Why you should cut out/lower sodium, sugar or carbs

tennisdude2004

There are dozens of articles that will say it matters and dozens that say it doesn't matter. So articles mean nothing.
Is there any actual proof?

Then you mention Lustig? The biggest scaremonger of them all. Who whole sugar attack was picked apart and destroyed by Alan Aragon

Do you realize that in her post she NEVER mentioned Lustig? Nowhere did she mention Dr. Robert Lustig.

She did, however, mention Dr. David Ludwig, a professor of pediatrics and the Director of the New Balance Foundation Obesity Prevention Center at Children's Hospital in Boston.

The first fact that you even mention Lustig explains your position and confusion.

I love how people think that somehow a 'bashing' of Dr. Lustig makes every argument against sugar invalid.

FYI Aragon's critique was specifically against Lustig's myopic views on completely avoiding/eliminating fructose specifically. Aragon actually has respect for Lustig - both his intelligence and his desire to help with the obesity epidemic. Aragon also correctly points out that the weight of the evidence is against Lustig's claims regarding fructose.

What Aragon DOESN'T do is claim that sugar or fructose are GREAT for us. In fact, he makes a recommendation of his own regarding an upper safe-limit of fructose in the summation of his blog post. People tend to ignore that part though, for some odd reason.

Here's another thing people tend to ignore - Alan Aragon also says this:

HFCS and regular sugar are empty-calorie carbohydrates that should be consumed in limited amounts. How? By keeping soft drinks, sweetened fruit juices, and prepackaged desserts to a minimum.

http://www.simplyshredded.com/the-truth-behind-5-food-myths.html

Those who think Aragon's critique of Lustig's work on fructose means that Aragon believes it's acceptable to have all the sugar you want are deluded.

Interesting!

Jestinia

There are dozens of articles that will say it matters and dozens that say it doesn't matter. So articles mean nothing.
Is there any actual proof?

Then you mention Lustig? The biggest scaremonger of them all. Who whole sugar attack was picked apart and destroyed by Alan Aragon

Do you realize that in her post she NEVER mentioned Lustig? Nowhere did she mention Dr. Robert Lustig.

She did, however, mention Dr. David Ludwig, a professor of pediatrics and the Director of the New Balance Foundation Obesity Prevention Center at Children's Hospital in Boston.

The first fact that you even mention Lustig explains your position and confusion.

I love how people think that somehow a 'bashing' of Dr. Lustig makes every argument against sugar invalid.

FYI Aragon's critique was specifically against Lustig's myopic views on completely avoiding/eliminating fructose specifically. Aragon actually has respect for Lustig - both his intelligence and his desire to help with the obesity epidemic. Aragon also correctly points out that the weight of the evidence is against Lustig's claims regarding fructose.

What Aragon DOESN'T do is claim that sugar or fructose are GREAT for us. In fact, he makes a recommendation of his own regarding an upper safe-limit of fructose in the summation of his blog post. People tend to ignore that part though, for some odd reason.

Here's another thing people tend to ignore - Alan Aragon also says this:

HFCS and regular sugar are empty-calorie carbohydrates that should be consumed in limited amounts. How? By keeping soft drinks, sweetened fruit juices, and prepackaged desserts to a minimum.

http://www.simplyshredded.com/the-truth-behind-5-food-myths.html

Those who think Aragon's critique of Lustig's work on fructose means that Aragon believes it's acceptable to have all the sugar you want are deluded.

No one claimed that Alan said eat all the sugar you want. And I never said that either.

I did say that the obesity epidemic we are seeing is not the work solely of sugar. It's over consumption of food in general.

And yes, I think Lustig is a scaremonger.

It is the over consumption of highly available, highly palatable foods. As the excellent rat study I posted indicates. The rats prone to binging didn't binge on chow. They binged on palatable food. Not that I'm suggesting we make everything taste like regular rat chow, mind you. Just noting it. Because that study, the more I think about it, is perfect for this thread.

Rats don't have moral failings. They don't have or lack willpower. They don't have complex relationships with family and community. They never think, "Wow, I had a rough day in the maze. I'm going to eat this whole chocolate cake now, and my diet be damned!"

So there are things happening way below the level of consciousness for binge eaters and way below anything Freud would have recognized as the subconscious. And highly palatable food is a trigger for it.

FabulousFifty

It all depends on what foods lead to a tendency to overeat. Calorie dense foods like bread, foods containing added sugar can cause over eating in some people. Other people have to watch their fat or salt or they would overeat chips or cheese for example. Everyone has their triggers. If we didn't then most of us wouldn't be trying to lose weight!

Yes, experiment and see what works for you. Avoiding sugar, grains and processed food makes me feel better! These things trigger hunger and cravings for me. It is habit forming for my body. If I have something carby for breakfast, I am ravished all day. I am best to eat real food, avoid sugar and carby food, and eat when I am hungry. This works for me - do what works for you!

Jestinia

It all depends on what foods lead to a tendency to overeat. Calorie dense foods like bread, foods containing added sugar can cause over eating in some people. Other people have to watch their fat or salt or they would overeat chips or cheese for example. Everyone has their triggers. If we didn't then most of us wouldn't be trying to lose weight!

Yes, experiment and see what works for you. Avoiding sugar, grains and processed food makes me feel better! These things trigger hunger and cravings for me. It is habit forming for my body. If I have something carby for breakfast, I am ravished all day. I am best to eat real food, avoid sugar and carby food, and eat when I am hungry. This works for me - do what works for you!

Me too! I guess in a way I do eat whatever I want every day, though. It's just that I don't want to have a tiny slice of something, then crave more all day, so I generally don't.

ndj1979

and that you can eat some chocolate cake if you want it.

And I will have the chocolate cake. But I don't want a teaspoonful or even a serving size sliver. I want the entire cake. Well, more like half a cake. So in order to get what I want in the quantity that makes it worth having, I can't eat it every day, unless I also want to get fat again.

I also won't pretend I couldn't have made a healthier choice by not having the cake and having 2000 calories of nutrient dense foods instead. Unless they start selling vitamin fortified, antioxidant rich, organic-flavonoid-food-buzzword-something-or-other-cake.

Well now, once again....
What we are talking about there is a topic for another thread.
Cause it comes down to self-control and discipline......

So comes down to the wonderful thing we have as human beings, that no other living creature has.
Free will and choice.

It isn't about discipline. No one eats chocolate cake because they need to fuel their body (with the possible exception of a student in need of a sugar buzz). We eat stuff like that because we want to enjoy the tastes, textures, and yes, that nice all over sensation that is a sugar buzz. So if you get your food enjoyment with a sliver and I don't get it until half the cake is gone, it has nothing to do with self control or discipline.

Edit: An example you might understand.

Take a crumb of chocolate cake and eat it. Now stop. Was it worth bothering? One crumb? Doubtful.

so a crumb of chocolate cake is the equivalent to a slice and then stopping???? You seriously need to re-examine how you view food...

Actually it's been scientifically documented that many people NEED to consume more of a substance in order to get the pleasure response that others may get with a smaller amount. Therefore, for some people a slice would be about the same as a crumb to another person. And this isn't about how a person views food or their self-control - it's about the chemical makeup of their brain and how it functions.

That said, if you look at how big a treat slice probably should be (say, 150-200 calories) you really aren't going to be getting much out of most cakes, etc. A few bites (a treat sized slice) isn't really enough for a lot of people; it's a teaser, which really just makes you want to eat more. So in the end eating a few bites and then stopping is worse than not having any cake at all.

I would be curious to see the "scientific documentation" of this...

http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v31/n9/abs/0803614a.html

Abstract
Objective: To determine the stability of individual differences in non-nutritive 'junk' palatable food (PF) intake in rats; assess the relationship of these differences to binge-eating characteristics and susceptibility to obesity; and evaluate the practicality of using these differences to model binge-eating and obesity.
Design: Binge-eating prone (BEP) and resistant (BER) groups were identified. Differential responses to stress, hunger, macronutrient-varied PFs, a diet-induced obesity (DIO) regimen and daily vs intermittent access to a PF+chow diet, were assessed.
Subjects: One hundred and twenty female Sprague–Dawley rats.
Measurements: Reliability of intake patterns within rats; food intake and body weight after various challenges over acute (1, 2, 4 h), 24-h and 2-week periods.
Results: Although BEP and BER rats did not differ in amount of chow consumed, BEPs consumed >50% more intermittent PF than BERs (P<0.001) and consistently so (alpha=0.86). BEPs suppressed chow but not PF intake when stressed, and ate as much when sated as when hungry. Conversely, BERs were more affected by stress and ate less PF, not chow, when stressed and were normally hyperphagic to energy deficit. BEP overeating generalized to other PFs varying in sucrose, fat and nutrition content. Half the rats in each group proved to be obesity prone after a no-choice high fat diet (DIO diet) but a continuous diet of PF+chow normalized the BEPs high drive for PF.
Conclusion: Greater intermittent intake of PF predicts binge-eating independent of susceptibility to weight gain. Daily fat consumption in a nutritious source (DIO-diet; analogous to a fatty meal) promoted overeating and weight gain but limiting fat to daily non-nutritive food (PF+chow; analogous to a snack with a low fat meal), did not. The data offer an animal model of lean and obese binge-eating, and obesity with and without binge-eating that can be used to identify the unique physiology of these groups and henceforth suggest more specifically targeted treatments for binge-eating and obesity.

got one that actually looked at humans?

I was not aware that eating habits of rats translated over to humans….

tennisdude2004

and that you can eat some chocolate cake if you want it.

And I will have the chocolate cake. But I don't want a teaspoonful or even a serving size sliver. I want the entire cake. Well, more like half a cake. So in order to get what I want in the quantity that makes it worth having, I can't eat it every day, unless I also want to get fat again.

I also won't pretend I couldn't have made a healthier choice by not having the cake and having 2000 calories of nutrient dense foods instead. Unless they start selling vitamin fortified, antioxidant rich, organic-flavonoid-food-buzzword-something-or-other-cake.

Well now, once again....
What we are talking about there is a topic for another thread.
Cause it comes down to self-control and discipline......

So comes down to the wonderful thing we have as human beings, that no other living creature has.
Free will and choice.

It isn't about discipline. No one eats chocolate cake because they need to fuel their body (with the possible exception of a student in need of a sugar buzz). We eat stuff like that because we want to enjoy the tastes, textures, and yes, that nice all over sensation that is a sugar buzz. So if you get your food enjoyment with a sliver and I don't get it until half the cake is gone, it has nothing to do with self control or discipline.

Edit: An example you might understand.

Take a crumb of chocolate cake and eat it. Now stop. Was it worth bothering? One crumb? Doubtful.

so a crumb of chocolate cake is the equivalent to a slice and then stopping???? You seriously need to re-examine how you view food...

Actually it's been scientifically documented that many people NEED to consume more of a substance in order to get the pleasure response that others may get with a smaller amount. Therefore, for some people a slice would be about the same as a crumb to another person. And this isn't about how a person views food or their self-control - it's about the chemical makeup of their brain and how it functions.

That said, if you look at how big a treat slice probably should be (say, 150-200 calories) you really aren't going to be getting much out of most cakes, etc. A few bites (a treat sized slice) isn't really enough for a lot of people; it's a teaser, which really just makes you want to eat more. So in the end eating a few bites and then stopping is worse than not having any cake at all.

I would be curious to see the "scientific documentation" of this...

http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v31/n9/abs/0803614a.html

Abstract
Objective: To determine the stability of individual differences in non-nutritive 'junk' palatable food (PF) intake in rats; assess the relationship of these differences to binge-eating characteristics and susceptibility to obesity; and evaluate the practicality of using these differences to model binge-eating and obesity.
Design: Binge-eating prone (BEP) and resistant (BER) groups were identified. Differential responses to stress, hunger, macronutrient-varied PFs, a diet-induced obesity (DIO) regimen and daily vs intermittent access to a PF+chow diet, were assessed.
Subjects: One hundred and twenty female Sprague–Dawley rats.
Measurements: Reliability of intake patterns within rats; food intake and body weight after various challenges over acute (1, 2, 4 h), 24-h and 2-week periods.
Results: Although BEP and BER rats did not differ in amount of chow consumed, BEPs consumed >50% more intermittent PF than BERs (P<0.001) and consistently so (alpha=0.86). BEPs suppressed chow but not PF intake when stressed, and ate as much when sated as when hungry. Conversely, BERs were more affected by stress and ate less PF, not chow, when stressed and were normally hyperphagic to energy deficit. BEP overeating generalized to other PFs varying in sucrose, fat and nutrition content. Half the rats in each group proved to be obesity prone after a no-choice high fat diet (DIO diet) but a continuous diet of PF+chow normalized the BEPs high drive for PF.
Conclusion: Greater intermittent intake of PF predicts binge-eating independent of susceptibility to weight gain. Daily fat consumption in a nutritious source (DIO-diet; analogous to a fatty meal) promoted overeating and weight gain but limiting fat to daily non-nutritive food (PF+chow; analogous to a snack with a low fat meal), did not. The data offer an animal model of lean and obese binge-eating, and obesity with and without binge-eating that can be used to identify the unique physiology of these groups and henceforth suggest more specifically targeted treatments for binge-eating and obesity.

got one that actually looked at humans?

I was not aware that eating habits of rats translated over to humans….

http://www.livescience.com/32860-why-do-medical-researchers-use-mice.html

Jestinia

and that you can eat some chocolate cake if you want it.

And I will have the chocolate cake. But I don't want a teaspoonful or even a serving size sliver. I want the entire cake. Well, more like half a cake. So in order to get what I want in the quantity that makes it worth having, I can't eat it every day, unless I also want to get fat again.

I also won't pretend I couldn't have made a healthier choice by not having the cake and having 2000 calories of nutrient dense foods instead. Unless they start selling vitamin fortified, antioxidant rich, organic-flavonoid-food-buzzword-something-or-other-cake.

Well now, once again....
What we are talking about there is a topic for another thread.
Cause it comes down to self-control and discipline......

So comes down to the wonderful thing we have as human beings, that no other living creature has.
Free will and choice.

It isn't about discipline. No one eats chocolate cake because they need to fuel their body (with the possible exception of a student in need of a sugar buzz). We eat stuff like that because we want to enjoy the tastes, textures, and yes, that nice all over sensation that is a sugar buzz. So if you get your food enjoyment with a sliver and I don't get it until half the cake is gone, it has nothing to do with self control or discipline.

Edit: An example you might understand.

Take a crumb of chocolate cake and eat it. Now stop. Was it worth bothering? One crumb? Doubtful.

so a crumb of chocolate cake is the equivalent to a slice and then stopping???? You seriously need to re-examine how you view food...

Actually it's been scientifically documented that many people NEED to consume more of a substance in order to get the pleasure response that others may get with a smaller amount. Therefore, for some people a slice would be about the same as a crumb to another person. And this isn't about how a person views food or their self-control - it's about the chemical makeup of their brain and how it functions.

That said, if you look at how big a treat slice probably should be (say, 150-200 calories) you really aren't going to be getting much out of most cakes, etc. A few bites (a treat sized slice) isn't really enough for a lot of people; it's a teaser, which really just makes you want to eat more. So in the end eating a few bites and then stopping is worse than not having any cake at all.

I would be curious to see the "scientific documentation" of this...

http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v31/n9/abs/0803614a.html

Abstract
Objective: To determine the stability of individual differences in non-nutritive 'junk' palatable food (PF) intake in rats; assess the relationship of these differences to binge-eating characteristics and susceptibility to obesity; and evaluate the practicality of using these differences to model binge-eating and obesity.
Design: Binge-eating prone (BEP) and resistant (BER) groups were identified. Differential responses to stress, hunger, macronutrient-varied PFs, a diet-induced obesity (DIO) regimen and daily vs intermittent access to a PF+chow diet, were assessed.
Subjects: One hundred and twenty female Sprague–Dawley rats.
Measurements: Reliability of intake patterns within rats; food intake and body weight after various challenges over acute (1, 2, 4 h), 24-h and 2-week periods.
Results: Although BEP and BER rats did not differ in amount of chow consumed, BEPs consumed >50% more intermittent PF than BERs (P<0.001) and consistently so (alpha=0.86). BEPs suppressed chow but not PF intake when stressed, and ate as much when sated as when hungry. Conversely, BERs were more affected by stress and ate less PF, not chow, when stressed and were normally hyperphagic to energy deficit. BEP overeating generalized to other PFs varying in sucrose, fat and nutrition content. Half the rats in each group proved to be obesity prone after a no-choice high fat diet (DIO diet) but a continuous diet of PF+chow normalized the BEPs high drive for PF.
Conclusion: Greater intermittent intake of PF predicts binge-eating independent of susceptibility to weight gain. Daily fat consumption in a nutritious source (DIO-diet; analogous to a fatty meal) promoted overeating and weight gain but limiting fat to daily non-nutritive food (PF+chow; analogous to a snack with a low fat meal), did not. The data offer an animal model of lean and obese binge-eating, and obesity with and without binge-eating that can be used to identify the unique physiology of these groups and henceforth suggest more specifically targeted treatments for binge-eating and obesity.

got one that actually looked at humans?

I was not aware that eating habits of rats translated over to humans….

http://www.livescience.com/32860-why-do-medical-researchers-use-mice.html

Thanks to the personal responsibility crowd in this thread, the rat study is actually better than human studies for showing there is far more going on than conscious decisions when it comes to binge eating.

Edit for a fresh analogy:

You have a garden hose, I have a fire hose. The water flowing out of each represents the 'I want more' part of the brain that is activated after a slice of cake.

You don't understand why you can put your finger over your garden hose to stop the water flow while I find it to be far too much effort most of the time to block the spray from the fire hose.

albertabeefy

No one claimed that Alan said eat all the sugar you want. And I never said that either.

I did say that the obesity epidemic we are seeing is not the work solely of sugar. It's over consumption of food in general.

And yes, I think Lustig is a scaremonger.

I agree with all your points - however there are SOME in the MFP world that DO say there's nothing wrong with sugar, and absolutely no need to limit it - which is blatantly false. And those same people use Aragon's critique of Lustig's fructose work to justify that.

FYI - regarding Lustig - I agree he's using scaremonger tactics over this fructose issue - but if you look at his body of research as a whole, and the good work he's actually done and the contributions he's made to obesity - he's obviously got a good heart. He's helped far-more than he's hurt - I wish people would realize that instead of crucifying him over the fructose boondoggle.

And yes, the over-consumption of calories is definitely the bigger issue. If we could get people back to the average caloric consumption of 50 years ago we'd also automatically cut back on the over-consumption of sugar, likely resolving much of the problems we face today.

albertabeefy

Thanks to the personal responsibility crowd in this thread, the rat study is actually better than human studies for showing there is far more going on than conscious decisions when it comes to binge eating.

Edit for a fresh analogy:

You have a garden hose, I have a fire hose. The water flowing out of each represents the 'I want more' part of the brain that is activated after a slice of cake.

You don't understand why you can put your finger over your garden hose to stop the water flow while I find it to be far too much effort most of the time to block the spray from the fire hose.

As someone who works in the field of medical research - I personally do believe 'food addiction' is a real thing. It *appears* it can be physiological, psychological or a combination of both - depending on the individual and any underlying pathology (medical or psychopathology) that may be responsible.

http://globalnews.ca/news/713421/is-food-addiction-real-harvard-study-has-experts-weighing-in-on-cravings-and-willpower/
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2013/06/26/ajcn.113.064113.abstract?sid=44ef5031-b040-4501-8e93-af85301d69c6
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140124161245.htm
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-02/fatty-foods-addictive-as-cocaine-in-growing-body-of-science.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130626153922.htm

I was as skeptical as many others once, but with the amount of research that's been done recently - and the results - it's pretty convincing. I'm not alone in drawing that conclusion. Regarding food addiction, the director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse even stated, “The data is so overwhelming the field has to accept it,”

richardheath

No one claimed that Alan said eat all the sugar you want. And I never said that either.

I did say that the obesity epidemic we are seeing is not the work solely of sugar. It's over consumption of food in general.

And yes, I think Lustig is a scaremonger.

I agree with all your points - however there are SOME in the MFP world that DO say there's nothing wrong with sugar, and absolutely no need to limit it - which is blatantly false. And those same people use Aragon's critique of Lustig's fructose work to justify that.

FYI - regarding Lustig - I agree he's using scaremonger tactics over this fructose issue - but if you look at his body of research as a whole, and the good work he's actually done and the contributions he's made to obesity - he's obviously got a good heart. He's helped far-more than he's hurt - I wish people would realize that instead of crucifying him over the fructose boondoggle.

And yes, the over-consumption of calories is definitely the bigger issue. If we could get people back to the average caloric consumption of 50 years ago we'd also automatically cut back on the over-consumption of sugar, likely resolving much of the problems we face today.

Please provide some links for the bit I bolded. Most people here I have run across say there is nothing wrong with sugar as long as you don't overdo it (fit it in your macro and calorie goal); not simply have as much sugar as you like.

ndj1979

and that you can eat some chocolate cake if you want it.

And I will have the chocolate cake. But I don't want a teaspoonful or even a serving size sliver. I want the entire cake. Well, more like half a cake. So in order to get what I want in the quantity that makes it worth having, I can't eat it every day, unless I also want to get fat again.

I also won't pretend I couldn't have made a healthier choice by not having the cake and having 2000 calories of nutrient dense foods instead. Unless they start selling vitamin fortified, antioxidant rich, organic-flavonoid-food-buzzword-something-or-other-cake.

Well now, once again....
What we are talking about there is a topic for another thread.
Cause it comes down to self-control and discipline......

So comes down to the wonderful thing we have as human beings, that no other living creature has.
Free will and choice.

It isn't about discipline. No one eats chocolate cake because they need to fuel their body (with the possible exception of a student in need of a sugar buzz). We eat stuff like that because we want to enjoy the tastes, textures, and yes, that nice all over sensation that is a sugar buzz. So if you get your food enjoyment with a sliver and I don't get it until half the cake is gone, it has nothing to do with self control or discipline.

Edit: An example you might understand.

Take a crumb of chocolate cake and eat it. Now stop. Was it worth bothering? One crumb? Doubtful.

so a crumb of chocolate cake is the equivalent to a slice and then stopping???? You seriously need to re-examine how you view food...

Actually it's been scientifically documented that many people NEED to consume more of a substance in order to get the pleasure response that others may get with a smaller amount. Therefore, for some people a slice would be about the same as a crumb to another person. And this isn't about how a person views food or their self-control - it's about the chemical makeup of their brain and how it functions.

That said, if you look at how big a treat slice probably should be (say, 150-200 calories) you really aren't going to be getting much out of most cakes, etc. A few bites (a treat sized slice) isn't really enough for a lot of people; it's a teaser, which really just makes you want to eat more. So in the end eating a few bites and then stopping is worse than not having any cake at all.

I would be curious to see the "scientific documentation" of this...

http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v31/n9/abs/0803614a.html

Abstract
Objective: To determine the stability of individual differences in non-nutritive 'junk' palatable food (PF) intake in rats; assess the relationship of these differences to binge-eating characteristics and susceptibility to obesity; and evaluate the practicality of using these differences to model binge-eating and obesity.
Design: Binge-eating prone (BEP) and resistant (BER) groups were identified. Differential responses to stress, hunger, macronutrient-varied PFs, a diet-induced obesity (DIO) regimen and daily vs intermittent access to a PF+chow diet, were assessed.
Subjects: One hundred and twenty female Sprague–Dawley rats.
Measurements: Reliability of intake patterns within rats; food intake and body weight after various challenges over acute (1, 2, 4 h), 24-h and 2-week periods.
Results: Although BEP and BER rats did not differ in amount of chow consumed, BEPs consumed >50% more intermittent PF than BERs (P<0.001) and consistently so (alpha=0.86). BEPs suppressed chow but not PF intake when stressed, and ate as much when sated as when hungry. Conversely, BERs were more affected by stress and ate less PF, not chow, when stressed and were normally hyperphagic to energy deficit. BEP overeating generalized to other PFs varying in sucrose, fat and nutrition content. Half the rats in each group proved to be obesity prone after a no-choice high fat diet (DIO diet) but a continuous diet of PF+chow normalized the BEPs high drive for PF.
Conclusion: Greater intermittent intake of PF predicts binge-eating independent of susceptibility to weight gain. Daily fat consumption in a nutritious source (DIO-diet; analogous to a fatty meal) promoted overeating and weight gain but limiting fat to daily non-nutritive food (PF+chow; analogous to a snack with a low fat meal), did not. The data offer an animal model of lean and obese binge-eating, and obesity with and without binge-eating that can be used to identify the unique physiology of these groups and henceforth suggest more specifically targeted treatments for binge-eating and obesity.

got one that actually looked at humans?

I was not aware that eating habits of rats translated over to humans….

http://www.livescience.com/32860-why-do-medical-researchers-use-mice.html

Thanks to the personal responsibility crowd in this thread, the rat study is actually better than human studies for showing there is far more going on than conscious decisions when it comes to binge eating.

Edit for a fresh analogy:

You have a garden hose, I have a fire hose. The water flowing out of each represents the 'I want more' part of the brain that is activated after a slice of cake.

You don't understand why you can put your finger over your garden hose to stop the water flow while I find it to be far too much effort most of the time to block the spray from the fire hose.

as someone that used to eat all the ice cream in my freezer and now does not, I do not see how I can train myself to eat moderately but someone else cannot...

ndj1979

and that you can eat some chocolate cake if you want it.

And I will have the chocolate cake. But I don't want a teaspoonful or even a serving size sliver. I want the entire cake. Well, more like half a cake. So in order to get what I want in the quantity that makes it worth having, I can't eat it every day, unless I also want to get fat again.

I also won't pretend I couldn't have made a healthier choice by not having the cake and having 2000 calories of nutrient dense foods instead. Unless they start selling vitamin fortified, antioxidant rich, organic-flavonoid-food-buzzword-something-or-other-cake.

Well now, once again....
What we are talking about there is a topic for another thread.
Cause it comes down to self-control and discipline......

So comes down to the wonderful thing we have as human beings, that no other living creature has.
Free will and choice.

It isn't about discipline. No one eats chocolate cake because they need to fuel their body (with the possible exception of a student in need of a sugar buzz). We eat stuff like that because we want to enjoy the tastes, textures, and yes, that nice all over sensation that is a sugar buzz. So if you get your food enjoyment with a sliver and I don't get it until half the cake is gone, it has nothing to do with self control or discipline.

Edit: An example you might understand.

Take a crumb of chocolate cake and eat it. Now stop. Was it worth bothering? One crumb? Doubtful.

so a crumb of chocolate cake is the equivalent to a slice and then stopping???? You seriously need to re-examine how you view food...

Actually it's been scientifically documented that many people NEED to consume more of a substance in order to get the pleasure response that others may get with a smaller amount. Therefore, for some people a slice would be about the same as a crumb to another person. And this isn't about how a person views food or their self-control - it's about the chemical makeup of their brain and how it functions.

That said, if you look at how big a treat slice probably should be (say, 150-200 calories) you really aren't going to be getting much out of most cakes, etc. A few bites (a treat sized slice) isn't really enough for a lot of people; it's a teaser, which really just makes you want to eat more. So in the end eating a few bites and then stopping is worse than not having any cake at all.

I would be curious to see the "scientific documentation" of this...

http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v31/n9/abs/0803614a.html

Abstract
Objective: To determine the stability of individual differences in non-nutritive 'junk' palatable food (PF) intake in rats; assess the relationship of these differences to binge-eating characteristics and susceptibility to obesity; and evaluate the practicality of using these differences to model binge-eating and obesity.
Design: Binge-eating prone (BEP) and resistant (BER) groups were identified. Differential responses to stress, hunger, macronutrient-varied PFs, a diet-induced obesity (DIO) regimen and daily vs intermittent access to a PF+chow diet, were assessed.
Subjects: One hundred and twenty female Sprague–Dawley rats.
Measurements: Reliability of intake patterns within rats; food intake and body weight after various challenges over acute (1, 2, 4 h), 24-h and 2-week periods.
Results: Although BEP and BER rats did not differ in amount of chow consumed, BEPs consumed >50% more intermittent PF than BERs (P<0.001) and consistently so (alpha=0.86). BEPs suppressed chow but not PF intake when stressed, and ate as much when sated as when hungry. Conversely, BERs were more affected by stress and ate less PF, not chow, when stressed and were normally hyperphagic to energy deficit. BEP overeating generalized to other PFs varying in sucrose, fat and nutrition content. Half the rats in each group proved to be obesity prone after a no-choice high fat diet (DIO diet) but a continuous diet of PF+chow normalized the BEPs high drive for PF.
Conclusion: Greater intermittent intake of PF predicts binge-eating independent of susceptibility to weight gain. Daily fat consumption in a nutritious source (DIO-diet; analogous to a fatty meal) promoted overeating and weight gain but limiting fat to daily non-nutritive food (PF+chow; analogous to a snack with a low fat meal), did not. The data offer an animal model of lean and obese binge-eating, and obesity with and without binge-eating that can be used to identify the unique physiology of these groups and henceforth suggest more specifically targeted treatments for binge-eating and obesity.

got one that actually looked at humans?

I was not aware that eating habits of rats translated over to humans….

http://www.livescience.com/32860-why-do-medical-researchers-use-mice.html

Ok interesting..

however, for every article you can find saying why mice are used, there is anther one saying why mice studies lead researchers down a "dead end"....

albertabeefy

Please provide some links for the bit I bolded. Most people here I have run across say there is nothing wrong with sugar as long as you don't overdo it (fit it in your macro and calorie goal); not simply have as much sugar as you like.

Hey Richard, There may not be any people explicitly saying you can eat all the sugar you want - and I'm not going to waste my time searching for exact quotes, BUT, here's just a few posts - I'll thrown in a quote block to separate them out:

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1204240-sugar
"Unless you are a diabetic, there is no reason to worry about your sugar macro."

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1150269-sugar-natural-and-added
"Neither are bad for weightloss, unless you have some medical reason to limit them"

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1206718-holy-sugar-consumption-batman
"Sugar isn't bad for you unless your doctor has advised that you stay away from it... It's a carb... Focus on carbs as a whole instead of sugar. Stop looking at the number"

"Honestly, sugar is nothing to worry about. It's a carb that is treated like every other carb. "

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1017763-sugar-intake-limits-are-impossible
"Who cares about sugar (other than diabetics) it's calories that matter to me."

"I don't really track,sugar. I don't eat clean enough anyway. As long as calories burned is greater than calories eaten, I am happy."

"Assuming you aren't diabetic, tracking sugar is a waste of time."

"IMHO If you are in danger of being diabetic then watch it..otherwise...don't. I don't watch either sugar nor sodium. I am not willing to change my diet to the extremes necessary to always have good numbers."

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1111316-sugar-is-scary?page=3
"I have found that the most successful people on this site do not rant against sugar, or carbs, or fat. They hit their macros, they don't restrict, and they exercise."

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1120102-scapegoat-of-this-decade-sugar
"Sugar is the villain of this decade, the scapegoat of choice it seems."

"The astounding results of Professor Mark Haub who lost 27lbs and improved markers of health while eating a diet consisting of Twinkies. "

"The evidence is clear: No foods are inherently bad. "

It's pretty obvious that:

Many people on MFP most-certainly say it's WRONG to eliminate any food group.
Many people on MPF most-certainly say there's nothing wrong with sugar.
Many people on MFP also say that you can eat a high-carbohydrate diet if you want.
Many people make posts purely about the sugar they eat, their pop-tart ice-cream sandwiches, etc.

Often you'd have to look at several posts (in several threads) from a particular MFP user before you realize they might eat high amounts of sugar ONLY once their nutritional needs are met, and they might not do it every day. Without that context, many people infer that you can eat all the sugar you want.

Sure, you can lose weight on a twinkie diet. But it's far-from nutritionally complete.

While some of them may still get proper nutrition, the general IMPRESSION many people reading these posts are left with is that sugar is a free-for-all with many people, as long as they maintain a caloric restriction.

With the number of people on this site looking for any kind of validation that they can lose weight AND be healthy (when their diet may not be nutritionally complete), the kind of inferences often left by the above statements don't do anyone any favors.

albertabeefy

Ok interesting..

however, for every article you can find saying why mice are used, there is anther one saying why mice studies lead researchers down a "dead end"....

When it comes to nutrition, rat studies are superior to mice studies in that at least rats are omnivores. Just my 2c.

Keep in mind there are ethical reasons we have to use rodents for certain studies. As such it's not perfect, but it's the best we have.

Jestinia

and that you can eat some chocolate cake if you want it.

And I will have the chocolate cake. But I don't want a teaspoonful or even a serving size sliver. I want the entire cake. Well, more like half a cake. So in order to get what I want in the quantity that makes it worth having, I can't eat it every day, unless I also want to get fat again.

I also won't pretend I couldn't have made a healthier choice by not having the cake and having 2000 calories of nutrient dense foods instead. Unless they start selling vitamin fortified, antioxidant rich, organic-flavonoid-food-buzzword-something-or-other-cake.

Well now, once again....
What we are talking about there is a topic for another thread.
Cause it comes down to self-control and discipline......

So comes down to the wonderful thing we have as human beings, that no other living creature has.
Free will and choice.

It isn't about discipline. No one eats chocolate cake because they need to fuel their body (with the possible exception of a student in need of a sugar buzz). We eat stuff like that because we want to enjoy the tastes, textures, and yes, that nice all over sensation that is a sugar buzz. So if you get your food enjoyment with a sliver and I don't get it until half the cake is gone, it has nothing to do with self control or discipline.

Edit: An example you might understand.

Take a crumb of chocolate cake and eat it. Now stop. Was it worth bothering? One crumb? Doubtful.

so a crumb of chocolate cake is the equivalent to a slice and then stopping???? You seriously need to re-examine how you view food...

Actually it's been scientifically documented that many people NEED to consume more of a substance in order to get the pleasure response that others may get with a smaller amount. Therefore, for some people a slice would be about the same as a crumb to another person. And this isn't about how a person views food or their self-control - it's about the chemical makeup of their brain and how it functions.

That said, if you look at how big a treat slice probably should be (say, 150-200 calories) you really aren't going to be getting much out of most cakes, etc. A few bites (a treat sized slice) isn't really enough for a lot of people; it's a teaser, which really just makes you want to eat more. So in the end eating a few bites and then stopping is worse than not having any cake at all.

I would be curious to see the "scientific documentation" of this...

http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v31/n9/abs/0803614a.html

Abstract
Objective: To determine the stability of individual differences in non-nutritive 'junk' palatable food (PF) intake in rats; assess the relationship of these differences to binge-eating characteristics and susceptibility to obesity; and evaluate the practicality of using these differences to model binge-eating and obesity.
Design: Binge-eating prone (BEP) and resistant (BER) groups were identified. Differential responses to stress, hunger, macronutrient-varied PFs, a diet-induced obesity (DIO) regimen and daily vs intermittent access to a PF+chow diet, were assessed.
Subjects: One hundred and twenty female Sprague–Dawley rats.
Measurements: Reliability of intake patterns within rats; food intake and body weight after various challenges over acute (1, 2, 4 h), 24-h and 2-week periods.
Results: Although BEP and BER rats did not differ in amount of chow consumed, BEPs consumed >50% more intermittent PF than BERs (P<0.001) and consistently so (alpha=0.86). BEPs suppressed chow but not PF intake when stressed, and ate as much when sated as when hungry. Conversely, BERs were more affected by stress and ate less PF, not chow, when stressed and were normally hyperphagic to energy deficit. BEP overeating generalized to other PFs varying in sucrose, fat and nutrition content. Half the rats in each group proved to be obesity prone after a no-choice high fat diet (DIO diet) but a continuous diet of PF+chow normalized the BEPs high drive for PF.
Conclusion: Greater intermittent intake of PF predicts binge-eating independent of susceptibility to weight gain. Daily fat consumption in a nutritious source (DIO-diet; analogous to a fatty meal) promoted overeating and weight gain but limiting fat to daily non-nutritive food (PF+chow; analogous to a snack with a low fat meal), did not. The data offer an animal model of lean and obese binge-eating, and obesity with and without binge-eating that can be used to identify the unique physiology of these groups and henceforth suggest more specifically targeted treatments for binge-eating and obesity.

got one that actually looked at humans?

I was not aware that eating habits of rats translated over to humans….

http://www.livescience.com/32860-why-do-medical-researchers-use-mice.html

Thanks to the personal responsibility crowd in this thread, the rat study is actually better than human studies for showing there is far more going on than conscious decisions when it comes to binge eating.

Edit for a fresh analogy:

You have a garden hose, I have a fire hose. The water flowing out of each represents the 'I want more' part of the brain that is activated after a slice of cake.

You don't understand why you can put your finger over your garden hose to stop the water flow while I find it to be far too much effort most of the time to block the spray from the fire hose.

as someone that used to eat all the ice cream in my freezer and now does not, I do not see how I can train myself to eat moderately but someone else cannot...

I'm impressed. And not being at all sarcastic, either. At some point, I may try this. We do have higher brain function that rats don't at any comparable level, and there is such a thing as habit and desensitization. But I'm definitely not trying it until I'm exactly the weight I want to be and have lots of energy to spare for this specific attempt.

Meanwhile, there are people who never have to do this. My son is one of them. He has never had to fight the call of cupcakes in his life. The fact of their existence down in the kitchen simply does not cause him the need to exert any energy in resisting them.