Stop singling out sugar
Replies
-
Interesting post. I am also fed up of demonising foods. One of my least favourite phrases is "you shouldn't eat that, it's really fattening". My mum says it all the time and it drives me nuts!
Except that the sugar refined from corn is not food, it is a drug. Coca leaves have been used by aboriginals for thousands of years but became deadly when refined into Cocaine. Food containing naturally occuring sugars is not what is being demonized. What's being demonized is taking a food like corn, removing all the nutrition, and refining it into an addictive drug because it is much more lucrative than selling corn.
0 -
I saw a 20 ounce bottle of soda the other day with 70 grams of HFCS in it. The poster, in this case is ripped, and has had about 70 grams of sugar logged in the last week. That is not the consumption of a sugar advocate?! Granted several days in the last week there are no diet log entries.
Oh if you're talking about me, I eat between 1/2 - 1 lb of sour patches a week to and from work and the gym to keep myself occupied. I've just never logged my disgusting sour patch intake since i'm ashamed of my addiction0 -
Just kidding, without Sugar there would be no RUM
or guaro...
not that it is available in the US, but just saying...0 -
Just kidding, without Sugar there would be no RUM
or guaro...
not that it is available in the US, but just saying...
Or Caipirinhas
0 -
Except that the sugar refined from corn is not food, it is a drug. Coca leaves have been used by aboriginals for thousands of years but became deadly when refined into Cocaine. Food containing naturally occuring sugars is not what is being demonized. What's being demonized is taking a food like corn, removing all the nutrition, and refining it into an addictive drug because it is much more lucrative than selling corn.
According to this logic, vanilla extract is a drug. I better pour the three bottles in my kitchen down the toilet before I'm arrested as a dealer.0 -
Wow, that's an impressive claim. And completely unsupported by any scientific research to-date.I got this from a book written by an educated doctor:
"People put on ketogenic diets (high fat, medium protein, low carb diets) can reverse diabetes, reduce cancer tumors (or completely prevent them if they didn't have them yet)."
There is growing evidence that a ketogenic diet *MAY* be beneficial in treating certain cancers, but most of the research so-far has had huge attrition rates, and currently the weight of the evidence simply does not support the case you present.
The biggest problem is that keto-adaptation itself is a difficult physiological transition for many people to go through - even healthy people. Keto-adaptation while dealing with cancer and the standard treatments (ie: chemo/radiation therapy, etc.) is just too-much for most study participants to handle.
The things you stated are NOT the opinion of Yale, nor are the ideas endorsed by Yale.Lol, sorry, but no. Yale research > Mayo Clinic.
The complex relationship between dietary sugar and cancer is still being researched. There's overwhelming evidence that links (not proves causation) obesity to certain types of cancer, and most research is leaning towards hyperinsulinemia - as a result of insulin-resistance - being the culprit here, but it's still being studied and there simply is no medical or scientific consensus at this time.
The author of the book was an assistant professor at Yale for some time and has a college degree. This invariably links him to Yale. People who write articles on Mayo Clinic are the same. They may not even be employed there anymore or at all.
Also, I never claimed anything was the CAUSE of cancer. Nobody knows the exact cause yet. A few rare kinds have been found to be caused by genetic damage, however the cause of the vast majorities of cancer are still unknown. What I said is that cancerous cells feed off of sugar only.
To put it in perspective, it's like saying humans eat food. It doesn't matter where humans come from, they still eat food, and if they stop eating for too long, they die.
This is already becoming well-known. As far as I can remember, I read somewhere that most people constantly have minor forms of cancers, but the body gets it under control. Unfortunately, I can't remember where I read this particular bit of info. Feeding the cancer will only make it worse, not feeding it would obviously act preventive.
My wife brought up these arguments with her oncologist when she was going through chemo and he laughed at them. Sure, starve the cancer by eating zero sugar and let's see who survives the longest, the cancer or the patient. Good luck with that . . .
American Cancer Society: Sugar
Does sugar increase cancer risk?
Sugar increases calorie intake without providing any of the nutrients that reduce cancer risk. By promoting obesity and elevating insulin levels, high sugar intake may indirectly increase cancer risk. White (refined) sugar is no different from brown (unrefined) sugar or honey with regard to their effects on body weight or insulin. Limiting foods such as cakes, candy, cookies, sweetened cereals, and high-sugar beverages such as soda can help reduce sugar intake.0 -
I saw a 20 ounce bottle of soda the other day with 70 grams of HFCS in it. The poster, in this case is ripped, and has had about 70 grams of sugar logged in the last week. That is not the consumption of a sugar advocate?! Granted several days in the last week there are no diet log entries.
Oh if you're talking about me, I eat between 1/2 - 1 lb of sour patches a week to and from work and the gym to keep myself occupied. I've just never logged my disgusting sour patch intake since i'm ashamed of my addiction
That's more like it!0 -
Wow, that's an impressive claim. And completely unsupported by any scientific research to-date.I got this from a book written by an educated doctor:
"People put on ketogenic diets (high fat, medium protein, low carb diets) can reverse diabetes, reduce cancer tumors (or completely prevent them if they didn't have them yet)."
There is growing evidence that a ketogenic diet *MAY* be beneficial in treating certain cancers, but most of the research so-far has had huge attrition rates, and currently the weight of the evidence simply does not support the case you present.
The biggest problem is that keto-adaptation itself is a difficult physiological transition for many people to go through - even healthy people. Keto-adaptation while dealing with cancer and the standard treatments (ie: chemo/radiation therapy, etc.) is just too-much for most study participants to handle.
The things you stated are NOT the opinion of Yale, nor are the ideas endorsed by Yale.Lol, sorry, but no. Yale research > Mayo Clinic.
The complex relationship between dietary sugar and cancer is still being researched. There's overwhelming evidence that links (not proves causation) obesity to certain types of cancer, and most research is leaning towards hyperinsulinemia - as a result of insulin-resistance - being the culprit here, but it's still being studied and there simply is no medical or scientific consensus at this time.
The author of the book was an assistant professor at Yale for some time and has a college degree. This invariably links him to Yale. People who write articles on Mayo Clinic are the same. They may not even be employed there anymore or at all.
Also, I never claimed anything was the CAUSE of cancer. Nobody knows the exact cause yet. A few rare kinds have been found to be caused by genetic damage, however the cause of the vast majorities of cancer are still unknown. What I said is that cancerous cells feed off of sugar only.
To put it in perspective, it's like saying humans eat food. It doesn't matter where humans come from, they still eat food, and if they stop eating for too long, they die.
This is already becoming well-known. As far as I can remember, I read somewhere that most people constantly have minor forms of cancers, but the body gets it under control. Unfortunately, I can't remember where I read this particular bit of info. Feeding the cancer will only make it worse, not feeding it would obviously act preventive.
My wife brought up these arguments with her oncologist when she was going through chemo and he laughed at them. Sure, starve the cancer by eating zero sugar and let's see who survives the longest, the cancer or the patient. Good luck with that . . .
American Cancer Society: Sugar
Does sugar increase cancer risk?
Sugar increases calorie intake without providing any of the nutrients that reduce cancer risk. By promoting obesity and elevating insulin levels, high sugar intake may indirectly increase cancer risk. White (refined) sugar is no different from brown (unrefined) sugar or honey with regard to their effects on body weight or insulin. Limiting foods such as cakes, candy, cookies, sweetened cereals, and high-sugar beverages such as soda can help reduce sugar intake.
What fantastic linguistic semantics to lead the reader to a conclusion other than the simple answer which is: no.
Seriously, boil their answer down to what they're saying (and not saying). It doesn't reduce cancer risk. It promotes obesity? In so far as it's in a calorie surplus? Okay, fine...but in a calorie deficit, it doesn't promote obesity.
If I was in court, I would object on the grounds that the answer is non-responsive.
*sigh*
I trust most will be able to read right through this official "non-answer" from the ACS.0 -
Wow, that's an impressive claim. And completely unsupported by any scientific research to-date.I got this from a book written by an educated doctor:
"People put on ketogenic diets (high fat, medium protein, low carb diets) can reverse diabetes, reduce cancer tumors (or completely prevent them if they didn't have them yet)."
There is growing evidence that a ketogenic diet *MAY* be beneficial in treating certain cancers, but most of the research so-far has had huge attrition rates, and currently the weight of the evidence simply does not support the case you present.
The biggest problem is that keto-adaptation itself is a difficult physiological transition for many people to go through - even healthy people. Keto-adaptation while dealing with cancer and the standard treatments (ie: chemo/radiation therapy, etc.) is just too-much for most study participants to handle.
The things you stated are NOT the opinion of Yale, nor are the ideas endorsed by Yale.Lol, sorry, but no. Yale research > Mayo Clinic.
The complex relationship between dietary sugar and cancer is still being researched. There's overwhelming evidence that links (not proves causation) obesity to certain types of cancer, and most research is leaning towards hyperinsulinemia - as a result of insulin-resistance - being the culprit here, but it's still being studied and there simply is no medical or scientific consensus at this time.
The author of the book was an assistant professor at Yale for some time and has a college degree. This invariably links him to Yale. People who write articles on Mayo Clinic are the same. They may not even be employed there anymore or at all.
Also, I never claimed anything was the CAUSE of cancer. Nobody knows the exact cause yet. A few rare kinds have been found to be caused by genetic damage, however the cause of the vast majorities of cancer are still unknown. What I said is that cancerous cells feed off of sugar only.
To put it in perspective, it's like saying humans eat food. It doesn't matter where humans come from, they still eat food, and if they stop eating for too long, they die.
This is already becoming well-known. As far as I can remember, I read somewhere that most people constantly have minor forms of cancers, but the body gets it under control. Unfortunately, I can't remember where I read this particular bit of info. Feeding the cancer will only make it worse, not feeding it would obviously act preventive.
My wife brought up these arguments with her oncologist when she was going through chemo and he laughed at them. Sure, starve the cancer by eating zero sugar and let's see who survives the longest, the cancer or the patient. Good luck with that . . .
American Cancer Society: Sugar
Does sugar increase cancer risk?
Sugar increases calorie intake without providing any of the nutrients that reduce cancer risk. By promoting obesity and elevating insulin levels, high sugar intake may indirectly increase cancer risk. White (refined) sugar is no different from brown (unrefined) sugar or honey with regard to their effects on body weight or insulin. Limiting foods such as cakes, candy, cookies, sweetened cereals, and high-sugar beverages such as soda can help reduce sugar intake.
Your ability to completely miss the point and subtext of virtually anything written on this subject continues to amaze me0 -
Common doctor's advice on chemo: absolutely give up grapefruit, and beets. Avoid raw fruits and vegetables, lunch meat, green tea, sushi, and shellfish of any kind. Limit the consumption of blueberries, strawberries, raspberries, and most other berries.
Cupcakes aren't on the list.
Continue to argue theory and speculate all you all want . . .0 -
Common doctor's advice on chemo: absolutely give up grapefruit, and beets. Avoid raw fruits and vegetables, lunch meat, green tea, sushi, and shellfish of any kind. Limit the consumption of blueberries, strawberries, raspberries, and most other berries.
Cupcakes aren't on the list.
Continue to argue theory and speculate all you all want . . .
Yep.
My dad finished treatment for prostrate cancer earlier this year. His doctor called his new diet restrictions a "nutritionist nightmare" and shouldn't be followed long term. They were worried about irritants to his colon causing complications post surgery (no foods containing acid, nothing spicy, no caffeine, no high fiber foods, no chocolate, onion, garlic) and not one thing said about sugar. He could still have vanilla ice cream and cookies with no problem. Spaghetti sauce on the other hand was forbidden.
So no chocolate cupcakes.
There weren't any restrictions placed on his diet once his post-surgery restrictions were lifted. If cancer was really linked to sugar, he would have been given a lecture about restricting it from now on.
/dad not obese, marathoner and triathlete in his sixties0 -
Wow, that's an impressive claim. And completely unsupported by any scientific research to-date.I got this from a book written by an educated doctor:
"People put on ketogenic diets (high fat, medium protein, low carb diets) can reverse diabetes, reduce cancer tumors (or completely prevent them if they didn't have them yet)."
There is growing evidence that a ketogenic diet *MAY* be beneficial in treating certain cancers, but most of the research so-far has had huge attrition rates, and currently the weight of the evidence simply does not support the case you present.
The biggest problem is that keto-adaptation itself is a difficult physiological transition for many people to go through - even healthy people. Keto-adaptation while dealing with cancer and the standard treatments (ie: chemo/radiation therapy, etc.) is just too-much for most study participants to handle.
The things you stated are NOT the opinion of Yale, nor are the ideas endorsed by Yale.Lol, sorry, but no. Yale research > Mayo Clinic.
The complex relationship between dietary sugar and cancer is still being researched. There's overwhelming evidence that links (not proves causation) obesity to certain types of cancer, and most research is leaning towards hyperinsulinemia - as a result of insulin-resistance - being the culprit here, but it's still being studied and there simply is no medical or scientific consensus at this time.
The author of the book was an assistant professor at Yale for some time and has a college degree. This invariably links him to Yale. People who write articles on Mayo Clinic are the same. They may not even be employed there anymore or at all.
Also, I never claimed anything was the CAUSE of cancer. Nobody knows the exact cause yet. A few rare kinds have been found to be caused by genetic damage, however the cause of the vast majorities of cancer are still unknown. What I said is that cancerous cells feed off of sugar only.
To put it in perspective, it's like saying humans eat food. It doesn't matter where humans come from, they still eat food, and if they stop eating for too long, they die.
This is already becoming well-known. As far as I can remember, I read somewhere that most people constantly have minor forms of cancers, but the body gets it under control. Unfortunately, I can't remember where I read this particular bit of info. Feeding the cancer will only make it worse, not feeding it would obviously act preventive.
My wife brought up these arguments with her oncologist when she was going through chemo and he laughed at them. Sure, starve the cancer by eating zero sugar and let's see who survives the longest, the cancer or the patient. Good luck with that . . .
American Cancer Society: Sugar
Does sugar increase cancer risk?
Sugar increases calorie intake without providing any of the nutrients that reduce cancer risk. By promoting obesity and elevating insulin levels, high sugar intake may indirectly increase cancer risk. White (refined) sugar is no different from brown (unrefined) sugar or honey with regard to their effects on body weight or insulin. Limiting foods such as cakes, candy, cookies, sweetened cereals, and high-sugar beverages such as soda can help reduce sugar intake.
You're silly.0 -
Obesity - while correlated-with certain cancers, isn't a direct cause of cancer. We've known it's link since around 1990.What fantastic linguistic semantics to lead the reader to a conclusion other than the simple answer which is: no.
Seriously, boil their answer down to what they're saying (and not saying). It doesn't reduce cancer risk. It promotes obesity? In so far as it's in a calorie surplus? Okay, fine...but in a calorie deficit, it doesn't promote obesity.
If I was in court, I would object on the grounds that the answer is non-responsive.
*sigh*
I trust most will be able to read right through this official "non-answer" from the ACS.
Insulin-resistance that results in hyperinsulinemia *may* trigger cancer growth, and research is leading that direction - however it's as-of yet not considered proven. http://www.diapedia.org/associated-disorders/hyperinsulinemia-and-cancer0 -
Except that the sugar refined from corn is not food, it is a drug. Coca leaves have been used by aboriginals for thousands of years but became deadly when refined into Cocaine. Food containing naturally occuring sugars is not what is being demonized. What's being demonized is taking a food like corn, removing all the nutrition, and refining it into an addictive drug because it is much more lucrative than selling corn.
According to this logic, vanilla extract is a drug. I better pour the three bottles in my kitchen down the toilet before I'm arrested as a dealer.
Yes, write anything to justify your fix. the pushers...er... corn refiners don't want you to stop buying it.0 -
Sugar increases calorie intake without providing any of the nutrients that reduce cancer risk. By promoting obesity and elevating insulin levels, high sugar intake may indirectly increase cancer risk. White (refined) sugar is no different from brown (unrefined) sugar or honey with regard to their effects on body weight or insulin. Limiting foods such as cakes, candy, cookies, sweetened cereals, and high-sugar beverages such as soda can help reduce sugar intake.
You're silly.
[/quote]
I can't believe someone would respond this way to a completely factual statement. No wonder 70% of Americans are obese.0 -
Wow, that's an impressive claim. And completely unsupported by any scientific research to-date.I got this from a book written by an educated doctor:
"People put on ketogenic diets (high fat, medium protein, low carb diets) can reverse diabetes, reduce cancer tumors (or completely prevent them if they didn't have them yet)."
There is growing evidence that a ketogenic diet *MAY* be beneficial in treating certain cancers, but most of the research so-far has had huge attrition rates, and currently the weight of the evidence simply does not support the case you present.
The biggest problem is that keto-adaptation itself is a difficult physiological transition for many people to go through - even healthy people. Keto-adaptation while dealing with cancer and the standard treatments (ie: chemo/radiation therapy, etc.) is just too-much for most study participants to handle.
The things you stated are NOT the opinion of Yale, nor are the ideas endorsed by Yale.Lol, sorry, but no. Yale research > Mayo Clinic.
The complex relationship between dietary sugar and cancer is still being researched. There's overwhelming evidence that links (not proves causation) obesity to certain types of cancer, and most research is leaning towards hyperinsulinemia - as a result of insulin-resistance - being the culprit here, but it's still being studied and there simply is no medical or scientific consensus at this time.
Sugar increases calorie intake without providing any of the nutrients that reduce cancer risk. By promoting obesity and elevating insulin levels, high sugar intake may indirectly increase cancer risk. White (refined) sugar is no different from brown (unrefined) sugar or honey with regard to their effects on body weight or insulin. Limiting foods such as cakes, candy, cookies, sweetened cereals, and high-sugar beverages such as soda can help reduce sugar intake.
You're silly.
You think that is silly? No wonder 70% of Americans are obese.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
Not sure a symposium organised and paid for by the Corn Refiners Association is where you should be getting your 'scientific' info on sugar!
Any non-bought-and-paid-for research out there?
Actually, no, there isn't. Research costs money and that money has to come from somewhere. Major sponsors include the private sector, government, and universities, each of which will bring it's own biases. This is why research is published, data supplied, and the peer review process is so important. So . . . any actual criticism of the reasoning and research?
Actually, one of the primary tenets of establishing research credibility is determining whether the sponsor of the study has a vested interest in a particular outcome. The fact that the people who stand to reap huge financial gains from the findings are the same people who funded the study would almost automatically disqualify the research from any serious consideration from the legitimate scientific community.
Follow the Money!0 -
Could you point to some peer-reviewed studies on nutrition or exercise that weren't funded, at least in part, by some portion of the the food or exercise industry, for comparison?Not sure a symposium organised and paid for by the Corn Refiners Association is where you should be getting your 'scientific' info on sugar!
Any non-bought-and-paid-for research out there?
Actually, no, there isn't. Research costs money and that money has to come from somewhere. Major sponsors include the private sector, government, and universities, each of which will bring it's own biases. This is why research is published, data supplied, and the peer review process is so important. So . . . any actual criticism of the reasoning and research?
Actually, one of the primary tenets of establishing research credibility is determining whether the sponsor of the study has a vested interest in a particular outcome. The fact that the people who stand to reap huge financial gains from the findings are the same people who funded the study would almost automatically disqualify the research from any serious consideration from the legitimate scientific community.0 -
Not sure a symposium organised and paid for by the Corn Refiners Association is where you should be getting your 'scientific' info on sugar!
Any non-bought-and-paid-for research out there?
Actually, no, there isn't. Research costs money and that money has to come from somewhere. Major sponsors include the private sector, government, and universities, each of which will bring it's own biases. This is why research is published, data supplied, and the peer review process is so important. So . . . any actual criticism of the reasoning and research?
Actually, one of the primary tenets of establishing research credibility is determining whether the sponsor of the study has a vested interest in a particular outcome. The fact that the people who stand to reap huge financial gains from the findings are the same people who funded the study would almost automatically disqualify the research from any serious consideration from the legitimate scientific community.
Specifically what statements do you take issue with and what evidence to you have to the contrary?0 -
Interesting post. I am also fed up of demonising foods. One of my least favourite phrases is "you shouldn't eat that, it's really fattening". My mum says it all the time and it drives me nuts!
Except that the sugar refined from corn is not food, it is a drug. Coca leaves have been used by aboriginals for thousands of years but became deadly when refined into Cocaine. Food containing naturally occuring sugars is not what is being demonized. What's being demonized is taking a food like corn, removing all the nutrition, and refining it into an addictive drug because it is much more lucrative than selling corn.
Was waiting for a "sugar = cocaine" post
0 -
Except that the sugar refined from corn is not food, it is a drug. Coca leaves have been used by aboriginals for thousands of years but became deadly when refined into Cocaine. Food containing naturally occuring sugars is not what is being demonized. What's being demonized is taking a food like corn, removing all the nutrition, and refining it into an addictive drug because it is much more lucrative than selling corn.
According to this logic, vanilla extract is a drug. I better pour the three bottles in my kitchen down the toilet before I'm arrested as a dealer.
Yes, write anything to justify your fix. the pushers...er... corn refiners don't want you to stop buying it.
Coca plant
Sugar Cane
Corn
Vanilla
0 -
Interesting post. I am also fed up of demonising foods. One of my least favourite phrases is "you shouldn't eat that, it's really fattening". My mum says it all the time and it drives me nuts!
Except that the sugar refined from corn is not food, it is a drug. Coca leaves have been used by aboriginals for thousands of years but became deadly when refined into Cocaine. Food containing naturally occuring sugars is not what is being demonized. What's being demonized is taking a food like corn, removing all the nutrition, and refining it into an addictive drug because it is much more lucrative than selling corn.
0 -
I can:Could you point to some peer-reviewed studies on nutrition or exercise that weren't funded, at least in part, by some portion of the the food or exercise industry, for comparison?
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2013/06/26/ajcn.113.064113.abstract?sid=44ef5031-b040-4501-8e93-af85301d69c6
There is considerable research to support the notion that sugar *should* be something eaten in moderation. However, studies such as the above are demonstrating what anecdotal evidence has suggested for years - that a subset of people aren't able to moderate sugar intake well.From: http://hms.harvard.edu/news/addicted-food-7-3-13
“Beyond reward and craving, this part of the brain is also linked to substance abuse and dependence, which raises the question as to whether certain foods might be addictive,” said Ludwig, who is also director of the New Balance Foundation Obesity Prevention Center at the hospital.
To examine the link, researchers measured blood glucose levels and hunger, while also using functional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to observe brain activity during the crucial four-hour period after a meal, which influences eating behavior at the next meal. (Previous studies have tended to evaluate patients with MRI soon after eating.)
On two occasions, 12 overweight or obese men consumed two test meals delivered as milkshakes with the same taste, sweetness and number of calories. One milkshake contained rapidly digestible (high-glycemic index) carbohydrates and the other contained slowly digestible (low-glycemic index) carbohydrates.
After the men consumed the high-glycemic index milkshake, they had an initial surge in blood sugar levels, followed by a sharp crash four hours later. This decrease in blood glucose was associated with excessive hunger and intense activation of the nucleus accumbens, a critical brain region involved in addictive behaviors.
Though we know there is no true "physiological" addiction to sugar (in that there are no withdrawal symptoms) the fact that it's consumption by many people CAN show definite neurological changes in the brain-reward system shows it not-only is a real issue people face, but when we're talking about neurological changes, we ARE talking physiology. No, it's not a true chemical dependence - but it is most-certainly a dependence.
While debated in many circles right now, food addiction is now recognized by the DSM-V.
The WHO recommendations are based on obesity and overeating, this is true - however if overeating may be a result of the brain-reward-system (even if in only a subset of the population), this must be addressed - possibly by severely limiting sugar in certain individuals.
The American Heart Association recommends limiting sugar due to the highly associated cardiovascular risk. And the idea to ignore evidence simply because it's epidemiological isn't medically advisable.
Lets be honest people, NOBODY would tell a gambling addict they should simply "have more willpower" and "gamble in moderation". (Except maybe those who are complete dic*heads or they work in the industry) ... Yet there are dozens of people telling those who meet the clinical definition of 'food addiction' that sugar is awesome and they should just have more willpower.
Research is continuing on the topic - but as we better-understand the mechanisms that are driving 'food addiction' the evidence gets stronger every day in support of it - and it's pointing more-and-more to higher-GI foods such as refined flours/sugars. Nobody in the independent medical or scientific community disputes this, even though the weight of the evidence isn't overwhelming enough for a consensus yet.
Just because eating 25% of your calories from sugar is fine for some individuals doesn't mean it's fine for others. Nor does it mean others shouldn't restrict it if they choose to.0 -
I can:Could you point to some peer-reviewed studies on nutrition or exercise that weren't funded, at least in part, by some portion of the the food or exercise industry, for comparison?
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2013/06/26/ajcn.113.064113.abstract?sid=44ef5031-b040-4501-8e93-af85301d69c6
There is considerable research to support the notion that sugar *should* be something eaten in moderation. However, studies such as the above are demonstrating what anecdotal evidence has suggested for years - that a subset of people aren't able to moderate sugar intake well.From: http://hms.harvard.edu/news/addicted-food-7-3-13
“Beyond reward and craving, this part of the brain is also linked to substance abuse and dependence, which raises the question as to whether certain foods might be addictive,” said Ludwig, who is also director of the New Balance Foundation Obesity Prevention Center at the hospital.
To examine the link, researchers measured blood glucose levels and hunger, while also using functional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to observe brain activity during the crucial four-hour period after a meal, which influences eating behavior at the next meal. (Previous studies have tended to evaluate patients with MRI soon after eating.)
On two occasions, 12 overweight or obese men consumed two test meals delivered as milkshakes with the same taste, sweetness and number of calories. One milkshake contained rapidly digestible (high-glycemic index) carbohydrates and the other contained slowly digestible (low-glycemic index) carbohydrates.
After the men consumed the high-glycemic index milkshake, they had an initial surge in blood sugar levels, followed by a sharp crash four hours later. This decrease in blood glucose was associated with excessive hunger and intense activation of the nucleus accumbens, a critical brain region involved in addictive behaviors.
Though we know there is no true "physiological" addiction to sugar (in that there are no withdrawal symptoms) the fact that it's consumption by many people CAN show definite neurological changes in the brain-reward system shows it not-only is a real issue people face, but when we're talking about neurological changes, we ARE talking physiology. No, it's not a true chemical dependence - but it is most-certainly a dependence.
While debated in many circles right now, food addiction is now recognized by the DSM-V.
The WHO recommendations are based on obesity and overeating, this is true - however if overeating may be a result of the brain-reward-system (even if in only a subset of the population), this must be addressed - possibly by severely limiting sugar in certain individuals.
The American Heart Association recommends limiting sugar due to the highly associated cardiovascular risk. And the idea to ignore evidence simply because it's epidemiological isn't medically advisable.
Lets be honest people, NOBODY would tell a gambling addict they should simply "have more willpower" and "gamble in moderation". (Except maybe those who are complete dic*heads or they work in the industry) ... Yet there are dozens of people telling those who meet the clinical definition of 'food addiction' that sugar is awesome and they should just have more willpower.
Research is continuing on the topic - but as we better-understand the mechanisms that are driving 'food addiction' the evidence gets stronger every day in support of it - and it's pointing more-and-more to higher-GI foods such as refined flours/sugars. Nobody in the independent medical or scientific community disputes this, even though the weight of the evidence isn't overwhelming enough for a consensus yet.
Just because eating 25% of your calories from sugar is fine for some individuals doesn't mean it's fine for others. Nor does it mean others shouldn't restrict it if they choose to.
Reasonably certain only Binge eating disorder made the DSM V, not food addiction per se. What is the clinical definition of food addiction, the Harvard self questionnaire?0 -
It is not enough to know that gram for gram sugar has no nutritional value?
I find it very difficult to stay slim when I consume empty calories. But I don't demonize sugar. If, at the end of the day, I've reached my goal for protein and fiber and still have a few calories left, then I enjoy a cookie. But as a small woman, that is not every day and usually just one cookie.0 -
It is not enough to know that gram for gram sugar has no nutritional value?
I find it very difficult to stay slim when I consume empty calories. But I don't demonize sugar. If, at the end of the day, I've reached my goal for protein and fiber and still have a few calories left, then I enjoy a cookie. But as a small woman, that is not every day and usually just one cookie.
Sugar is a carbohydrate, so technically, it is a nutrient. It simply contains no micronutrients, like vitamins. But solve that by adding to other foods that do have micronutrients, Boom!0 -
Regarding food addiction:
I'd have a lot more compassion/sensitivity for people who were "food addicts" if people weren't idiots and self diagnosing. When the average person doesn't understand the difference between "addiction" and "compulsive behavior" and then also applies labels to themselves based on what they found on the internet or heard on television, how can we take a label seriously? (It doesn't help when the media throws the addict label on everything, including things that are clearly compulsive behaviors.)
I've met multiple people who used the word "allergic" when they meant "upset my tummy that one time", they've never gone in for allergy testing. I've also met people who have gone rabid over gluten and when I asked them about what their doctor said, what kind of tests were run, etc. the answer was "well I read this article and decided that was what was wrong with me". Which is the completely backwards way to go about it, the issue could be caused by another ingredient frequently occurring in the food items that person ingests. It could because the person was making better substitutions (eating more fruits and veggies instead of sandwiches) and meeting other gaps in his/her diet. It could completely be in that person's head.
I had a coworker who THOUGHT he had a shellfish allergy and then found out that it was actually to a preservative put on shellfish before selling it in stores, and he could have it if it was fresh caught and being sold right at the dock (or when he was in other countries). He would have gone the rest of his life thinking he couldn't have foods that he really enjoyed eating.
I also have friends with extremely life threatening allergies to common foods and several with Celiac's disease. They also hate the posers whose antics result in others not taking their real issues seriously. I take their needs very seriously to the point where I clean down my kitchen and I write down all the ingredients AND their manufacturer before bringing over homemade goods and I'm okay if they still pass.0 -
Well said, FireOpalCO.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K 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
- 426 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