Calling all sugar addicts!
Replies
-
P.S. Here are some primary source articles and peer-reviewed scientific articles for all the anger going on in this post.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763407000589
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261561409002398
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/139/3/623.short
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2002.66/full
http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/pha/15/5/481/
You'd be SO surprised what a quick search on google scholar can do.
You'd be SO surprised that humans =/= rodents
do you ever add anything of value to a discussion? she provides tons of research pertaining to the topic and still you can't have a legitimate conversation.
Acg, question for you: Why do we do ANY tests on non-humans if that factor is enough to dismiss the results?0 -
P.S. Here are some primary source articles and peer-reviewed scientific articles for all the anger going on in this post.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763407000589
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261561409002398
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/139/3/623.short
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2002.66/full
http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/pha/15/5/481/
You'd be SO surprised what a quick search on google scholar can do.
You'd be SO surprised that humans =/= rodents
do you ever add anything of value to a discussion? she provides tons of research pertaining to the topic and still you can't have a legitimate conversation.
Acg, question for you: Why do we do ANY tests on non-humans if that factor is enough to dismiss the results?
From one of her linksThere 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.
Animal studies are a starting point, you cannot not simply extrapolate results from animal studies to humans.0 -
-
P.S. Here are some primary source articles and peer-reviewed scientific articles for all the anger going on in this post.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763407000589
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261561409002398
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/139/3/623.short
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2002.66/full
http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/pha/15/5/481/
You'd be SO surprised what a quick search on google scholar can do.
You'd be SO surprised that humans =/= rodents
do you ever add anything of value to a discussion? she provides tons of research pertaining to the topic and still you can't have a legitimate conversation.
Acg, question for you: Why do we do ANY tests on non-humans if that factor is enough to dismiss the results?
From one of her linksThere 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.
Animal studies are a starting point, you cannot not simply extrapolate results from animal studies to humans.
but you admit they're a starting point, and that from the evidence gathered, human studies may be warranted? In other words, it's entirely valid to hypothesize that sugar may also be addictive in humans?0 -
P.S. Here are some primary source articles and peer-reviewed scientific articles for all the anger going on in this post.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763407000589
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261561409002398
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/139/3/623.short
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2002.66/full
http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/pha/15/5/481/
You'd be SO surprised what a quick search on google scholar can do.
You'd be SO surprised that humans =/= rodents
do you ever add anything of value to a discussion? she provides tons of research pertaining to the topic and still you can't have a legitimate conversation.
Acg, question for you: Why do we do ANY tests on non-humans if that factor is enough to dismiss the results?
From one of her linksThere 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.
Animal studies are a starting point, you cannot not simply extrapolate results from animal studies to humans.
but you admit they're a starting point, and that from the evidence gathered, human studies may be warranted? In other words, it's entirely valid to hypothesize that sugar may also be addictive in humans?
"Another reason rodents are used as models in medical testing is that their genetic, biological and behavior characteristics closely resemble those of humans, and many symptoms of human conditions can be replicated in mice and rats. "Rats and mice are mammals that share many processes with humans and are appropriate for use to answer many research questions," said Jenny Haliski, a representative for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare."
Source http://www.livescience.com/32860-why-do-medical-researchers-use-mice.html0 -
P.S. Here are some primary source articles and peer-reviewed scientific articles for all the anger going on in this post.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763407000589
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261561409002398
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/139/3/623.short
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2002.66/full
http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/pha/15/5/481/
You'd be SO surprised what a quick search on google scholar can do.
You'd be SO surprised that humans =/= rodents
do you ever add anything of value to a discussion? she provides tons of research pertaining to the topic and still you can't have a legitimate conversation.
Acg, question for you: Why do we do ANY tests on non-humans if that factor is enough to dismiss the results?
From one of her linksThere 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.
Animal studies are a starting point, you cannot not simply extrapolate results from animal studies to humans.
but you admit they're a starting point, and that from the evidence gathered, human studies may be warranted? In other words, it's entirely valid to hypothesize that sugar may also be addictive in humans?
Depends on how much stock you put in rodent studies that deprive the rodents of food for 12 hrs, which when thought of in human terms is somewhere in the range of 3-5days. How realistic is that scenario? So yes under certain conditions, it may be entirely possible sucrose could be addictive in humans0 -
The outcomes in most of these mouse studies are predetermined and dosage is then adjusted for that outcome.....no point in feeding them normally we have human studies that show those results. All these mice also have altered DNA to facilitate quicker results or to enhance effect for those study purposes.......google knockout mice. But lets face it, this generally gets in the way of really good story telling.P.S. Here are some primary source articles and peer-reviewed scientific articles for all the anger going on in this post.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763407000589
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261561409002398
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/139/3/623.short
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2002.66/full
http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/pha/15/5/481/
You'd be SO surprised what a quick search on google scholar can do.
You'd be SO surprised that humans =/= rodents
do you ever add anything of value to a discussion? she provides tons of research pertaining to the topic and still you can't have a legitimate conversation.
Acg, question for you: Why do we do ANY tests on non-humans if that factor is enough to dismiss the results?
From one of her linksThere 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.
Animal studies are a starting point, you cannot not simply extrapolate results from animal studies to humans.
but you admit they're a starting point, and that from the evidence gathered, human studies may be warranted? In other words, it's entirely valid to hypothesize that sugar may also be addictive in humans?
Depends on how much stock you put in rodent studies that deprive the rodents of food for 12 hrs, which when thought of in human terms is somewhere in the range of 3-5days. How realistic is that scenario? So yes under certain conditions, it may be entirely possible sucrose could be addictive in humans
this is also good reading regarding mouse models.
https://www.genome.gov/100058340 -
Agree that we live in the land of plenty... and it's not just sugar.. it's all food. This is where the second link i posted mentioned. If you look at statics, it's not sugar that has increase, it's overall caloric availability. So blaming a specific micronutient for our health issues is the problem.i would argue that it's not sugar.. it's hyperpalatable foods. Again, no one in this thread has suggested they have an addiction to high sugar fruits, but rather donuts, chocolate, cake, cheese and for me it's wings. As niner point out, our addiction isn't sugar, it's extremely yummy foods. Heck, I will take a Burrito bowl from Chipotle, Steak or Wings over dessert any day of the week. When I binge, it's not on sweets, its on meat because it's yummy.
Do you eat wings until you throw up, and then keep eating? Do you deceive your family so you can hoard Chipotle? Do you steal steak from your housemates? Do you eat food from the garbage? What you have is not addiction but that doesn't mean other people don't have it worse than you. Don't try to compare your lack of self-control over foods you like to people who actually have disorders
You actually make good points... I don't see anyone on this board that claims a sugar addiction stating they are picking pieces of cake out of the trash, or picking up chocolate off the street for a "fix". This is why many of us don't believe it's a addiction but rather a binging disorder.
We live in the land of plenty. Any convenience store has sugar, and sugar is cheap. No need to go through the trash.0 -
Someone somewhere likely has an addiction - from all the shots they've consumed playing a drinking game with the phrase "sugar addict"0
-
Lustig unfortunately has quite a bit of baggage, Zealots often do. Because of your overall beliefs which are also in line with his, maybe doing research that contradicts that premise might be a good starting point to be more balanced in this overall complicated subject as opposed to falling to the appeal to authority flaw."Which brings us to sugar. Another fun substance, full of energy, made up of two molecules linked together: glucose (kind of sweet, and not that much fun), and fructose (very sweet, and a whole lot of fun). Glucose is a nutrient, although not essential—it’s so important, that if you don’t eat it, your liver will make it. But what about fructose? Is fructose a nutrient? As it turns out, there’s no biochemical reaction that requires dietary fructose. A rare genetic disease called Hereditary Fructose Intolerance afflicts 1 in 100,000 babies, who drop their blood sugar to almost zero and have a seizure upon their first exposure to juice from a bottle at age six months. Doctors perform a liver biopsy to confirm the diagnosis. From that moment on, they’re fructose-free for the rest of their lives. And they’re among the healthiest people on the planet. Alcohol and fructose both supply energy. They’re fun—but they are not nutrients. Strike two."
Source http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/01/the-sugar-addiction-taboo/282699/
My thoughts: Not everyone who drinks alcohol is an alcoholic. But alcoholics exist.
No everyone who eats sugar is addicted to it. But some people react to sugar, behaviorally and biochemically, in a very similar way as an addict.
You love posting junky stuff, an article from Lolstig?
Robert H. Lolstig is a pediatric neuroendocrinologist and a professor of pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco. He is former chairman of the obesity task force of the Lawson Wilkins Pediatric Endocrine Society
What are your credentials, Acg67?
Lolstig hardly sounds like a radical zealot. He even quotes the AHA recommendation of reducing sugar (perhaps why many on MFP complain about the low sugar recommendations here and the need to "delete sugar tracking" or "ignore sugar" from their diaries.
Here's the last paragraph from his article above:
"The concept of sugar addiction will continue to evoke visceral responses on both sides of the aisle. One thing most agree on is that sugar should be safe—and rare. That means “real” food. In the short term, Americans must watch out for ourselves, and that means cooking for ourselves. The American Heart Association recommends a reduction in consumption from our current 22 teaspoons per day to six for women and nine for men; a reduction by two-thirds to three-quarters. Our current consumption is over our limit and our “processed” food supply is designed to keep it that way. Food should confer wellness, not illness. The industry feeds our sugar habit to the detriment of our society. We need food purveyors, not food pushers."
Source http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/01/the-sugar-addiction-taboo/282699/
So how is treating sugar as an addictive substance working out for you?0 -
Then my question would be: Why aren't vegetarians showing up in large numbers with health issues if the majority of their diet is fructose laden?
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
aw come on man you respond to the Lustig wall-o-text but ignore my actual study depicting actual sugar addiction in rats?
sadface.
You posted a study? Do you not know what a study is? And what was the study design, 12hrs food deprivation?
feel free to read it yourself.
I've read it. It is quite interesting. However, rats are not humans. I am looking forward to more research.0 -
So how is treating sugar as an addictive substance working out for you?
This wasn't addressed to me, but as someone that often refers to myself as a former sugar addict, I'm answering anyway. It worked well for me. I gave up sugar for several months many years ago. Not all carbs or all foods that eventually break down into glucose. Sugar. Sweets. Desserts. Candy, cake, pie, soda, juice, etc.
After a few months I allowed myself to sugary treats once in a while. I found by breaking what I refered to as my addiction (without giving a ****e about whether my word usage was correct) I could eat sweets without wanting to eat every sweet within a 50 mile radius.
But, every now and then, I find I need to rein it in again. So, I do.0 -
[quote
Sugar Showdown: Science Responds to "Fructophobia"
The scientific community lashed out against "sugar is toxic" sensationalism on Sunday, April 22, identifying it as a distraction from more meaningful areas of research and debate on the causes of obesity and disease.
In a highly attended debate at Experimental Biology 2012 in San Diego sponsored by the Corn Refiners Association, scientists expressed clear frustration about the repeated assaults on sugar both in recent news reports and in the scientific literature.
"You don't often see this at a meeting," said John White, Ph.D., of White Technical Research, to me after the event, referring to what he said was "the groundswell of researchers pushing back" against inflammatory remarks and overstatements.
The symposium organized by the American Society for Nutrition showcased both sides of the controversy surrounding the metabolic effects and health implications of sugar—fructose, sucrose, and high-fructose corn syrup—using latest available and emerging scientific findings.
As the first presenter, White presented data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys showing that no correlation existed between total fructose and the prevalence of obesity and that total added sugars and intake of sugar-sweetened beverages have declined for more than a decade.
"The support for fructose as a metabolic threat at current levels of intake is weak," White affirmed.
White also made the point that high-fructose corn syrup and sucrose are not different, suggesting the former might've been more appropriately called "medium-fructose corn syrup" because of its similarity to table sugar and other sugars.
Presenting a contrasting view, George Bray, M.D., chief division of clinical obesity and metabolism, showed data that soft drink consumption had increased from 1950 to 2000. Sugar-sweetened beverages, he argued, provide add-on calories that lead to weight gain, particularly from intra-abdominal fat.
In what promised to be a highly charged attack on sugar, characteristic of his appearance in media reports, Robert Lustig, M.D., began with a title slide displaying: "Fructose: alcohol without the 'buzz'". He argued that fructose metabolism was similar to that of ethanol's and that a "beer belly" was not far off from a "soda belly."
In his limited time, fast-talking Dr. Lustig quickly explained metabolic pathways and repeated remarks that fructose may be addicting to the brain like ethanol, based on animal research, and that fructose may be several times more likely than glucose to form advanced-glycation end products (a hallmark feature of uncontrolled diabetes).
Next to speak was cardiologist James Rippe, M.D., who presented a convincing argument that while fructose alone may have "qualitative differences," they were not "quantitative differences." He argued that research comparing pure fructose to pure glucose was not relevant to human nutrition.
Sharing White's viewpoint, Dr. Rippe added that there were no metabolic differences between the sugars or fructose by itself—that is, there are no clinically meaningful effects on blood lipids at levels consumed by people normally, and no effects on uric acid or blood pressure.
He said the hot topic was an emotional issue creating a "perfect storm" for mistaken identity.
Dr. Rippe said afterward that Dr. Lustig's logic about fructose being uniquely responsible for disease was like going into "an alternate universe" that just did not stand up to scientific scrutiny. Yet it garners attention because of the public's habit of playing "the blame game" mixed with misconceptions about high-fructose corn syrup.
"People called him on it today," Rippe told me. By going to the media directly, he said, Dr. Lustig didn't have to have the same standards of proof that scientists usually must have.
The last presenter was David Klurfeld, Ph.D., of the United States Department of Agriculture, who rounded out the debate again affirming that there was no evidence suggesting that sugar presented a unique metabolic danger.
"Is there a metabolic difference between sugars? Of course," Klurfeld said, "Is it biologically meaningful?" The answer was that it wasn't, according to the available evidence.
"The dose makes the poison," Klurfeld added. Should there be sugar regulation or taxation? There is insufficient data to justify any decision, Klurfeld said, quipping that whole milk would be next.
A question-and-answer period followed the debate giving a voice to disgruntled attendees who called Dr. Lustig out for suggesting that sugar was a metabolic danger. Dr. Lustig agreed that "everything can be toxic" at a dose, but sugar is abused and addictive.
One commenter (later identified as Richard Black, Ph.D., of Kraft Foods) responded saying that media should stop comparing sugar to cocaine by showing images where the brain lights up in the same areas. "The brain is supposed to light up in response to food," he said.
In an amusing but perhaps humbling moment for Dr. Lustig, he singled out the commenter asking if he had children. The commenter responded that he did. Dr. Lustig then asked him if as infants his children more easily liked sweet foods. The commenter said that, yes, of course they did because breast milk was sweet. Dr. Lustig replied that it was not. His reply caused an immediate reaction (notably, from mostly women) in the room who voiced in unison, "Yes, it is!"
John Sievenpiper, M.D., of St. Michael's Hospital told me after the event he was pleased that the speakers framed their arguments in a way that put the controversy in perspective. As shown in recent meta-analyses of which he co-authored, fructose demonstrated no significant effect on body weight or blood pressure in calorie-controlled trials. Fructose also demonstrated improvement of glycemic control at levels comparable to that obtained in fruit.
"It's hard to change people's minds," Dr. Sievenpiper said, stating concern that people would reduce intake of fruit in response to fears about the metabolic effects of fructose.
Don't miss this Storify story from folks on Twitter using the #sugarshowdown hashtag during the debate. Also, check out video blogger Emily Tomayko's recap on the ASN blog here.
Update 24-May-12: As a follow-up to this report, I've posted an interview with Dr. Sievenpiper here. Hopefully, it will help bring more clarity to the issues and answer several questions people have. If you wish to comment, please do so after reading that post. I've now closed comments on this blog post.
Update 8-June-12: Check out videos (just published) of each of the talks. Here they are: White, Lustig, Bray, Rippe, and Klurfeld. Oh, and there is a video of the Q&A too. [/quote]
http://evolvinghealthscience.blogspot.com/2012/04/sugar-showdown-science-responds-to.html?spref=tw0 -
So how is treating sugar as an addictive substance working out for you?
This wasn't addressed to me, but as someone that often refers to myself as a former sugar addict, I'm answering anyway. It worked well for me. I gave up sugar for several months many years ago. Not all carbs or all foods that eventually break down into glucose. Sugar. Sweets. Desserts. Candy, cake, pie, soda, juice, etc.
After a few months I allowed myself to sugary treats once in a while. I found by breaking what I refered to as my addiction (without giving a ****e about whether my word usage was correct) I could eat sweets without wanting to eat every sweet within a 50 mile radius.
But, every now and then, I find I need to rein it in again. So, I do.
You do recognize then that it's not a physical addiction so much as a propensity to like sweets? Maybe even a binge eating disorder? That's really all anyone here is saying unless I'm severely misinterpreting. If you want to call it an "addiction" tongue and cheek, cool, I think we all get it. Some of the sugar addiction claims here though are really ludicrous.0 -
So how is treating sugar as an addictive substance working out for you?
This wasn't addressed to me, but as someone that often refers to myself as a former sugar addict, I'm answering anyway. It worked well for me. I gave up sugar for several months many years ago. Not all carbs or all foods that eventually break down into glucose. Sugar. Sweets. Desserts. Candy, cake, pie, soda, juice, etc.
After a few months I allowed myself to sugary treats once in a while. I found by breaking what I refered to as my addiction (without giving a ****e about whether my word usage was correct) I could eat sweets without wanting to eat every sweet within a 50 mile radius.
But, every now and then, I find I need to rein it in again. So, I do.
That's an awful narrow definition of sugar0 -
So how is treating sugar as an addictive substance working out for you?
This wasn't addressed to me, but as someone that often refers to myself as a former sugar addict, I'm answering anyway. It worked well for me. I gave up sugar for several months many years ago. Not all carbs or all foods that eventually break down into glucose. Sugar. Sweets. Desserts. Candy, cake, pie, soda, juice, etc.
After a few months I allowed myself to sugary treats once in a while. I found by breaking what I refered to as my addiction (without giving a ****e about whether my word usage was correct) I could eat sweets without wanting to eat every sweet within a 50 mile radius.
But, every now and then, I find I need to rein it in again. So, I do.
You do recognize then that it's not a physical addiction so much as a propensity to like sweets? Maybe even a binge eating disorder? That's really all anyone here is saying unless I'm severely misinterpreting. If you want to call it an "addiction" tongue and cheek, cool, I think we all get it. Some of the sugar addiction claims here though are really ludicrous.
No doubt. Every long forum thread is full of some nonsense. According to dictionary.com:
ad·dic·tion [uh-dik-shuhn] Show IPA
noun
the state of being enslaved to a habit or practice or to something that is psychologically or physically habit-forming, as narcotics, to such an extent that its cessation causes severe trauma.
I'm not convinced that sugar doesn't fit that description for many. But even if it doesn't technically meet the definition, so what? Even if you convinced them it didn't, so what? What would it change or prove?0 -
So how is treating sugar as an addictive substance working out for you?
This wasn't addressed to me, but as someone that often refers to myself as a former sugar addict, I'm answering anyway. It worked well for me. I gave up sugar for several months many years ago. Not all carbs or all foods that eventually break down into glucose. Sugar. Sweets. Desserts. Candy, cake, pie, soda, juice, etc.
After a few months I allowed myself to sugary treats once in a while. I found by breaking what I refered to as my addiction (without giving a ****e about whether my word usage was correct) I could eat sweets without wanting to eat every sweet within a 50 mile radius.
But, every now and then, I find I need to rein it in again. So, I do.
You do recognize then that it's not a physical addiction so much as a propensity to like sweets? Maybe even a binge eating disorder? That's really all anyone here is saying unless I'm severely misinterpreting. If you want to call it an "addiction" tongue and cheek, cool, I think we all get it. Some of the sugar addiction claims here though are really ludicrous.
No doubt. Every long forum thread is full of some nonsense. According to dictionary.com:
ad·dic·tion [uh-dik-shuhn] Show IPA
noun
the state of being enslaved to a habit or practice or to something that is psychologically or physically habit-forming, as narcotics, to such an extent that its cessation causes severe trauma.
I'm not convinced that sugar doesn't fit that description for many. But even if it doesn't technically meet the definition, so what? Even if you convinced them it didn't, so what? What would it change or prove?
The solution to physical addictions has been to completely and permanently cease consuming or using the addictive substance. You yourself mention above that this is not the case for you with sugar. My point is simply that the treatment/solution is different. It's also better for the individual, as hey you get to have a treat once in a while. That, and simple intellectually curiosity and honesty.0 -
I'd say 'food' gits that description.ad·dic·tion [uh-dik-shuhn] Show IPA
noun
the state of being enslaved to a habit or practice or to something that is psychologically or physically habit-forming, as narcotics, to such an extent that its cessation causes severe trauma.
I'm not convinced that sugar doesn't fit that description for many. But even if it doesn't technically meet the definition, so what? Even if you convinced them it didn't, so what? What would it change or prove?
Also, 'nice food'. Well, maybe not 'severe trauma', but not sure the same is true with sugar either.
I have been addicted to Tramadol - didn't realise until I tried to stop taking it and had classic 'cold turkey' issues.
Hasn't stopped me taking similar since, in some cases for a good bit of time at once and been fine stopping taking it too.0 -
[quote
Sugar Showdown: Science Responds to "Fructophobia"
The scientific community lashed out against "sugar is toxic" sensationalism on Sunday, April 22, identifying it as a distraction from more meaningful areas of research and debate on the causes of obesity and disease.
In a highly attended debate at Experimental Biology 2012 in San Diego sponsored by the Corn Refiners Association, scientists expressed clear frustration about the repeated assaults on sugar both in recent news reports and in the scientific literature.
"You don't often see this at a meeting," said John White, Ph.D., of White Technical Research, to me after the event, referring to what he said was "the groundswell of researchers pushing back" against inflammatory remarks and overstatements.
The symposium organized by the American Society for Nutrition showcased both sides of the controversy surrounding the metabolic effects and health implications of sugar—fructose, sucrose, and high-fructose corn syrup—using latest available and emerging scientific findings.
As the first presenter, White presented data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys showing that no correlation existed between total fructose and the prevalence of obesity and that total added sugars and intake of sugar-sweetened beverages have declined for more than a decade.
"The support for fructose as a metabolic threat at current levels of intake is weak," White affirmed.
White also made the point that high-fructose corn syrup and sucrose are not different, suggesting the former might've been more appropriately called "medium-fructose corn syrup" because of its similarity to table sugar and other sugars.
Presenting a contrasting view, George Bray, M.D., chief division of clinical obesity and metabolism, showed data that soft drink consumption had increased from 1950 to 2000. Sugar-sweetened beverages, he argued, provide add-on calories that lead to weight gain, particularly from intra-abdominal fat.
In what promised to be a highly charged attack on sugar, characteristic of his appearance in media reports, Robert Lustig, M.D., began with a title slide displaying: "Fructose: alcohol without the 'buzz'". He argued that fructose metabolism was similar to that of ethanol's and that a "beer belly" was not far off from a "soda belly."
In his limited time, fast-talking Dr. Lustig quickly explained metabolic pathways and repeated remarks that fructose may be addicting to the brain like ethanol, based on animal research, and that fructose may be several times more likely than glucose to form advanced-glycation end products (a hallmark feature of uncontrolled diabetes).
Next to speak was cardiologist James Rippe, M.D., who presented a convincing argument that while fructose alone may have "qualitative differences," they were not "quantitative differences." He argued that research comparing pure fructose to pure glucose was not relevant to human nutrition.
Sharing White's viewpoint, Dr. Rippe added that there were no metabolic differences between the sugars or fructose by itself—that is, there are no clinically meaningful effects on blood lipids at levels consumed by people normally, and no effects on uric acid or blood pressure.
He said the hot topic was an emotional issue creating a "perfect storm" for mistaken identity.
Dr. Rippe said afterward that Dr. Lustig's logic about fructose being uniquely responsible for disease was like going into "an alternate universe" that just did not stand up to scientific scrutiny. Yet it garners attention because of the public's habit of playing "the blame game" mixed with misconceptions about high-fructose corn syrup.
"People called him on it today," Rippe told me. By going to the media directly, he said, Dr. Lustig didn't have to have the same standards of proof that scientists usually must have.
The last presenter was David Klurfeld, Ph.D., of the United States Department of Agriculture, who rounded out the debate again affirming that there was no evidence suggesting that sugar presented a unique metabolic danger.
"Is there a metabolic difference between sugars? Of course," Klurfeld said, "Is it biologically meaningful?" The answer was that it wasn't, according to the available evidence.
"The dose makes the poison," Klurfeld added. Should there be sugar regulation or taxation? There is insufficient data to justify any decision, Klurfeld said, quipping that whole milk would be next.
A question-and-answer period followed the debate giving a voice to disgruntled attendees who called Dr. Lustig out for suggesting that sugar was a metabolic danger. Dr. Lustig agreed that "everything can be toxic" at a dose, but sugar is abused and addictive.
One commenter (later identified as Richard Black, Ph.D., of Kraft Foods) responded saying that media should stop comparing sugar to cocaine by showing images where the brain lights up in the same areas. "The brain is supposed to light up in response to food," he said.
In an amusing but perhaps humbling moment for Dr. Lustig, he singled out the commenter asking if he had children. The commenter responded that he did. Dr. Lustig then asked him if as infants his children more easily liked sweet foods. The commenter said that, yes, of course they did because breast milk was sweet. Dr. Lustig replied that it was not. His reply caused an immediate reaction (notably, from mostly women) in the room who voiced in unison, "Yes, it is!"
John Sievenpiper, M.D., of St. Michael's Hospital told me after the event he was pleased that the speakers framed their arguments in a way that put the controversy in perspective. As shown in recent meta-analyses of which he co-authored, fructose demonstrated no significant effect on body weight or blood pressure in calorie-controlled trials. Fructose also demonstrated improvement of glycemic control at levels comparable to that obtained in fruit.
"It's hard to change people's minds," Dr. Sievenpiper said, stating concern that people would reduce intake of fruit in response to fears about the metabolic effects of fructose.
Don't miss this Storify story from folks on Twitter using the #sugarshowdown hashtag during the debate. Also, check out video blogger Emily Tomayko's recap on the ASN blog here.
Update 24-May-12: As a follow-up to this report, I've posted an interview with Dr. Sievenpiper here. Hopefully, it will help bring more clarity to the issues and answer several questions people have. If you wish to comment, please do so after reading that post. I've now closed comments on this blog post.
Update 8-June-12: Check out videos (just published) of each of the talks. Here they are: White, Lustig, Bray, Rippe, and Klurfeld. Oh, and there is a video of the Q&A too.
http://evolvinghealthscience.blogspot.com/2012/04/sugar-showdown-science-responds-to.html?spref=tw
[/quote]Thanks so much for this. Open forums within the scientific community, whether pro or con, is good.
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
I posted two peer reviewed scientific articles that used HUMANS as a study and people are still arguing about rodents and if this is real. Oi.0
-
The original poster only wanted suggestions on how to curb HER OWN sugar intake as she understands it, it wasn't a question to MFP community on the validity of sugar addiction. Most addiction groups have only 1 requirement for membership, (its not test studies), its a desire to stop. In addition, most of those groups say that the substance is only a symptom, that there are other root causes (yes, psychological).
People have many similarities, but they have differences too
Why are some people alcoholics and others arent?
Why do some people live or die from the same cancer and same treatment?0 -
YES! I've read the I Quit Sugar book, as well as David Gillespie's 'The sweet poison'.
It's an addiction - read her book, it's a fast read and will probably scare the hell out of you. My wife and I are getting off the stuff. It appears to ruin and affect every appetite control system your body has in place. What's worse is that the fructose in sugar and HFCS is turned straight to fat and doesn't trip your body's 'I'm full' switch, like glucose does. Gillespie's book is a little more technical, and gets into the biological stuff in more detail than Sara's book, but they're both must-reads.
Yes, read the book. Get it from the library, order it on your kindle, whatever. It will open your eyes.
As the book says, it's a harder addiction to break, in part because it's a lot easier to avoid nicotine and cocaine than it is the sugar that is almost universally shoveled into processed foods. Sugar also triggers that feel-good in your brain, much like other addicting substances.
You really should question the integrity of a book. Many of them cherry pick studies to sell a product. Fructose is converted to glucose by the liver. HFCS is ~ 55% fructose and 45% glucose and follows the same products. Regardless of the macronutrient, the basic laws of thermodynamics apply. I eat 3-5 helps of fruit daily, so if what you said was true, I would be obese. Calories in vs out is the only thing that determines weight loss..
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/02/19/a-retrospective-of-the-fructose-alarmism-debate/
HFCS - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20471804
This was on the internet, so it must be true. Eating fruit doesn't make you fat, unless you eat a ton of overripe fruit. Do you do that? In addition to your 3-5 helpings, do you follow them with oreo's and chocolate milk? Probably not. I've read that bears gorge on fruit to get fat before hibernating, as do other mammals that go without food for long periods, like over winters. Maybe you should question your Alan's Blog sources as well. From what I've read, an OVERABUNDANCE of fructose and glucose is stored as fat in the blood. Sugar turns to glucose turns to fat if you eat too much of it. Having your "i'm full" switch turned off allows you to eat more before getting stuffed, therefore more calories, more fat. Pretty simple when you break it down. It's a vicious cycle. You don't have to believe, but perhaps read up a little more.
"Fructose, on the other hand, is processed in the liver. To greatly simplify the situation: When too much fructose enters the liver, the liver can't process it all fast enough for the body to use as sugar. Instead, it starts making fats from the fructose and sending them off into the bloodstream as triglycerides. " Boom, not good.0 -
I posted two peer reviewed scientific articles that used HUMANS as a study and people are still arguing about rodents and if this is real. Oi.
I did not know that your posts were the defining conclusion on sugar addiction ….0 -
I posted two peer reviewed scientific articles that used HUMANS as a study and people are still arguing about rodents and if this is real. Oi.
I did not know that your posts were the defining conclusion on sugar addiction ….
moar snark plz. you're so good at it.
do you do anything else? :flowerforyou:0 -
I posted two peer reviewed scientific articles that used HUMANS as a study and people are still arguing about rodents and if this is real. Oi.
I did not know that your posts were the defining conclusion on sugar addiction ….
moar snark plz. you're so good at it.
do you do anything else? :flowerforyou:
look..its a bird, its a plane…nope, its the white knight of MFP here to the rescue!
Do you just ride to the rescue of every person in distress on MFP?
I think you need a new SOP this one is getting played out real fast….0 -
I posted two peer reviewed scientific articles that used HUMANS as a study and people are still arguing about rodents and if this is real. Oi.
I did not know that your posts were the defining conclusion on sugar addiction ….
moar snark plz. you're so good at it.
do you do anything else? :flowerforyou:
look..its a bird, its a plane…nope, its the white knight of MFP here to the rescue!
Do you just ride to the rescue of every person in distress on MFP?
I think you need a new SOP this one is getting played out real fast….
Your post about the "defining conclusion on sugar addiction …. " was confrontational and rude. There were multiple requests for studies and when they were provided ....crickets
People are just tired of the Cliff Clavens that role in threads to offer unsolicited expert opinions on any subject at all. Worse are the court jesters who just antagonize and offer NO knowledge or substance to the discussion0 -
I have a sweet tooth myself.
No, I have not tried that diet.
I still give in to cravings, but I do so with portion control. I have little 90 calorie m&m cookies currently and low cal ice cream and frozen yogurt. I also bought cocoa coated almonds, which are really good. I also like the Special K brownie bites, although I am actually beginning to get sick of them!0 -
I posted two peer reviewed scientific articles that used HUMANS as a study and people are still arguing about rodents and if this is real. Oi.
I did not know that your posts were the defining conclusion on sugar addiction ….
moar snark plz. you're so good at it.
do you do anything else? :flowerforyou:
look..its a bird, its a plane…nope, its the white knight of MFP here to the rescue!
Do you just ride to the rescue of every person in distress on MFP?
I think you need a new SOP this one is getting played out real fast….
Your post about the "defining conclusion on sugar addiction …. " was confrontational and rude. There were multiple requests for studies and when they were provided ....crickets
People are just tired of the Cliff Clavens that role in threads to offer unsolicited expert opinions on any subject at all. Worse are the court jesters who just antagonize and offer NO knowledge or substance to the discussion
righhhht and that posters previous sarcastic replies to other posters is, however, totally legit…
easy on the faux selective outrage...0 -
I posted two peer reviewed scientific articles that used HUMANS as a study and people are still arguing about rodents and if this is real. Oi.
I did not know that your posts were the defining conclusion on sugar addiction ….
moar snark plz. you're so good at it.
do you do anything else? :flowerforyou:
look..its a bird, its a plane…nope, its the white knight of MFP here to the rescue!
Do you just ride to the rescue of every person in distress on MFP?
I think you need a new SOP this one is getting played out real fast….
Your post about the "defining conclusion on sugar addiction …. " was confrontational and rude. There were multiple requests for studies and when they were provided ....crickets
People are just tired of the Cliff Clavens that role in threads to offer unsolicited expert opinions on any subject at all. Worse are the court jesters who just antagonize and offer NO knowledge or substance to the discussion
righhhht and that posters previous sarcastic replies to other posters is, however, totally legit…
easy on the faux selective outrage...
You know full well that the majority of my posts offer advice, help, support and are totally friendly and not at all combative.
I don't go into threads with the sole purpose of tearing down the OP or questioning his or her belief system. You do. Therein lies the difference my friend.0 -
I posted two peer reviewed scientific articles that used HUMANS as a study and people are still arguing about rodents and if this is real. Oi.
I did not know that your posts were the defining conclusion on sugar addiction ….
moar snark plz. you're so good at it.
do you do anything else? :flowerforyou:
look..its a bird, its a plane…nope, its the white knight of MFP here to the rescue!
Do you just ride to the rescue of every person in distress on MFP?
I think you need a new SOP this one is getting played out real fast….
Your post about the "defining conclusion on sugar addiction …. " was confrontational and rude. There were multiple requests for studies and when they were provided ....crickets
People are just tired of the Cliff Clavens that role in threads to offer unsolicited expert opinions on any subject at all. Worse are the court jesters who just antagonize and offer NO knowledge or substance to the discussion
righhhht and that posters previous sarcastic replies to other posters is, however, totally legit…
easy on the faux selective outrage...
You know full well that the majority of my posts offer advice, help, support and are totally friendly and not at all combative.
I don't go into threads with the sole purpose of tearing down the OP or questioning his or her belief system. You do. Therein lies the difference my friend.
I was not referring to you, but way to make it about yourself.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K 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
- 424 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