Calling all sugar addicts!
Replies
-
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.
it's all about me babe. :flowerforyou:0 -
Thanks so much for this. Open forums within the scientific community, whether pro or con, is good.[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
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
[/quote]
did you miss this part ....
" the Corn Refiners Association sponsored the symposium and White and Dr. Rippe receive support from industry."
The corn industry hired their guys to share their science and give the opposition no limited time to present. It also had its own writer do this recap ..... referring to "fast talking Dr. Lustig " ... its like the Iraqi defense minister is back.
Comical0 -
Thanks so much for this. Open forums within the scientific community, whether pro or con, is good.[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
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
did you miss this part ....
" the Corn Refiners Association sponsored the symposium and White and Dr. Rippe receive support from industry."
The corn industry hired their guys to share their science and give the opposition no limited time to present. It also had its own writer do this recap ..... referring to "fast talking Dr. Lustig " ... its like the Iraqi defense minister is back.
Comical
[/quote]0 -
Fructose and sugar is killing us makes for a better documentary no doubt about it and god forbid people/companies that actually make it have something to say....... Maybe, just maybe their scientists could talk intelligently with their scientists about how fructose is killing all the children and how mouse models make a sound foundation for context and dosage......I know I'd like to be there.0
-
Well the symposium was sponsored by the American Society for Nutrition. Just because the Corn Refiners Association help sponsor it, it doesn't necessarily mean the information given is untrue. Even Bray conceded on some points about HFCS that were misrepresented. And other non industry scientist also chimed in. I'm sure that there are other write ups from it. Maybe these will suffice and satisfy you more?did you miss this part ....
" the Corn Refiners Association sponsored the symposium and White and Dr. Rippe receive support from industry."
The corn industry hired their guys to share their science and give the opposition no limited time to present. It also had its own writer do this recap ..... referring to "fast talking Dr. Lustig " ... its like the Iraqi defense minister is back.
Comical
http://sweetenerstudies.com/sites/default/files/resources/files/Scientific-Review-of-Lustigs-Fat-Chance.pdf
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/scientists-conclude-no-significant-metabolic-difference-between-consuming-high-fructose-corn-syrup-and-sugar-198240241.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2012/05/09/high-fructose-corn-syrup-debate-gets-sticky/
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 think it's easier as you get older. Your tastebuds mature and change. I used to adore sugary treats but now I find that I can hardly stomach some of them anymore.
Now, I like the way plain yogurt tastes and I used to use the kind with as much sugar as a candy bar. I'm OK with no sugar in my coffee whereas I used to use FIVE. I even got 365 Brand peanut butter for my peanut butter cups.
Yes, I still like a good piece of cake. But it has to be GOOD.
How old do you have to be? I'm going to be 53 this year and have not found this to be true. I mean, sure I want cake to be good, but that was always true. Who wants to eat bad cake?
I've become accustomed to denying myself too many sugary treats, but they still taste as good as ever.
I was wondering the same thing. I'm 49 and love it as much as I did when I was 15, Maybe when we're 90?
0 -
Fructose and sugar is killing us makes for a better documentary no doubt about it and god forbid people/companies that actually make it have something to say....... Maybe, just maybe their scientists could talk intelligently with their scientists about how fructose is killing all the children and how mouse models make a sound foundation for context and dosage......I know I'd like to be there.
People should be able to stick up for their industries, but an article so biased in nature shouldn't be thrown out there as "proof" of anything. Just so your clear, I called the seminar out as ridiculous propaganda, a commercial not much different than a Bounty paper towel ad vs the "leading competition".
Why dont you offer the OP advice on kicking her sugar issue, she never said anything (or did I) about the differences in sugars. She just wants ideas of stopping her habit/addiction.0 -
Well the symposium was sponsored by the American Society for Nutrition. Just because the Corn Refiners Association help sponsor it, it doesn't necessarily mean the information given is untrue. Even Bray conceded on some points about HFCS that were misrepresented. And other non industry scientist also chimed in. I'm sure that there are other write ups from it. Maybe these will suffice and satisfy you more?did you miss this part ....
" the Corn Refiners Association sponsored the symposium and White and Dr. Rippe receive support from industry."
The corn industry hired their guys to share their science and give the opposition no limited time to present. It also had its own writer do this recap ..... referring to "fast talking Dr. Lustig " ... its like the Iraqi defense minister is back.
Comical
http://sweetenerstudies.com/sites/default/files/resources/files/Scientific-Review-of-Lustigs-Fat-Chance.pdf
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/scientists-conclude-no-significant-metabolic-difference-between-consuming-high-fructose-corn-syrup-and-sugar-198240241.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2012/05/09/high-fructose-corn-syrup-debate-gets-sticky/
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
Whoa, I am not fan of Lustag. Just because I call out the the other seminar as a commercial doesnt mean I am signing up for Lustag. The example I was showing by mentioning his name was the dismissive shots the author (not seminar) took at him.
We need unbiased research, and its incredibly difficult to find.
People can go on google, find what you want to say and then post it without qualifying anything..
In this article you selected, http://sweetenerstudies.com/sites/default/files/resources/files/Scientific-Review-of-Lustigs-Fat-Chance.pdf
someone could have gone 1 step farther and see the credibility of the article and Kern, guess who helps pay his bills.
http://www.slideshare.net/SweetenerStudies/flda-breakfast-2013-susan-mitchell-revised-24175598
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040005
http://www.foodpolitics.com/2013/11/conflicts-of-interest-in-nutrition-societies-american-society-of-nutrition/
It would be incorrect to assume my position on this. I dont have enough clear information. Circling back to the OP, she wanted help on curing her sugar/habit addiction......... as many don't share your extremely tight definition of what an addiction is, she should have been entitled to here thread, suggestions, without being mocked (by others not you) or have this thread derailed.0 -
Well the symposium was sponsored by the American Society for Nutrition. Just because the Corn Refiners Association help sponsor it, it doesn't necessarily mean the information given is untrue. Even Bray conceded on some points about HFCS that were misrepresented. And other non industry scientist also chimed in. I'm sure that there are other write ups from it. Maybe these will suffice and satisfy you more?did you miss this part ....
" the Corn Refiners Association sponsored the symposium and White and Dr. Rippe receive support from industry."
The corn industry hired their guys to share their science and give the opposition no limited time to present. It also had its own writer do this recap ..... referring to "fast talking Dr. Lustig " ... its like the Iraqi defense minister is back.
Comical
http://sweetenerstudies.com/sites/default/files/resources/files/Scientific-Review-of-Lustigs-Fat-Chance.pdf
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/scientists-conclude-no-significant-metabolic-difference-between-consuming-high-fructose-corn-syrup-and-sugar-198240241.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2012/05/09/high-fructose-corn-syrup-debate-gets-sticky/
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
Whoa, I am not fan of Lustag. Just because I call out the the other seminar as a commercial doesnt mean I am signing up for Lustag. The example I was showing by mentioning his name was the dismissive shots the author (not seminar) took at him.
We need unbiased research, and its incredibly difficult to find.
People can go on google, find what you want to say and then post it without qualifying anything..
In this article you selected, http://sweetenerstudies.com/sites/default/files/resources/files/Scientific-Review-of-Lustigs-Fat-Chance.pdf
someone could have gone 1 step farther and see the credibility of the article and Kern, guess who helps pay his bills.
http://www.slideshare.net/SweetenerStudies/flda-breakfast-2013-susan-mitchell-revised-24175598
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040005
http://www.foodpolitics.com/2013/11/conflicts-of-interest-in-nutrition-societies-american-society-of-nutrition/
It would be incorrect to assume my position on this. I dont have enough clear information. Circling back to the OP, she wanted help on curing her sugar/habit addiction......... as many don't share your extremely tight definition of what an addiction is, she should have been entitled to here thread, suggestions, without being mocked (by others not you) or have this thread derailed.
I love it when people make sense. Great post.
0 -
Well the symposium was sponsored by the American Society for Nutrition. Just because the Corn Refiners Association help sponsor it, it doesn't necessarily mean the information given is untrue. Even Bray conceded on some points about HFCS that were misrepresented. And other non industry scientist also chimed in. I'm sure that there are other write ups from it. Maybe these will suffice and satisfy you more?did you miss this part ....
" the Corn Refiners Association sponsored the symposium and White and Dr. Rippe receive support from industry."
The corn industry hired their guys to share their science and give the opposition no limited time to present. It also had its own writer do this recap ..... referring to "fast talking Dr. Lustig " ... its like the Iraqi defense minister is back.
Comical
http://sweetenerstudies.com/sites/default/files/resources/files/Scientific-Review-of-Lustigs-Fat-Chance.pdf
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/scientists-conclude-no-significant-metabolic-difference-between-consuming-high-fructose-corn-syrup-and-sugar-198240241.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2012/05/09/high-fructose-corn-syrup-debate-gets-sticky/
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
Whoa, I am not fan of Lustag. Just because I call out the the other seminar as a commercial doesnt mean I am signing up for Lustag. The example I was showing by mentioning his name was the dismissive shots the author (not seminar) took at him.
We need unbiased research, and its incredibly difficult to find.
People can go on google, find what you want to say and then post it without qualifying anything..
In this article you selected, http://sweetenerstudies.com/sites/default/files/resources/files/Scientific-Review-of-Lustigs-Fat-Chance.pdf
someone could have gone 1 step farther and see the credibility of the article and Kern, guess who helps pay his bills.
http://www.slideshare.net/SweetenerStudies/flda-breakfast-2013-susan-mitchell-revised-24175598
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040005
http://www.foodpolitics.com/2013/11/conflicts-of-interest-in-nutrition-societies-american-society-of-nutrition/
It would be incorrect to assume my position on this. I dont have enough clear information. Circling back to the OP, she wanted help on curing her sugar/habit addiction......... as many don't share your extremely tight definition of what an addiction is, she should have been entitled to here thread, suggestions, without being mocked (by others not you) or have this thread derailed.
:flowerforyou:0 -
Maybe the reason you binge is because you deny it for days at a time and then freak out because you really want some. I looooove sugar. But I eat it reasonably most of the time and it helps stave off big binges.0
-
Maybe the reason you binge is because you deny it for days at a time and then freak out because you really want some. I looooove sugar. But I eat it reasonably most of the time and it helps stave off big binges.
For some people, eating a little sets off the binge. Abstaining is the only thing that seems to help me.
For my BF, it's pizza, I can stop at two squares and he has to consume the rest.0 -
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.
What are you defining as a creditable resource? I, as well as others, have posted many studies/abstracts of studies from the National Institute of Health. In fact, i will post them below in case they got mixed up in the thread or you missed them. Personally, one of the best ones is the second one, imo.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20056521
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2235907/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20471804
To address the over abundance discussion: Scientist or studies would have to define what they mean by over abundance. IIRC, the amount of fructose required to be a over abundance is something like 60-80% of your intake in pure fructose (I could be quoting wrong so if you have a definition, please correct me), which is not logical in ones diet.
Realistically, the over abundance of any macronutrient or micronutrient that cases an excess of calories will be stored as fat. Basic laws of thermodynamics states that. But keep in mind, when we have to discussions, we have to think in moderation. No person is going to have a diet that is just type of nutrient or that. There will be a balance.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.
The definition of addiction is not limited to physical, but yes, the treatment for all addictions is not the same, be they physical or psychological. Complete abstinence is not always necessary for a physical addiction.0 -
This is a hard thing to "prove", however I notice a lot of bogus dismissals in the thread like "its on a rodent" as if that makes it not "count". Nope, they are biochemically similar, and there are two reasons why many of these are done on rodents: it is exponentially cheaper, and many times it is extremely difficult to get humans into controlled conditions. How easy is it to completely monitor a human's diet for even just a week? You pretty much have to room and board them with supervision, tests cost more too... studying a significant population of diet restricted humans is 1000x- maybe even 100,000x more expensive at least, depending on what you are doing, than having a few cages of rodents attended by one grad student in a lab that already exists, think about this just a bit. If you don't have a drug to sell or some benefit that would be gained by the study being completed, how can you pay for this? Just a TINY dose of sense here.0
-
There are a also a lot of differences, especially when discussing areas which can be affected by a sentient mind.0
-
Not sure what you are trying to say, either rats aren't sentient or that you think rats brains are constructed and function so differently the studies are invalid? Its pointless to argue this, if the scientific consensus did not support studies on rodents to investigate parallels in humans then they wouldn't be done. Nobody said what stimulated a rat brain and stimulates human brains has exactly the same resultant signature, however the biochemical processes are very similar, and the formation of the brain is very similar, in fact if you look into the embryology you will learn that the development of the human brain starts with more "simple" areas like other organisms, and builds, rats have very much similar structures, though the sizes and placements may differ. The more complex recently evolved centers involving inhibition and inhibition of inhibition, the size of the cortex, and the distribution of functionality such as the highly visual cortex we have vs the highly tactile processing brain of a rat are more striking differences...but these cells and brain structures all still function on the same principles, the size, emphasis and processing function essentially are what is importantly different: that rats are stimulated and process more in their large sensorimotor cortex from brushing a whisker, similarly as much as we are stimulated with strong visual stimuli, this processing center is around 40% of our brains. However, we both have the same type of mechanism for taste and the reward systems for that consumption. So, if you are to study tactile stimulation of the face, visual response or reactions to certain smells, it could be pretty dissimilar in the amount and strength and detail of reaction (not processes), but taste and reward systems, the two are very similar.0
-
To answer your question, I'll share what I found has been helping me in this last 2 weeks when I finally decided I need to start cutting back significantly on treats.
I realized it's never going to get easier, so I finally decided I need to start NOW vs. waiting until I'm even heavier, and then still struggling with the same issue.
Keep in mind I'm not trying to do anything extreme, such as cutting out ALL treats, or sugar, etc.). I'm just trying to cut BACK.
I started to notice a connection between cravings and thirst, so when I get a craving now, before giving in, I immediately drink about 2 glasses of refreshing cold water.
I also have noticed cravings tend to happen very quickly after I eat a highly salted meal, such as a frozen packaged meal, or Chinese food, for example.
I don't particularly like that strong lingering salty taste, and I think that's why I found eating a sweet treat such as MM's or a Hershey bar so desirable after a salty meal, I'm assuming it took away some of that strong uncomfortable feeling of thirst and saltiness that I would feel.
I find it very important to avoid very salty meals if I can, or be sure to brush my teeth and drink water. The brushing my teeth is also a good step in removing some of that salty taste in my mouth that I find so offensive.
Maybe these tips will work for you, just last night I was getting so tempted for a treat (mint flavored MM's) that I convinced my husband to go get me some, but before he did, I brushed and drank some cold water, and not long after the craving went away, so I told him never mind.
That saved me tons of calories because I was also tempted to have him get me a pint of ice-cream as well. That would have been horrible (calorie wise), MM's AND ice-cream, when 0 calorie water ended up being what I needed.0 -
Prefer sugary stuff to anything.
Especially chocolate and cookies n cream thinks. Pumpkin and sweet potatoes!
I did a week no sugar and remember losing weight a whole back. The cravings got less intense but were still there0 -
Thanks, that was informative. The problem I have with relying on mouse models et al is 2 fold. 1) Mouse modes are bred or genetically modified into hundreds of different strains to represent and enhance disease susceptibilities with each rodent representing a single human, hopefully you see the shortcoming of a single subject as a representaive of a whole population. 2) dosage and context is generally a low priority considering we wouldn't need rodent studies for normal consumption because we already have hundreds of human trials that show those associations and results already. Desired outcomes are established with dosage and circumstances that best represent those results. If that dosage is outside the normal range for consumption of a studied demographic (and I suspect that demo to be the highest consumers) then what conclusionn can we draw upon..........that high doses of sugar can effect metabolic processes deleteriously.......Not sure what you are trying to say, either rats aren't sentient or that you think rats brains are constructed and function so differently the studies are invalid? Its pointless to argue this, if the scientific consensus did not support studies on rodents to investigate parallels in humans then they wouldn't be done. Nobody said what stimulated a rat brain and stimulates human brains has exactly the same resultant signature, however the biochemical processes are very similar, and the formation of the brain is very similar, in fact if you look into the embryology you will learn that the development of the human brain starts with more "simple" areas like other organisms, and builds, rats have very much similar structures, though the sizes and placements may differ. The more complex recently evolved centers involving inhibition and inhibition of inhibition, the size of the cortex, and the distribution of functionality such as the highly visual cortex we have vs the highly tactile processing brain of a rat are more striking differences...but these cells and brain structures all still function on the same principles, the size, emphasis and processing function essentially are what is importantly different: that rats are stimulated and process more in their large sensorimotor cortex from brushing a whisker, similarly as much as we are stimulated with strong visual stimuli, this processing center is around 40% of our brains. However, we both have the same type of mechanism for taste and the reward systems for that consumption. So, if you are to study tactile stimulation of the face, visual response or reactions to certain smells, it could be pretty dissimilar in the amount and strength and detail of reaction (not processes), but taste and reward systems, the two are very similar.0 -
So have they put humans in a maze and had them find the cheese by sense of smell?Not sure what you are trying to say, either rats aren't sentient or that you think rats brains are constructed and function so differently the studies are invalid? Its pointless to argue this, if the scientific consensus did not support studies on rodents to investigate parallels in humans then they wouldn't be done. Nobody said what stimulated a rat brain and stimulates human brains has exactly the same resultant signature, however the biochemical processes are very similar, and the formation of the brain is very similar, in fact if you look into the embryology you will learn that the development of the human brain starts with more "simple" areas like other organisms, and builds, rats have very much similar structures, though the sizes and placements may differ. The more complex recently evolved centers involving inhibition and inhibition of inhibition, the size of the cortex, and the distribution of functionality such as the highly visual cortex we have vs the highly tactile processing brain of a rat are more striking differences...but these cells and brain structures all still function on the same principles, the size, emphasis and processing function essentially are what is importantly different: that rats are stimulated and process more in their large sensorimotor cortex from brushing a whisker, similarly as much as we are stimulated with strong visual stimuli, this processing center is around 40% of our brains. However, we both have the same type of mechanism for taste and the reward systems for that consumption. So, if you are to study tactile stimulation of the face, visual response or reactions to certain smells, it could be pretty dissimilar in the amount and strength and detail of reaction (not processes), but taste and reward systems, the two are very similar.0 -
Only at night in power outages..........lots of bumps and confusion........my dog doesn't seem to have that problem though.:bigsmile:
So have they put humans in a maze and had them find the cheese by sense of smell?Not sure what you are trying to say, either rats aren't sentient or that you think rats brains are constructed and function so differently the studies are invalid? Its pointless to argue this, if the scientific consensus did not support studies on rodents to investigate parallels in humans then they wouldn't be done. Nobody said what stimulated a rat brain and stimulates human brains has exactly the same resultant signature, however the biochemical processes are very similar, and the formation of the brain is very similar, in fact if you look into the embryology you will learn that the development of the human brain starts with more "simple" areas like other organisms, and builds, rats have very much similar structures, though the sizes and placements may differ. The more complex recently evolved centers involving inhibition and inhibition of inhibition, the size of the cortex, and the distribution of functionality such as the highly visual cortex we have vs the highly tactile processing brain of a rat are more striking differences...but these cells and brain structures all still function on the same principles, the size, emphasis and processing function essentially are what is importantly different: that rats are stimulated and process more in their large sensorimotor cortex from brushing a whisker, similarly as much as we are stimulated with strong visual stimuli, this processing center is around 40% of our brains. However, we both have the same type of mechanism for taste and the reward systems for that consumption. So, if you are to study tactile stimulation of the face, visual response or reactions to certain smells, it could be pretty dissimilar in the amount and strength and detail of reaction (not processes), but taste and reward systems, the two are very similar.0 -
I'm not even touching this one.0
-
Hey, who knows. I've seen people do some stupid **** for kicks. Again, I don't liken sugar "addiction" to that of cocaine, heroin, gambling, etc. I don't see people who have to abstain from it, then get a massive craving and would hike 5 miles for it to get a fix. But again, who knows?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?
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
I would definitely hike 5 miles for chocolate. I have walked just over 2 miles for it before and have ridden my bike 6 miles to get it when there was none in the house.0 -
Lol, then doing that, you earned the right to eat it.
Hey, who knows. I've seen people do some stupid **** for kicks. Again, I don't liken sugar "addiction" to that of cocaine, heroin, gambling, etc. I don't see people who have to abstain from it, then get a massive craving and would hike 5 miles for it to get a fix. But again, who knows?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?
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
I would definitely hike 5 miles for chocolate. I have walked just over 2 miles for it before and have ridden my bike 6 miles to get it when there was none in the house.
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 -
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.
I know EXACTLY what you mean,, and I also did this, started my diet middle of February and lost 10 (or 11?) pounds. Giving up that stuff and eating instead more protein and fruit which I love - has kept my appetite lower, and I dont have those cravings like i used to when i ate whatever donuts, pastry, muffins, etc that I wanted and only wanted more and more and more. I know how you feel, thats the way it is working for me too. PLUS my knees are hardly painful… i read something about sugar that is inflammatory to painful joints.0 -
Yes, I quit on 7-29-13, just started my 8th month off sugar and artificial sweetners.0
-
Highly refined carbohydrate (most junk food) can give a 'rush' like effect .
People who are depressed do feel a lift in mood.
Seeking out a 'sugar hit' is a bit like looking for an alcoholic drink, when stressed or looking for a reward.
I stopped eating highly refined carbohydrate in September last year. I now have the odd bit occasionally - it doesn't grab me like it used to. I don't allow much of it into my diet.
I have found nutrition has helped me, I eat better and don't crave that garbage anymore.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