Sugar

somefitsomefat

We need food to live, we don't need drugs or alcohol. Food addiction is becoming an excuse, you will always need to consume food. Therefore, you're going to HAVE to develop some form of self-control and self-regulate intake. Food man, you can't escape it

Unless...photosynthesis. Plants know where it's at.

That reminds me, I heard of a small cult of people who insist they can live off sunlight and air alone

Models?

Acg67

Where I start to have a problem is when people single out a single food item and call it an addiction. If someone were truly addicted to only sugar, they would be eating sugar out of a bag by the cupful, not eating an entire box of donuts or cookies. In my opinion, most people claiming sugar addiction are actually "addicted" to hyperpalatable foods, like stated above (or earlier in the thread, I can't remember).

I don't understand this train of thought. Isn't it a bit like saying "If they were really an alcoholic they'd be drinking bottle after bottle of grain alcohol, not whiskey or beer"? Or, "If they were really addicted to tobacco or nicotine, they'd be chewing nicotine gum non-stop, not smoking"?

All alcoholics don't drink constantly and many have drink preferences based on taste. Same with tobacco addiction.

Actually, many smokers end up getting just as addicted to the nicotine gum as they were to cigarettes.

It's simple, if someone was addicted to sugar, they would be equally likely to binge and lose control from eating an apple as they would a candy bar. In fact, the average apple has about the same amount of sugar as the average candy bar.

I agree with the first sentence, though don't see how it is applicable to my point.

The second paragraph doesn't make sense to me. First off sugar, as in the crystalized processed stuff most often used to make candy and baked goods, is not the same as the sugar in an apple. The same things don't happen to the body during digestion.

And you rarely get the same things along with the sugar in a candy bar as you do in an apple, like fiber.

Not the same sugar? Sucrose for baking and sucrose in apples are different?

bcattoes

An alcoholic may have a drink of choice, but that doesn't mean that they can suddenly control themselves when they drink something different. It doesn't work that way.

Sometimes it does. Depends on the level of addiction.

gismar68

I have a big problem with sugar. Not so much candies or sweets but love my sugar in my coffee and of course love love my coffee.
Have been trying to cut down and have so in the past when I lost weight right away and quickly. Now I am on that journey again as I gained weight back, probably due to my quitting smoking this past November. I am not a soda fan or coke drinker so it's mostly the plain granulated sugar in my coffee or tea.

tigersword

Where I start to have a problem is when people single out a single food item and call it an addiction. If someone were truly addicted to only sugar, they would be eating sugar out of a bag by the cupful, not eating an entire box of donuts or cookies. In my opinion, most people claiming sugar addiction are actually "addicted" to hyperpalatable foods, like stated above (or earlier in the thread, I can't remember).

I don't understand this train of thought. Isn't it a bit like saying "If they were really an alcoholic they'd be drinking bottle after bottle of grain alcohol, not whiskey or beer"? Or, "If they were really addicted to tobacco or nicotine, they'd be chewing nicotine gum non-stop, not smoking"?

All alcoholics don't drink constantly and many have drink preferences based on taste. Same with tobacco addiction.

Actually, many smokers end up getting just as addicted to the nicotine gum as they were to cigarettes.

It's simple, if someone was addicted to sugar, they would be equally likely to binge and lose control from eating an apple as they would a candy bar. In fact, the average apple has about the same amount of sugar as the average candy bar.

I agree with the first sentence, though don't see how it is applicable to my point.

The second paragraph doesn't make sense to me. First off sugar, as in the crystalized processed stuff most often used to make candy and baked goods, is not the same as the sugar in an apple. The same things don't happen to the body during digestion.

And you rarely get the same things along with the sugar in a candy bar as you do in an apple, like fiber.

Actually, the sucrose in table sugar is EXACTLY the same as the sucrose in an apple. Sucrose is very easily digested by the body, the human body even has an enzyme, sucrase, with the sole purpose of splitting a sucrose molecule into glucose and fructose.

And plenty of candy bars have fiber, as do plenty of baked goods. And even the ones that don't, usually have fat instead, and fat performs the same function as fiber when it comes to rate of sugar absorption.

bcattoes

Where I start to have a problem is when people single out a single food item and call it an addiction. If someone were truly addicted to only sugar, they would be eating sugar out of a bag by the cupful, not eating an entire box of donuts or cookies. In my opinion, most people claiming sugar addiction are actually "addicted" to hyperpalatable foods, like stated above (or earlier in the thread, I can't remember).

I don't understand this train of thought. Isn't it a bit like saying "If they were really an alcoholic they'd be drinking bottle after bottle of grain alcohol, not whiskey or beer"? Or, "If they were really addicted to tobacco or nicotine, they'd be chewing nicotine gum non-stop, not smoking"?

All alcoholics don't drink constantly and many have drink preferences based on taste. Same with tobacco addiction.

Actually, many smokers end up getting just as addicted to the nicotine gum as they were to cigarettes.

It's simple, if someone was addicted to sugar, they would be equally likely to binge and lose control from eating an apple as they would a candy bar. In fact, the average apple has about the same amount of sugar as the average candy bar.

I agree with the first sentence, though don't see how it is applicable to my point.

The second paragraph doesn't make sense to me. First off sugar, as in the crystalized processed stuff most often used to make candy and baked goods, is not the same as the sugar in an apple. The same things don't happen to the body during digestion.

And you rarely get the same things along with the sugar in a candy bar as you do in an apple, like fiber.

Not the same sugar? Sucrose for baking and sucrose in apples are different?

Yes, the sugar in apples is not purely sucrose.

tigersword

Where I start to have a problem is when people single out a single food item and call it an addiction. If someone were truly addicted to only sugar, they would be eating sugar out of a bag by the cupful, not eating an entire box of donuts or cookies. In my opinion, most people claiming sugar addiction are actually "addicted" to hyperpalatable foods, like stated above (or earlier in the thread, I can't remember).

I don't understand this train of thought. Isn't it a bit like saying "If they were really an alcoholic they'd be drinking bottle after bottle of grain alcohol, not whiskey or beer"? Or, "If they were really addicted to tobacco or nicotine, they'd be chewing nicotine gum non-stop, not smoking"?

All alcoholics don't drink constantly and many have drink preferences based on taste. Same with tobacco addiction.

Actually, many smokers end up getting just as addicted to the nicotine gum as they were to cigarettes.

It's simple, if someone was addicted to sugar, they would be equally likely to binge and lose control from eating an apple as they would a candy bar. In fact, the average apple has about the same amount of sugar as the average candy bar.

I agree with the first sentence, though don't see how it is applicable to my point.

The second paragraph doesn't make sense to me. First off sugar, as in the crystalized processed stuff most often used to make candy and baked goods, is not the same as the sugar in an apple. The same things don't happen to the body during digestion.

And you rarely get the same things along with the sugar in a candy bar as you do in an apple, like fiber.

Not the same sugar? Sucrose for baking and sucrose in apples are different?

Yes, the sugar in apples is not purely sucrose.

Yep there's glucose and fructose in there as well. And sucrose gets split by sucrase (an instantaneous process) and becomes... Glucose and fructose. And then the body digests it all in the exact same manner.

bcattoes

Where I start to have a problem is when people single out a single food item and call it an addiction. If someone were truly addicted to only sugar, they would be eating sugar out of a bag by the cupful, not eating an entire box of donuts or cookies. In my opinion, most people claiming sugar addiction are actually "addicted" to hyperpalatable foods, like stated above (or earlier in the thread, I can't remember).

I don't understand this train of thought. Isn't it a bit like saying "If they were really an alcoholic they'd be drinking bottle after bottle of grain alcohol, not whiskey or beer"? Or, "If they were really addicted to tobacco or nicotine, they'd be chewing nicotine gum non-stop, not smoking"?

All alcoholics don't drink constantly and many have drink preferences based on taste. Same with tobacco addiction.

Actually, many smokers end up getting just as addicted to the nicotine gum as they were to cigarettes.

It's simple, if someone was addicted to sugar, they would be equally likely to binge and lose control from eating an apple as they would a candy bar. In fact, the average apple has about the same amount of sugar as the average candy bar.

I agree with the first sentence, though don't see how it is applicable to my point.

The second paragraph doesn't make sense to me. First off sugar, as in the crystalized processed stuff most often used to make candy and baked goods, is not the same as the sugar in an apple. The same things don't happen to the body during digestion.

And you rarely get the same things along with the sugar in a candy bar as you do in an apple, like fiber.

Actually, the sucrose in table sugar is EXACTLY the same as the sucrose in an apple. Sucrose is very easily digested by the body, the human body even has an enzyme, sucrase, with the sole purpose of splitting a sucrose molecule into glucose and fructose.

And plenty of candy bars have fiber, as do plenty of baked goods. And even the ones that don't, usually have fat instead, and fat performs the same function as fiber when it comes to rate of sugar absorption.

So, are you saying if I eat 100 g of table sugar and 100 g of apple, there will be absolutely no difference whatsoever in my body reactions during digestion?

Maggie_Pie1

So saying you're addicted to sugar because you can't eat a cookie without eating the whole box, but eating an apple is just fine, is completely bogus and disingenuous.

Just a thought - but maybe it has more to do with the concentration of sugar in the food, or the fact that there IS fiber in the apple to help slow things down as far as how fast it gets absorbed? I don't know. I don't know if I believe sugar is a physical addiction or psychological one, but I do recognize that my body reacts differently to the sugar in an apple vs. the sugar in a cookie. Not in a good way, by any means, but I don't think it's as simple as 'sugar is sugar'.

Maggie_Pie1

Actually, the sucrose in table sugar is EXACTLY the same as the sucrose in an apple.

i think it's actually fructose, not sucrose, in an apple.

Acg67

Actually, the sucrose in table sugar is EXACTLY the same as the sucrose in an apple.

i think it's actually fructose, not sucrose, in an apple.

It contains mult sugars, it is usually the ignorant who beleive that fruits only contain fructose. Not saying you're ignorant though

http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/2200?fg=&man=&lfacet=&count=&max=25&sort=&qlookup=apple&offset=&format=Full&new=&measureby=

bcattoes

So saying you're addicted to sugar because you can't eat a cookie without eating the whole box, but eating an apple is just fine, is completely bogus and disingenuous.

Just a thought - but maybe it has more to do with the concentration of sugar in the food, or the fact that there IS fiber in the apple to help slow things down as far as how fast it gets absorbed? I don't know. I don't know if I believe sugar is a physical addiction or psychological one, but I do recognize that my body reacts differently to the sugar in an apple vs. the sugar in a cookie. Not in a good way, by any means, but I don't think it's as simple as 'sugar is sugar'.

Of course it reacts differently. Everyone's body does. It's exactly why foods with fiber and protein are more satiating. Your body will reacte differently to the same sugar if it's eaten alone or roasted onto on almond.

J72FIT

First off sugar, as in the crystalized processed stuff most often used to make candy and baked goods, is not the same as the sugar in an apple.

It is the same stuff and it is digested the same way except for this, the fiber in the apple allows the sugar to be digested more slowly. The sugar in the apple is no more healthy then the sugar in candy or baked goods. The apple is nutrient dense, baked goods are calorie dense...

bcattoes

First off sugar, as in the crystalized processed stuff most often used to make candy and baked goods, is not the same as the sugar in an apple.

It is the same stuff and it is digested the same way except for this, the fiber in the apple allows the sugar to be digested more slowly. The sugar in the apple is no more healthy then the sugar in candy or baked goods. The apple is nutrient dense, baked goods are calorie dense...

:laugh: I guess we just differ on the meaning of "same" then, because those sound like differences to me.

tigersword

Where I start to have a problem is when people single out a single food item and call it an addiction. If someone were truly addicted to only sugar, they would be eating sugar out of a bag by the cupful, not eating an entire box of donuts or cookies. In my opinion, most people claiming sugar addiction are actually "addicted" to hyperpalatable foods, like stated above (or earlier in the thread, I can't remember).

I don't understand this train of thought. Isn't it a bit like saying "If they were really an alcoholic they'd be drinking bottle after bottle of grain alcohol, not whiskey or beer"? Or, "If they were really addicted to tobacco or nicotine, they'd be chewing nicotine gum non-stop, not smoking"?

All alcoholics don't drink constantly and many have drink preferences based on taste. Same with tobacco addiction.

Actually, many smokers end up getting just as addicted to the nicotine gum as they were to cigarettes.

It's simple, if someone was addicted to sugar, they would be equally likely to binge and lose control from eating an apple as they would a candy bar. In fact, the average apple has about the same amount of sugar as the average candy bar.

I agree with the first sentence, though don't see how it is applicable to my point.

The second paragraph doesn't make sense to me. First off sugar, as in the crystalized processed stuff most often used to make candy and baked goods, is not the same as the sugar in an apple. The same things don't happen to the body during digestion.

And you rarely get the same things along with the sugar in a candy bar as you do in an apple, like fiber.

Actually, the sucrose in table sugar is EXACTLY the same as the sucrose in an apple. Sucrose is very easily digested by the body, the human body even has an enzyme, sucrase, with the sole purpose of splitting a sucrose molecule into glucose and fructose.

And plenty of candy bars have fiber, as do plenty of baked goods. And even the ones that don't, usually have fat instead, and fat performs the same function as fiber when it comes to rate of sugar absorption.

So, are you saying if I eat 100 g of table sugar and 100 g of apple, there will be absolutely no difference whatsoever in my body reactions during digestion?

Huh? Well that's a completely ignorant comparison. No. If you ate 100g of table sugar, and the EQUIVALENT of 100g of apple sugar, (or about 5 apples) then no, there will be no difference in how the body digests the sugars.

PoesyP

I can't be bothered to get involved in the argument, but if you really want to cut down on sweet foods, the advice I followed was to restrict nothing else while you do it. This works because when you go from eating lots of sugar to no sugar you get really hungry - physically as well as sweet cravings so you need to kind of eat your way through that phase. I got quite bad headaches during this time, but stuck with it. Obviously that really means sticking to pretty unprocessed foods - you need to be making sure that you aren't eating savoury foods that have lots of hidden sugars and things like that. I found it took about 10 days to 2 weeks to get that kind of withdrawal phase out of my system. Then you can go back to your normal eating plan. I found once you go really cold turkey on all sugars, then you stop craving sugar so it becomes really easy to stick to low sugar eating after that.

MarucaSoledad

Completely agree with Caitep. If the goal is to eliminate or avoid the use of sugar it's important not to sabotage yourself by trying to stop many other things at the same time. Also, besides the purely physical, it might be worth looking into why you feel out of control (which is an emotional things) when you eat it. If you feel it is a fair comparison to an addiction, then there must be a feeling or feelings you are trying to avoid by consuming all the sugar. I have found it difficult, as so many things turn into sugar once you eat them. I'm not an expert, but I have read that processed-flour products (bread, crackers, etc) have the same effect on the body and will make getting over the sugar cravings very difficult. Hope it all works out well for you!!

Sugabug75

Refined sugar is bad for you, however, some natural sugar is necessary.
In trying to eliminate refined sugar this week (including fruits) and, missed a whole day of work.
Two days ago, I was fatigued and cranky. Yesterday morning, I was panting, feeling overheated and, faint.
I had allowed my blood sugar to get too low.
I didn't feel normal again until hours later after drinking apple and orange juices.

It's good to cut out the sugar, just make sure it's the right kind.

You can check out various Diabetes websites to see a listing of fruits that have enough just sugar to keep you balanced.

Try grapefruit!

Just like the posters said above, become a label reader you'd be surprised; very many of the packaged products you eat, even the ones that are not sweet, do contain sugar. Try to stick to whole foods.
You'll go through a withdrawal but, at the end of two weeks, your cravings will not be quite as strong.

ndj1979

Where I start to have a problem is when people single out a single food item and call it an addiction. If someone were truly addicted to only sugar, they would be eating sugar out of a bag by the cupful, not eating an entire box of donuts or cookies. In my opinion, most people claiming sugar addiction are actually "addicted" to hyperpalatable foods, like stated above (or earlier in the thread, I can't remember).

I don't understand this train of thought. Isn't it a bit like saying "If they were really an alcoholic they'd be drinking bottle after bottle of grain alcohol, not whiskey or beer"? Or, "If they were really addicted to tobacco or nicotine, they'd be chewing nicotine gum non-stop, not smoking"?

All alcoholics don't drink constantly and many have drink preferences based on taste. Same with tobacco addiction.

Actually, many smokers end up getting just as addicted to the nicotine gum as they were to cigarettes.

It's simple, if someone was addicted to sugar, they would be equally likely to binge and lose control from eating an apple as they would a candy bar. In fact, the average apple has about the same amount of sugar as the average candy bar.

I agree with the first sentence, though don't see how it is applicable to my point.

The second paragraph doesn't make sense to me. First off sugar, as in the crystalized processed stuff most often used to make candy and baked goods, is not the same as the sugar in an apple. The same things don't happen to the body during digestion.

And you rarely get the same things along with the sugar in a candy bar as you do in an apple, like fiber.

so if i add fiber to my alcohol it makes it "good"…?

FredDoyle

Trust me, it's not the same. Refined sugar is bad for you, however, some natural sugar is necessary.
I say this because, in trying to eliminate sugar this week (including fruits) and, missed a whole day of work.
Two days ago, I was fatigued and cranky the night before. Yesterday morning, I was panting, feeling overheated and, faint.
I had allowed my blood sugar to get too low.
I didn't feel normal again until hours later after drinking apple and orange juices.

It's good to cut out the sugar, just make sure it's the right kind.

This is an absurd conclusion. You cut out all sugar, felt like crap and felt better after you drank sugar water? :yawn: