head seriously hurts from it, :laugh:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20056521

Conclusion: There is no support from the human literature for the hypothesis that sucrose may be physically addictive or that addiction to sugar plays a role in eating disorders.

So it goes back to a handful of people say, it's a habit. Just like the reason why children become fat when both parents are fat... they form unhealthy habits.


http://www.wsro.org/Portals/12/Docs/position-statement-sugar-and-addiction-2012.pdf

"In summary, the current evidence does not support the idea that human addiction to sugar is a valid concept or that it is a characteristic of individuals who are obese"

While the first study is certainly valid, the second one is literally a position paper from the sugar industry.

And the first study was partially funded by the World Sugar Research Organization. I wonder why?
http://www.clinicalnutritionjournal.com/article/S0261-5614(09)00239-8/fulltext#sec7

They did annotate with:

"The author has no financial interest in the sale of any sugar or sugar containing product. It is, however, gratefully acknowledged that the writing of this review was partially funded by the World Sugar Research Organization. The views expressed are, however, entirely those of the author who established the format of the review and was entirely free to express whatsoever views he thought appropriate."

Doesn't that count?:laugh:

MarlaVSings

I can't believe I read all 20 pages of this and no one posted the below study. My head seriously hurts from it, :laugh:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20056521

Conclusion: There is no support from the human literature for the hypothesis that sucrose may be physically addictive or that addiction to sugar plays a role in eating disorders.

So it goes back to a handful of people say, it's a habit. Just like the reason why children become fat when both parents are fat... they form unhealthy habits.


http://www.wsro.org/Portals/12/Docs/position-statement-sugar-and-addiction-2012.pdf

"In summary, the current evidence does not support the idea that human addiction to sugar is a valid concept or that it is a characteristic of individuals who are obese"

Wonder why your NIH article wasn't mentioned? Because this is NOT AN ACTUAL STUDY. This is a consensus statement.

There are plenty of studies right here, footnotes included (which your "study" clearly lacks).....

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2235907/

Umm also, your second link - another position statement, by the way, only states that results were inconsistent. That does not mean a theory has been disproven. But, at least there were actual links to studies here.

Back to your NIH "study" though.... did you happen to notice who it belongs to?? Elsevier Ltd and European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism.

If you look up Elsevier Ltd on Wikipedia you will notice mention of a 2009 lawsuit against Merk in regards to Vioxx,

"At a 2009 court case in Australia where Merck & Co. was being sued by a user of Vioxx, the plaintiff alleged that Merck had paid Elsevier to publish the Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine, which had the appearance of being a peer-reviewed academic journal but in fact contained only articles favourable to Merck drugs.[40][41][42][43] Merck has described the journal as a "complimentary publication", denied claims that articles within it were ghost written by Merck, and stated that the articles were all reprinted from peer-reviewed medical journals.[44] "

....oh but wait, it gets better....

"In May 2009, Elsevier Health Sciences CEO Hansen released a statement regarding Australia-based sponsored journals, conceding that these were "sponsored article compilation publications, on behalf of pharmaceutical clients, that were made to look like journals and lacked the proper disclosures." The statement acknowledged that this "was an unacceptable practice." "

--that kind of a poop stain on Elsevier's record damages their credibility.

Anyways, I can't believe this thread spilled into a part 2, I wish it would just go away already.

brissell

A few pages back, there was a question of why to choose apples over cake.

All the food we eat affects our blood sugar. It you want to control weight, it is very important to control spikes in your blood sugar. Fibre and protein help control spikes in your blood sugar. The apple and the cake both have significant amounts of sugar but, apples has fibre - this helps slow the absorption of the sugar into your blood stream - meaning that eating an apple vs cake would cause less of a blood sugar spike. Every time your blood sugar spikes, your body releases a pile of insulin which tells your body to get rid of the excess sugar in your blood - easiest way - store as fat. To lose weight, you need to reduce the number of times insulin tells your body to store fat!

This website explains blood sugar well - http://www.caloriesperhour.com/tutorial_sugar.php

Also, every time you have a blood sugar spike, it is followed by a low and then usually another high as your body tries to regulate itself. This is the sugar crash (low) and sugar cravings (causes high cause we eat too much sugar) we all experience.

psuLemon

I can't believe I read all 20 pages of this and no one posted the below study. My head seriously hurts from it, :laugh:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20056521

Conclusion: There is no support from the human literature for the hypothesis that sucrose may be physically addictive or that addiction to sugar plays a role in eating disorders.

So it goes back to a handful of people say, it's a habit. Just like the reason why children become fat when both parents are fat... they form unhealthy habits.


http://www.wsro.org/Portals/12/Docs/position-statement-sugar-and-addiction-2012.pdf

"In summary, the current evidence does not support the idea that human addiction to sugar is a valid concept or that it is a characteristic of individuals who are obese"

Wonder why your NIH article wasn't mentioned? Because this is NOT AN ACTUAL STUDY. This is a consensus statement.

There are plenty of studies right here, footnotes included (which your "study" clearly lacks).....

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2235907/

Umm also, your second link - another position statement, by the way, only states that results were inconsistent. That does not mean a theory has been disproven. But, at least there were actual links to studies here.

Back to your NIH "study" though.... did you happen to notice who it belongs to?? Elsevier Ltd and European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism.

If you look up Elsevier Ltd on Wikipedia you will notice mention of a 2009 lawsuit against Merk in regards to Vioxx,

"At a 2009 court case in Australia where Merck & Co. was being sued by a user of Vioxx, the plaintiff alleged that Merck had paid Elsevier to publish the Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine, which had the appearance of being a peer-reviewed academic journal but in fact contained only articles favourable to Merck drugs.[40][41][42][43] Merck has described the journal as a "complimentary publication", denied claims that articles within it were ghost written by Merck, and stated that the articles were all reprinted from peer-reviewed medical journals.[44] "

....oh but wait, it gets better....

"In May 2009, Elsevier Health Sciences CEO Hansen released a statement regarding Australia-based sponsored journals, conceding that these were "sponsored article compilation publications, on behalf of pharmaceutical clients, that were made to look like journals and lacked the proper disclosures." The statement acknowledged that this "was an unacceptable practice." "

--that kind of a poop stain on Elsevier's record damages their credibility.

Anyways, I can't believe this thread spilled into a part 2, I wish it would just go away already.

So we are back to the rat study? Because starving rats and then feeding them palatable foods and sugar water remotely resembles how humans eat? If you consistently starve or deprive anyone, over time, they will think anything taste good. Can you show me any studies on humans? Below are some key points in that study, IMO.


"The evidence supports the hypothesis that under certain circumstances rats can become sugar dependent. This may translate to some human conditions as suggested by the literature on eating disorders and obesity."


And my favorite line:

"The correspondence to some people with binge eating disorder or bulimia is striking, but whether or not it is a good idea to call this a “food addiction” in people is both a scientific and societal question that has yet to be answered. What this review demonstrates is that rats with intermittent access to food and a sugar solution can show both a constellation of behaviors and parallel brain changes that are characteristic of rats that voluntarily self-administer addictive drugs. In the aggregrate, this is evidence that sugar can be addictive."


Again, even the study doesn't fully support calling sugar addictive in humans... but it can be addictive... but for humans?

Sunka1

I'll rephrase then - where's the fear mongering in what I've been saying over the last few posts.

You continue to characterize some foods as simply "unhealthy."

That's what's wrong.

How long have you been working for McDonalds?

For the most part only whole foods are healthy. That means one ingredient. Cake-fine if you really want it but it' s gotta be some quality whole foods ingredients to be even close to healthy.