Calling all sugar addicts!

4realrose8

"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?

http://feinmantheother.com/2011/07/29/wait-a-minute-lustig-the-threat-of-fructophobia-and-the-opportunity/

http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/


Many doctors can have extreme views, especially when it makes them money. Dr. Oz is the epitome of that. You have to keep in mind there are good doctors and bad doctors. Additionally correlating a condition that occurs in 1 in 100,000 babies does NOT apply to a population at whole. There are many references that discuss in detail about lustigs views. Also keep in mind that Lustig is a neuroendocrinologist... he doesn't have his PhD in any nutrition field.

Ugh, sucked in again!

In your first link, the author does not seem to be disputing anything Lustig said. On the contrary, in our society of "lipophobia" he's afraid people will chose starch over fructose (another "evil" carb because carbs are the root of all obesity.) Second, he seems to be most concerned because Lustig wants the GOVERNMENT to tell people what to eat. Now, as a conservative that occasionally leans libertarian, I can sympathize with that.

Your second link did not come up.

Also, both of those links are 3-4 years old. In light of the newest research pointing to added sugar as increasing heart disease in all people, I think it's time to start listening more carefully to so-call "anti-sugar" zealots.

Acg67

Also, both of those links are 3-4 years old. In light of the newest research pointing to added sugar as increasing heart disease in all people, I think it's time to start listening more carefully to so-call "anti-sugar" zealots.

Appeal to novelty and read the research again as you don't seem to understand it nor its limitations

psuLemon

can one of you explain the harm in wanting to reduce your sugar intake? just because you all DON'T doesn't mean it's not a perfectly valid goal.

*sigh*

The argument is over the semantic of being physically addicted to sugar.. not that it's a good idea to moderate sugar. Unless you have a medical condition or an issue with binging, there are much bigger things to worry about than sugar.

Having a high sugar intake is *generally* indicative of a poor diet overall and I think that's why many health gurus point to it as being a problem. As niner said, if your diet is high in processed foods it's also going to be high in sugar.

And I don't really see why it's hard to grasp that there is an addiction of sorts to sugar. I'm not an expert so I don't know if it's physical or psychological, but my Mom has to have a coke or two every single day. Is it just habit? Is it more than that? I don't know but it doesn't seem out of the realm of possibility.

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.

I don't under why you even bring up the first point. No one, on this forum, will advocate that a person eats loads of processed foods. Semantic, is it possible to eat all fast food and lose weight, yes. But is it health for you... nope. The people you continuous refer believe in correctly semantics while provide strong recommendations for moderation. We understand that if you want to meet your overall goals, you need to worry about protein, fats and carbs, not just calories. YOu need to develop a plan to is conducive to your exercise routine and your fitness goals. And fast food or processed foods won' t allow you to achieve that. That is why it's an 80/20 approach. If you hit your protein goals each day, get adequate fats for vitamin absorption, and have calories left over, it's ok to have ice cream if it prevents you from binging.

psuLemon

http://feinmantheother.com/2011/07/29/wait-a-minute-lustig-the-threat-of-fructophobia-and-the-opportunity/

http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/


Many doctors can have extreme views, especially when it makes them money. Dr. Oz is the epitome of that. You have to keep in mind there are good doctors and bad doctors. Additionally correlating a condition that occurs in 1 in 100,000 babies does NOT apply to a population at whole. There are many references that discuss in detail about lustigs views. Also keep in mind that Lustig is a neuroendocrinologist... he doesn't have his PhD in any nutrition field.

Ugh, sucked in again!

In your first link, the author does not seem to be disputing anything Lustig said. On the contrary, in our society of "lipophobia" he's afraid people will chose starch over fructose (another "evil" carb because carbs are the root of all obesity.) Second, he seems to be most concerned because Lustig wants the GOVERNMENT to tell people what to eat. Now, as a conservative that occasionally leans libertarian, I can sympathize with that.

Your second link did not come up.

Also, both of those links are 3-4 years old. In light of the newest research pointing to added sugar as increasing heart disease in all people, I think it's time to start listening more carefully to so-call "anti-sugar" zealots.

Try to copy and paste the second one in.

Second, did you read the first article because he does dispute it:

"...The presentation of the science is compelling but, while it has a number of important points, it is clearly biased and, oddly, a good deal of it is totally wrong, some of it containing elementary errors in chemistry that border on the bizarre — how hard would it have been to open an elementary organic chemistry text? "


And from the second link

"While Lustig correctly points out that the nation’s overall caloric consumption has increased, he proceeds to blame carbohydrates as being the primary constituent. The thing is, he uses data spanning from 1989-1995 on children aged 2-17. Survey data is far from the gold standard of evidence, but if you’re gonna cite it, you might as well go with something more recent that includes adults.

Here’s the latest from the USDA Economic Research Service (ERS), which tracked the percent of total daily calories of the range of food groups from 1970-2007. The actual spreadsheet of the following figures can be downloaded here, click on the “Percents” tab at the bottom (note that these figures are updated regularly by the ERS, so the version you download may be different from what’s reported here) [1]:

-Meats, eggs, and nut kcals decreased 4%.
-Dairy kcals decreased 3%.
-Percentage of fruit kcals stayed the same.
-Percentage of vegetable kcals stayed the same.
-Flour and cereal product kcals increased 3%.
-Added fat kcals are up 7%,
-Added sugars kcals decreased 1%
-Total energy intake in 1970 averaged 2172 kcal. By 2007 this hiked up to 2775 kcal, a 603 kcal increase.

Taking a hard look at the data above, it appears that the rise in obesity is due in large part to an increase in caloric intake in general, rather than an increase in added sugars in particular."

bcattoes

Let me just iterate that practically all processed foods have some sugar in it one way or the other. Again it's palatable and the food industry knows this which is why lots of processed foods are laced with it. Their whole objective is to get people to spend money on their product so they can make more money regardless of the toll it may take on some people. Do we really think the food industry really cares how overweight and obese the US is getting? Of course not or they'd make a better product. They sell products that they know the average person will buy and consume in large amounts. And since sugar is in a lot of them, many people feel that the habitual eating patterns they are used to with processed foods and switching to more whole foods, denies them that taste.

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

Why are you so convinced that someone couldn't become addicted to something because it's palatable?

Honestly, I don't know where I stand on sugar addiction, but I think there is enough evidence to warrant study. Sex 'addicts' (which I find harder to believe than sugar addiction) are addicted to a sensation. Taste is also a sensation.

oh ok, to me what he described WAS sugar addiction. Did I misinterpret?

Perhaps it is I who misinterpreted, but based on his other posts on the subject of sugar addiction, I did not interpret this as an affirmation that sugar is addictive.

cwsreddy

can one of you explain the harm in wanting to reduce your sugar intake? just because you all DON'T doesn't mean it's not a perfectly valid goal.

*sigh*

The argument is over the semantic of being physically addicted to sugar.. not that it's a good idea to moderate sugar. Unless you have a medical condition or an issue with binging, there are much bigger things to worry about than sugar.

Having a high sugar intake is *generally* indicative of a poor diet overall and I think that's why many health gurus point to it as being a problem. As niner said, if your diet is high in processed foods it's also going to be high in sugar.

And I don't really see why it's hard to grasp that there is an addiction of sorts to sugar. I'm not an expert so I don't know if it's physical or psychological, but my Mom has to have a coke or two every single day. Is it just habit? Is it more than that? I don't know but it doesn't seem out of the realm of possibility.

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.

I don't under why you even bring up the first point. No one, on this forum, will advocate that a person eats loads of processed foods. Semantic, is it possible to eat all fast food and lose weight, yes. But is it health for you... nope. The people you continuous refer believe in correctly semantics while provide strong recommendations for moderation. We understand that if you want to meet your overall goals, you need to worry about protein, fats and carbs, not just calories. YOu need to develop a plan to is conducive to your exercise routine and your fitness goals. And fast food or processed foods won' t allow you to achieve that. That is why it's an 80/20 approach. If you hit your protein goals each day, get adequate fats for vitamin absorption, and have calories left over, it's ok to have ice cream if it prevents you from binging.

Completely agree with your second point and I always have. I've been very consistent about that in fact.

As for the first... I'll preface this with the fact that this is purely my opinion coming from working with people for almost two years now on losing weight/getting healthy etc... but in MY EXPERIENCE men seem to craves salt while women tend to crave sugar. Is it true 100% of the time of course not, but if we have to use large strokes, there does seem to be an overwhelming amount of evidence of this being the case. I think it's a physiological thing and I think that's why men and women seem to disagree so vehemently on this subject (just scroll through this topic and you'll see a trend)

I completely agree that I'd rather have all the salt in the world before an ounce of sugar. But just because we'd rather have salt, does that mean sugar's not addictive? Just because I'd rather have whiskey than weed doesn't make either less addictive simply because of my personal preference.

Again, I don't know the answer, I'm just speculating.

ninerbuff

Let me just iterate that practically all processed foods have some sugar in it one way or the other. Again it's palatable and the food industry knows this which is why lots of processed foods are laced with it. Their whole objective is to get people to spend money on their product so they can make more money regardless of the toll it may take on some people. Do we really think the food industry really cares how overweight and obese the US is getting? Of course not or they'd make a better product. They sell products that they know the average person will buy and consume in large amounts. And since sugar is in a lot of them, many people feel that the habitual eating patterns they are used to with processed foods and switching to more whole foods, denies them that taste.

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

Why are you so convinced that someone couldn't become addicted to something because it's palatable?

Honestly, I don't know where I stand on sugar addiction, but I think there is enough evidence to warrant study. Sex 'addicts' (which I find harder to believe than sugar addiction) are addicted to a sensation. Taste is also a sensation.

Because I haven't seen any convincing evidence to prove otherwise. Trust that if I do, I'd consider changing my stance. Wouldn't be the first time.

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

ninerbuff

Let me just iterate that practically all processed foods have some sugar in it one way or the other. Again it's palatable and the food industry knows this which is why lots of processed foods are laced with it. Their whole objective is to get people to spend money on their product so they can make more money regardless of the toll it may take on some people. Do we really think the food industry really cares how overweight and obese the US is getting? Of course not or they'd make a better product. They sell products that they know the average person will buy and consume in large amounts. And since sugar is in a lot of them, many people feel that the habitual eating patterns they are used to with processed foods and switching to more whole foods, denies them that taste.

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

Why are you so convinced that someone couldn't become addicted to something because it's palatable?

Honestly, I don't know where I stand on sugar addiction, but I think there is enough evidence to warrant study. Sex 'addicts' (which I find harder to believe than sugar addiction) are addicted to a sensation. Taste is also a sensation.

oh ok, to me what he described WAS sugar addiction. Did I misinterpret?

I don't consider sugar an "addicition" Reddy. As I've mentioned in earlier posts, fruit and vegetables have sucrose in them, but you don't see overweight/obese people gobbling them down in unstoppable binges.
I believe that combinations of sugar, texture (crunchy or gooey), salt, fats, and others (chocolate flavor) are what people are having issues with that they can't seem to moderate or control.

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

neanderthin

Let me just iterate that practically all processed foods have some sugar in it one way or the other. Again it's palatable and the food industry knows this which is why lots of processed foods are laced with it. Their whole objective is to get people to spend money on their product so they can make more money regardless of the toll it may take on some people. Do we really think the food industry really cares how overweight and obese the US is getting? Of course not or they'd make a better product. They sell products that they know the average person will buy and consume in large amounts. And since sugar is in a lot of them, many people feel that the habitual eating patterns they are used to with processed foods and switching to more whole foods, denies them that taste.

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

Why are you so convinced that someone couldn't become addicted to something because it's palatable?

Honestly, I don't know where I stand on sugar addiction, but I think there is enough evidence to warrant study. Sex 'addicts' (which I find harder to believe than sugar addiction) are addicted to a sensation. Taste is also a sensation.

oh ok, to me what he described WAS sugar addiction. Did I misinterpret?

I don't consider sugar an "addicition" Reddy. As I've mentioned in earlier posts, fruit and vegetables have sucrose in them, but you don't see overweight/obese people gobbling them down in unstoppable binges.
I believe that combinations of sugar, texture (crunchy or gooey), salt, fats, and others (chocolate flavor) are what people are having issues with that they can't seem to moderate or control.

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

Agreed, said exactly that in a earlier post.

ndj1979

my thoughts on your thoughts….Yes, not everyone who drinks alcohol is not an alcoholic; however, all alcoholics are addicted to ALL forms of alcohol ….you don't se any alcoholics saying .."well, I can drink beer and not be addicted, but I am totally addicted to hard liquor….", which brings us back to my premise which is that if you are truly addicted to sugar you should have to avoid it in ALL forms….

Actually, your statement is not true. I have a relative that is an alcoholic. When he was drinking out of control (arrests, lost jobs, forced rehab, etc.) he drank beer. Over a decade later, he now occasionally drinks whiskey. He will not touch beer because he says he is sure if he drinks beer he will get out of control again. He hates whiskey, so that's all he ever drinks.

Also, check out Moderation Management. http://www.moderation.org/

he hates whiskey but still drinks it? Is that a typo?

cwsreddy

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S22/88/56G31/index.xml?section=topstories

Hoebel has shown that rats eating large amounts of sugar when hungry, a phenomenon he describes as sugar-bingeing, undergo neurochemical changes in the brain that appear to mimic those produced by substances of abuse, including cocaine, morphine and nicotine. Sugar induces behavioral changes, too. "In certain models, sugar-bingeing causes long-lasting effects in the brain and increases the inclination to take other drugs of abuse, such as alcohol," Hoebel said.

Hoebel and his team also have found that a chemical known as dopamine is released in a region of the brain known as the nucleus accumbens when hungry rats drink a sugar solution. This chemical signal is thought to trigger motivation and, eventually with repetition, addiction.

aubyshortcake

Unlike a heroin addict who would risk using a dirty needle or a cocaine addict who would snort spilled cocaine of a urine infested floor, I truly doubt any sugar addict here would eat any sugar laden product after abstaining from it for however many days, if I sprinkled poo on it. If you could, then maybe you are a sugar "addict".
Physiologically we use glucose for energy, so we're never "abstaining" from it anyway. Psychologically people adhere to habitual behavior until it's changed. Habitually "needing" sugar will keep people wanting it. IMO it's really not an addiction since you really can't moderate addiction.

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

That's an interesting argument. But are you really sure no one would eat the chocolate with poo sprinkles if there were not other chocolate available? A cocaine addict that could simply walk to the nearest 7-Eleven and get clean coke wouldn't likely take your poo sprinkles cocaine.

But what if chocolate were illegal and the only chocolate or sweet treat of any kind was your chocolate with poo sprinkles. Are you positive no one would take it?

You are making me seriously question myself right now. T.T

4realrose8

http://feinmantheother.com/2011/07/29/wait-a-minute-lustig-the-threat-of-fructophobia-and-the-opportunity/

http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/


Many doctors can have extreme views, especially when it makes them money. Dr. Oz is the epitome of that. You have to keep in mind there are good doctors and bad doctors. Additionally correlating a condition that occurs in 1 in 100,000 babies does NOT apply to a population at whole. There are many references that discuss in detail about lustigs views. Also keep in mind that Lustig is a neuroendocrinologist... he doesn't have his PhD in any nutrition field.

Ugh, sucked in again!

In your first link, the author does not seem to be disputing anything Lustig said. On the contrary, in our society of "lipophobia" he's afraid people will chose starch over fructose (another "evil" carb because carbs are the root of all obesity.) Second, he seems to be most concerned because Lustig wants the GOVERNMENT to tell people what to eat. Now, as a conservative that occasionally leans libertarian, I can sympathize with that.

Your second link did not come up.

Also, both of those links are 3-4 years old. In light of the newest research pointing to added sugar as increasing heart disease in all people, I think it's time to start listening more carefully to so-call "anti-sugar" zealots.

Try to copy and paste the second one in.

Second, did you read the first article because he does dispute it:

"...The presentation of the science is compelling but, while it has a number of important points, it is clearly biased and, oddly, a good deal of it is totally wrong, some of it containing elementary errors in chemistry that border on the bizarre — how hard would it have been to open an elementary organic chemistry text? "


And from the second link

"While Lustig correctly points out that the nation’s overall caloric consumption has increased, he proceeds to blame carbohydrates as being the primary constituent. The thing is, he uses data spanning from 1989-1995 on children aged 2-17. Survey data is far from the gold standard of evidence, but if you’re gonna cite it, you might as well go with something more recent that includes adults.

Here’s the latest from the USDA Economic Research Service (ERS), which tracked the percent of total daily calories of the range of food groups from 1970-2007. The actual spreadsheet of the following figures can be downloaded here, click on the “Percents” tab at the bottom (note that these figures are updated regularly by the ERS, so the version you download may be different from what’s reported here) [1]:

-Meats, eggs, and nut kcals decreased 4%.
-Dairy kcals decreased 3%.
-Percentage of fruit kcals stayed the same.
-Percentage of vegetable kcals stayed the same.
-Flour and cereal product kcals increased 3%.
-Added fat kcals are up 7%,
-Added sugars kcals decreased 1%
-Total energy intake in 1970 averaged 2172 kcal. By 2007 this hiked up to 2775 kcal, a 603 kcal increase.

Taking a hard look at the data above, it appears that the rise in obesity is due in large part to an increase in caloric intake in general, rather than an increase in added sugars in particular."

I assume with regard to the source "Feinman the other" (what are his credentials? A biochem teacher?) you are talking about this quote: "In trying to draw parallels between alcohol and fructose, Lustig says “ethanol is a carbohydrate.” Ethanol is not a carbohydrate. "

I don't have Lustig's exact quote, and I'm not a biochemist or pediatric neuroendocrinologist myself, but I bet Lustig's point was this:

"Fructose's Three Major Similarities to Alcohol

Unlike glucose, which can be used by virtually every cell in your body, fructose can only be metabolized by your liver, because your liver is the only organ that has the transporter for it.

Since all fructose gets shuttled to your liver, and, if you eat a typical Western-style diet, you consume high amounts of it, fructose ends up taxing and damaging your liver in the same way alcohol and other toxins do. In fact, fructose is virtually identical to alcohol with regard to the metabolic havoc it wreaks.

According to Dr. Lustig, Professor of Pediatrics in the Division of Endocrinology at the University of California, fructose is a "chronic, dose-dependent liver toxin." And just like alcohol, fructose is metabolized directly into fat – not cellular energy, like glucose.

He discussed this topic in the video above, but after the video was produced his paper on the topic was published in the Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics,1 Dr. Lustig explains the three similarities between fructose and its fermentation byproduct, ethanol (alcohol):

Your liver's metabolism of fructose is similar to alcohol, as they both serve as substrates for converting dietary carbohydrate into fat, which promotes insulin resistance, dyslipidemia (abnormal fat levels in the bloodstream), and fatty liver
Fructose undergoes the Maillard reaction with proteins, leading to the formation of superoxide free radicals that can result in liver inflammation similar to acetaldehyde, an intermediary metabolite of ethanol
By "stimulating the 'hedonic pathway' of the brain both directly and indirectly," Dr. Lustig noted, "fructose creates habituation, and possibly dependence; also paralleling ethanol."
Dr. Lustig concluded:

"Thus, fructose induces alterations in both hepatic [liver] metabolism and central nervous system energy signaling, leading to a 'vicious cycle' of excessive consumption and disease consistent with metabolic syndrome. On a societal level, the treatment of fructose as a commodity exhibits market similarities to ethanol. Analogous to ethanol, societal efforts to reduce fructose consumption will likely be necessary to combat the obesity epidemic."

Fructose Versus Alcohol: The Dangerous Metabolic Cascade

After consuming an alcoholic beverage, 10 percent of the ethanol gets broken down by the stomach and intestine as a "first pass" effect, and another 10 percent is metabolized by your brain and other organs. The fact that ethanol is partially metabolized in your brain is the reason you experience that familiar "buzz."

The remaining 80 percent hits your liver, where it must be broken down. This metabolic cascade can be summarized as follows:

Ethanol Metabolism

Your liver converts ethanol to aldehydes, which produce free radicals that damage proteins in your liver.
Some of these aldehydes are converted to glucose, but a large amount of excess citrate is formed in the process, stimulating "junk chemicals" that result in free fatty acids (FFAs), VLDL (smaller, denser LDL (bad cholesterol) particles that stimulate arterial plaque formation) and triglycerides. A 120-calorie intake of ethanol produces VLDL that are transported to your fat cells and contribute to obesity or plaque formation. This is what leads to the dyslipidemia of alcoholism.
The resulting lipids, together with the ethanol, upregulate enzymes that induce an inflammatory cascade, which in turn causes hepatic insulin resistance, liver inflammation and cirrhosis.
Fat globules accumulate in your liver as well, which can lead to fatty liver disease.
Free fatty acids (FFAs) leave your liver and cause your skeletal muscles to become insulin resistant. This is a worse form of insulin resistance than hepatic insulin resistance and can lead to type 2 diabetes.
After a 120-calorie bolus dose of ethanol, a large fraction (about 40 calories) can contribute to disease.
In nearly every way, fructose is metabolized the same way as ethanol, creating the same cascade of damaging effects in your body. When you consume fructose, 100 percent of it goes directly to your liver to be metabolized. This is why it is a hepatotoxin when consumed excessively – it overloads your liver. Fructose metabolism creates the following adverse effects:

Fructose Metabolism

Fructose is immediately converted by your liver to fructose-1-phosphate (F1P), depleting your liver cells of phosphates.
The above process produces waste products in the form of uric acid. Uric acid blocks an enzyme that makes nitric oxide. Nitric oxide is your body's natural blood pressure regulator, especially important for the full dilation of the lining of the arteries known as the endothelium. So when it is blocked, your arteries don't fully dilate, creating a greater burden on your heart and raising your blood pressure – leading to chronic hypertension. Elevated uric acid levels can deposit into soft tissues causing painful inflammation, especially gout.
Almost all of the F1P is turned into pyruvate, ending up as citrate, which results in de novo lipogenesis, the end products of which are FFAs, VLDLs, and triglycerides. The result – hyperlipidemia.
Fructose stimulates g-3-p (activated glycerol), which is the crucial molecule for turning FFAs into triglycerides within your fat cells. The rate of deposition of fat into fat cells is dependent on the presence of g-3-p. The more g-3-p that is available, the more fat that is deposited. Fructose is the carbohydrate most efficiently converted into g-3-p. In other words, fructose is the most lipophilic (fat-producing) carbohydrate.
FFAs are exported from your liver and taken up in skeletal muscle, causing skeletal muscle insulin resistance.
Some of the FFAs stay in your liver, leading to fat droplet accumulation, hepatic insulin resistance and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD).
Insulin resistance stresses your pancreas, which pumps out more insulin in response to rising blood sugar as your cells are unable to get the sugar out of your bloodstream, and this can progress to type 2 diabetes.
As with a bolus dose of ethanol, a 120-calorie bolus of fructose results in a large fraction (again, about 40 calories) that directly contributes to disease.
You can see by comparing the metabolism of fructose with the metabolism of ethanol that they are very similar. In fact, when you compare the metabolism of 150 calories of soda with 150 calories of beer (a 12-ounce can of each), about 90 calories reach the liver in either case. Fructose causes most of the same toxic effects as ethanol because both come from sugar fermentation. Both ethanol metabolism and fructose metabolism lead to visceral adiposity (belly fat), insulin resistance and metabolic syndrome.

Health Effects of Too Much Fructose Mirror Those of Too Much Alcohol

Dr. Lustig uses the term "liver toxin" to describe fructose, but he's also careful to note that it's not fructose per se that is toxic. There are instances when your body can use it, e.g. post-workout or fasting-induced glycogen depletion. The problem is that most people consume so much of it that it turns toxic by virtue of the fact that your body cannot use the excess. It simply gets shuttled into your cells and stored as fat. So it's the massive doses you're exposed to that make it dangerous.

When you compare the health outcomes of fructose versus alcohol consumption, you end up seeing a very familiar pattern – the diseases they cause are virtually identical!"
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/09/09/ethanol-alcohol-and-fructose.aspx

ninerbuff

http://feinmantheother.com/2011/07/29/wait-a-minute-lustig-the-threat-of-fructophobia-and-the-opportunity/

http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/


Many doctors can have extreme views, especially when it makes them money. Dr. Oz is the epitome of that. You have to keep in mind there are good doctors and bad doctors. Additionally correlating a condition that occurs in 1 in 100,000 babies does NOT apply to a population at whole. There are many references that discuss in detail about lustigs views. Also keep in mind that Lustig is a neuroendocrinologist... he doesn't have his PhD in any nutrition field.

Ugh, sucked in again!

In your first link, the author does not seem to be disputing anything Lustig said. On the contrary, in our society of "lipophobia" he's afraid people will chose starch over fructose (another "evil" carb because carbs are the root of all obesity.) Second, he seems to be most concerned because Lustig wants the GOVERNMENT to tell people what to eat. Now, as a conservative that occasionally leans libertarian, I can sympathize with that.

Your second link did not come up.

Also, both of those links are 3-4 years old. In light of the newest research pointing to added sugar as increasing heart disease in all people, I think it's time to start listening more carefully to so-call "anti-sugar" zealots.

Try to copy and paste the second one in.

Second, did you read the first article because he does dispute it:

"...The presentation of the science is compelling but, while it has a number of important points, it is clearly biased and, oddly, a good deal of it is totally wrong, some of it containing elementary errors in chemistry that border on the bizarre — how hard would it have been to open an elementary organic chemistry text? "


And from the second link

"While Lustig correctly points out that the nation’s overall caloric consumption has increased, he proceeds to blame carbohydrates as being the primary constituent. The thing is, he uses data spanning from 1989-1995 on children aged 2-17. Survey data is far from the gold standard of evidence, but if you’re gonna cite it, you might as well go with something more recent that includes adults.

Here’s the latest from the USDA Economic Research Service (ERS), which tracked the percent of total daily calories of the range of food groups from 1970-2007. The actual spreadsheet of the following figures can be downloaded here, click on the “Percents” tab at the bottom (note that these figures are updated regularly by the ERS, so the version you download may be different from what’s reported here) [1]:

-Meats, eggs, and nut kcals decreased 4%.
-Dairy kcals decreased 3%.
-Percentage of fruit kcals stayed the same.
-Percentage of vegetable kcals stayed the same.
-Flour and cereal product kcals increased 3%.
-Added fat kcals are up 7%,
-Added sugars kcals decreased 1%
-Total energy intake in 1970 averaged 2172 kcal. By 2007 this hiked up to 2775 kcal, a 603 kcal increase.

Taking a hard look at the data above, it appears that the rise in obesity is due in large part to an increase in caloric intake in general, rather than an increase in added sugars in particular."

I assume with regard to the source "Feinman the other" (what are his credentials? A biochem teacher?) you are talking about this quote: "In trying to draw parallels between alcohol and fructose, Lustig says “ethanol is a carbohydrate.” Ethanol is not a carbohydrate. "

I don't have Lustig's exact quote, and I'm not a biochemist or pediatric neuroendocrinologist myself, but I bet Lustig's point was this:

"Fructose's Three Major Similarities to Alcohol

Unlike glucose, which can be used by virtually every cell in your body, fructose can only be metabolized by your liver, because your liver is the only organ that has the transporter for it.

Since all fructose gets shuttled to your liver, and, if you eat a typical Western-style diet, you consume high amounts of it, fructose ends up taxing and damaging your liver in the same way alcohol and other toxins do. In fact, fructose is virtually identical to alcohol with regard to the metabolic havoc it wreaks.

According to Dr. Lustig, Professor of Pediatrics in the Division of Endocrinology at the University of California, fructose is a "chronic, dose-dependent liver toxin." And just like alcohol, fructose is metabolized directly into fat – not cellular energy, like glucose.

He discussed this topic in the video above, but after the video was produced his paper on the topic was published in the Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics,1 Dr. Lustig explains the three similarities between fructose and its fermentation byproduct, ethanol (alcohol):

Your liver's metabolism of fructose is similar to alcohol, as they both serve as substrates for converting dietary carbohydrate into fat, which promotes insulin resistance, dyslipidemia (abnormal fat levels in the bloodstream), and fatty liver
Fructose undergoes the Maillard reaction with proteins, leading to the formation of superoxide free radicals that can result in liver inflammation similar to acetaldehyde, an intermediary metabolite of ethanol
By "stimulating the 'hedonic pathway' of the brain both directly and indirectly," Dr. Lustig noted, "fructose creates habituation, and possibly dependence; also paralleling ethanol."
Dr. Lustig concluded:

"Thus, fructose induces alterations in both hepatic [liver] metabolism and central nervous system energy signaling, leading to a 'vicious cycle' of excessive consumption and disease consistent with metabolic syndrome. On a societal level, the treatment of fructose as a commodity exhibits market similarities to ethanol. Analogous to ethanol, societal efforts to reduce fructose consumption will likely be necessary to combat the obesity epidemic."

Fructose Versus Alcohol: The Dangerous Metabolic Cascade

After consuming an alcoholic beverage, 10 percent of the ethanol gets broken down by the stomach and intestine as a "first pass" effect, and another 10 percent is metabolized by your brain and other organs. The fact that ethanol is partially metabolized in your brain is the reason you experience that familiar "buzz."

The remaining 80 percent hits your liver, where it must be broken down. This metabolic cascade can be summarized as follows:

Ethanol Metabolism

Your liver converts ethanol to aldehydes, which produce free radicals that damage proteins in your liver.
Some of these aldehydes are converted to glucose, but a large amount of excess citrate is formed in the process, stimulating "junk chemicals" that result in free fatty acids (FFAs), VLDL (smaller, denser LDL (bad cholesterol) particles that stimulate arterial plaque formation) and triglycerides. A 120-calorie intake of ethanol produces VLDL that are transported to your fat cells and contribute to obesity or plaque formation. This is what leads to the dyslipidemia of alcoholism.
The resulting lipids, together with the ethanol, upregulate enzymes that induce an inflammatory cascade, which in turn causes hepatic insulin resistance, liver inflammation and cirrhosis.
Fat globules accumulate in your liver as well, which can lead to fatty liver disease.
Free fatty acids (FFAs) leave your liver and cause your skeletal muscles to become insulin resistant. This is a worse form of insulin resistance than hepatic insulin resistance and can lead to type 2 diabetes.
After a 120-calorie bolus dose of ethanol, a large fraction (about 40 calories) can contribute to disease.
In nearly every way, fructose is metabolized the same way as ethanol, creating the same cascade of damaging effects in your body. When you consume fructose, 100 percent of it goes directly to your liver to be metabolized. This is why it is a hepatotoxin when consumed excessively – it overloads your liver. Fructose metabolism creates the following adverse effects:

Fructose Metabolism

Fructose is immediately converted by your liver to fructose-1-phosphate (F1P), depleting your liver cells of phosphates.
The above process produces waste products in the form of uric acid. Uric acid blocks an enzyme that makes nitric oxide. Nitric oxide is your body's natural blood pressure regulator, especially important for the full dilation of the lining of the arteries known as the endothelium. So when it is blocked, your arteries don't fully dilate, creating a greater burden on your heart and raising your blood pressure – leading to chronic hypertension. Elevated uric acid levels can deposit into soft tissues causing painful inflammation, especially gout.
Almost all of the F1P is turned into pyruvate, ending up as citrate, which results in de novo lipogenesis, the end products of which are FFAs, VLDLs, and triglycerides. The result – hyperlipidemia.
Fructose stimulates g-3-p (activated glycerol), which is the crucial molecule for turning FFAs into triglycerides within your fat cells. The rate of deposition of fat into fat cells is dependent on the presence of g-3-p. The more g-3-p that is available, the more fat that is deposited. Fructose is the carbohydrate most efficiently converted into g-3-p. In other words, fructose is the most lipophilic (fat-producing) carbohydrate.
FFAs are exported from your liver and taken up in skeletal muscle, causing skeletal muscle insulin resistance.
Some of the FFAs stay in your liver, leading to fat droplet accumulation, hepatic insulin resistance and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD).
Insulin resistance stresses your pancreas, which pumps out more insulin in response to rising blood sugar as your cells are unable to get the sugar out of your bloodstream, and this can progress to type 2 diabetes.
As with a bolus dose of ethanol, a 120-calorie bolus of fructose results in a large fraction (again, about 40 calories) that directly contributes to disease.
You can see by comparing the metabolism of fructose with the metabolism of ethanol that they are very similar. In fact, when you compare the metabolism of 150 calories of soda with 150 calories of beer (a 12-ounce can of each), about 90 calories reach the liver in either case. Fructose causes most of the same toxic effects as ethanol because both come from sugar fermentation. Both ethanol metabolism and fructose metabolism lead to visceral adiposity (belly fat), insulin resistance and metabolic syndrome.

Health Effects of Too Much Fructose Mirror Those of Too Much Alcohol

Dr. Lustig uses the term "liver toxin" to describe fructose, but he's also careful to note that it's not fructose per se that is toxic. There are instances when your body can use it, e.g. post-workout or fasting-induced glycogen depletion. The problem is that most people consume so much of it that it turns toxic by virtue of the fact that your body cannot use the excess. It simply gets shuttled into your cells and stored as fat. So it's the massive doses you're exposed to that make it dangerous.

When you compare the health outcomes of fructose versus alcohol consumption, you end up seeing a very familiar pattern – the diseases they cause are virtually identical!"
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/09/09/ethanol-alcohol-and-fructose.aspx

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

cwsreddy

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.

wamydia

OP -- regardless of what kind of argument people want to have about sugar addiction, it sounds like you have a pretty big problem controlling your sugar intake. Some people will deal with this my moderating (ie. I'm only going to eat a little bit once in a while) and others will deal with it by abstaining (ie. I'm never going to eat processed sugar again). You will have to figure out what solution works for you in the long term, most likely by trial and error. In the meantime, here is my best suggestion to help reduce your sugar intake while you are trying to figure it out:

Go through your pantry and throw away all of the processed sugar crap that you have. Take it out to your outside trash can and throw it away outside.
Go back to the grocery and pick out ONE thing that you enjoy, but that you feel you have a chance of controlling yourself with (dark chocolate squares are good for a lot of people). Buy it in the smallest quantity you can find. A bag of individually wrapped chocolate squares is good. Or, if you want something like cookies, try to find one of the six cookie snack packs.
When you get home, separate your sweet our into individual servings (like two cookies in a ziploc bag). If you find yourself with more than about a week of servings, I suggest you take the extra to work and give it away.
Your goal is to only eat one serving a day. You aren't allowed to buy any more until your servings have run out (so, if you have three servings you can't buy any more until the third day is up even if you eat them sooner than that). Also, if you lose your mind and eat it all in one sitting at least you only ate a few servings instead of entire huge bag.
No matter how much you eat at one time, track it honestly. Always try to work it into your daily calorie limit.
If you want to have something sweet while you are out somewhere, track it in advance of eating it so at least you know what you are getting yourself into.
If, at some point, you decide this isn't working for you, it may be time to try abstaining completely and just chuck it all out and not buy anymore. That is something only you can decide.
When you mess up and overdo it, don't beat yourself up. Don't try to kill yourself at the gym to make up for it. Just accept it as a learning experience and move on. Every hour is a new hour to do better.

I hope this helps and good luck!

bcattoes

my thoughts on your thoughts….Yes, not everyone who drinks alcohol is not an alcoholic; however, all alcoholics are addicted to ALL forms of alcohol ….you don't se any alcoholics saying .."well, I can drink beer and not be addicted, but I am totally addicted to hard liquor….", which brings us back to my premise which is that if you are truly addicted to sugar you should have to avoid it in ALL forms….

Actually, your statement is not true. I have a relative that is an alcoholic. When he was drinking out of control (arrests, lost jobs, forced rehab, etc.) he drank beer. Over a decade later, he now occasionally drinks whiskey. He will not touch beer because he says he is sure if he drinks beer he will get out of control again. He hates whiskey, so that's all he ever drinks.

Also, check out Moderation Management. http://www.moderation.org/

he hates whiskey but still drinks it? Is that a typo?

No, not a typo. He says he hates whiskey enough that he can limit how much he drinks.

BEERRUNNER

my thoughts on your thoughts….Yes, not everyone who drinks alcohol is not an alcoholic; however, all alcoholics are addicted to ALL forms of alcohol ….you don't se any alcoholics saying .."well, I can drink beer and not be addicted, but I am totally addicted to hard liquor….", which brings us back to my premise which is that if you are truly addicted to sugar you should have to avoid it in ALL forms….

Actually, your statement is not true. I have a relative that is an alcoholic. When he was drinking out of control (arrests, lost jobs, forced rehab, etc.) he drank beer. Over a decade later, he now occasionally drinks whiskey. He will not touch beer because he says he is sure if he drinks beer he will get out of control again. He hates whiskey, so that's all he ever drinks.

Also, check out Moderation Management. http://www.moderation.org/

he hates whiskey but still drinks it? Is that a typo?

No, not a typo. He says he hates whiskey enough that he can limit how much he drinks.

Its all about control ladies & gentlemen....control! I reward myself nightly after a hard days work and a good workout with a bottle of Merlot! However I have been into Malbec lately. good blend:devil:

blackberrymuffintop

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

ninerbuff

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.

I'll humor you. Dopamine rush will keep people doing whatever it is that causes it for them. For some it's jumping out of planes. For others it's getting straight A's. And even more from running long distances or dancing.

I'd like to see more tests to verify whether or not sugar is really considered an addiction.

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