FRUCTOSE CONVERTS TO FAT

ndj1979 · May 2014

on a side note, these threads inevitably always turn into an argument about sugar addiction ...

if you carry around sugar packets in your pocket so that you can constantly get your "sugar high" then you might have an argument, but I fail to see anyone ever admit to doing that....

or, if you just sit in your house and eat bowls of raw sugar you may have an argument as well, but I have personally never heard of anyone doing this..

BigT555 · May 2014

your views on addiction are twisted my friend. it is a looser definition than you think

FrankieTrailBlazer · May 2014

I wouldnt make the mistake of making life decisions based on anything out of Lustig's mouth

QUOTE
I’m back to talking about Robert Lustig again with this video. Lustig is, as I said, a master at speaking with certitude about issues he apparently doesn’t understand.

Here he is on Tom Ashbrook’s NPR show talking about – what else? – sugar.

LUSTIG: "It causes all of the peripheral metabolic diseases that we know about: heart disease, type-2 diabetes, probably cancer and dementia as well, hypertension. This is now costing the United States $147 billion a year. The bottom line is we wouldn’t need health care reform if we had obesity reform and we could do obesity reform with sugar reform alone."

Yes, sugar causes all this. Nothing else does. He can say this categorically, with no qualifications. The implication of this wild-eyed claim is that other factors in nutrition and lifestyle are innocent. Meat and fat don’t cause cancer or heart disease or diabetes, no matter what the epidemiology says, to say nothing of smoking. Sugar alone taxes the medical system. Usually scientists tend to avoid absolute and overly broad statements because they don’t want to be taken for fools. Lustig isn’t worried about that.
UNQUOTE

Thats part og the transcript from this link:
25 Cholesterol Confusion 8 A Large and Fluffy Distraction

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wmidN8rYkU&list=PLv3QDzdxan_JkGX47Rpboyh2oYyAFZDBA&index=26

3dogsrunning · May 2014

I agree that addiction can be looser, but can we get a clearer definition on being "addicted" to sugar. There are people who say that they are helpless against their urges towards sugar and comparasions made to cocaine which is why I think you get these type of analogies thrown out there.

AnotherXFitGuy · May 2014

Believe it or not, there are people who do eat that amount of sugar in a day. Not sugar packets but considering the amount of sugar, it might was well be.

My problem is not disagreeing with an article, it's the way people do it. You can respond without being a jerk (Not meaning you specifically).

There are many ways to be healthier and the OP just posted information...unless I read it wrong. And because others disagree, they get nasty. It's just information.

The OP's post did state, "This is a good explanation of how sugar converts to fat in the body when eaten in excess".

BigT555 · May 2014

from websters;
-compulsive need for and use of a habit-forming substance (as heroin, nicotine, or alcohol) characterized by tolerance and by well-defined physiological symptoms upon withdrawal; broadly : persistent compulsive use of a substance known by the user to be harmful

if you can apply this to it, then its addiction. i think its fair to say that some people go into withdrawal without sugar(getting cranky, less energy, some even get headaches) as well as people eating copious amounts despite knowing that its not healthy

martinel2099 · May 2014

I have a giant 5lb bag of sour gummy worms in my desk drawer right now (my gf surprised me with it on my bday because i love these) and I still only eat 6-12 of them at most per day, and I'm still losing weight. I totally love these, but self control keeps them in my desk drawer and when I do partake I keep it reasonable.

Sugar isn't the problem, your self control is.

Trolli Sour worms are 120 cal for 12 by the way, so not too bad if you don't over do it.

ndj1979 · May 2014

well as someone who personally spent a year in rehab in my early twenties and have had friends who are addicted to pain killers..I think have a pretty good perception on real addiction....just saying..

ndj1979 · May 2014

well the OP has a track record of "sugar fear mongering" and then never coming back to defend her posts...what most are objecting to and being snarky about is that she always posts these articles or snipets that contain half truths and then never comes back to defend what she is saying...the concern is that newbies to MFP will read this and take it as fact, when it is not..

just go search her posting history and you will see...

3dogsrunning · May 2014

I have yet to see anyone suffer withdrawls from sugar similar to any of the ones listed above. And again, I have yet to see someone go to the extremes some people do for the above mentioned. I see addiction and withdrawls first hand on a regular basis. I'm not saying there aren't extreme cases involving food and sugar, but the majority of people claiming to have a "sugar" addiction does not fit with your above description.

AnotherXFitGuy · May 2014

Gotcha. I don't believe in scare tactics either. I'll do a bit more research in the future.

BigT555 · May 2014

then your own personal experiences have made you believe that addiction needs to be defined by extremes. doesnt mean that addictions of lesser degrees arent real addictions

BigT555 · May 2014

people definitely get cranky (not everyone, but some) without a sugar fix. i agree that most people who claim to have an sugar addiction actually dont and its just a lack of willpower issue, but see the below study that i posted earlier
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763407000589

kgeyser · May 2014

This is the OP's MO. She posts some fear-mongering post about sugar. She cherry-picks portions of an article to support her position, then declares this is proof that she's right. If she does come back, she never responds to anyone questioning her statements, just the people who support her position and tell her how right she is.

The OP preys on desperate people. She makes posts like this to make her followers believe they are victims of their weight gain, that it happened to them because of sugar, or sweets, or whatever she is ranting about. Since the followers are not encouraged to take charge of their own weight loss by practicing moderation and counting calories, they fail. And each time they fail, Joanne comes up with a new reason why some food is responsible for their failure. It's how she keeps her group going. She repeatedly posts misinformation like this. It's actually pretty sad that someone would do this to other people, which is why we make a point of disputing the things she says.

bcattoes · May 2014

Is it? It's Myfitnesspal, not myweightlosspal. Fitness is about more than weight. This is a great post.

jofjltncb6 · May 2014

^this

and ^this

BigT555 · May 2014

its actually a garbage post that left out many important parts of the article. i agree fitness is more than weight loss, but kept to moderation anything is fine.

and yes this site is about calories in vs. out. make a post about how excluding a single food is a good idea and see what happens

SunofaBeach14 · May 2014

^ Agreed. There's a difference between posting information and fear mongering

FrankieTrailBlazer · May 2014

The OP is probably a hack planted by Atkins Foundation to support its cranks including that fraud Lustig, lol....

ndj1979 · May 2014

my personal opinion is that by labeling every single thing that people have a problem with an "addiction" is a smack in the face to people who have real problems and real addictions..

compare a so called "sugar addict" to a hard core oxycodone addict, and you will see what I mean ..

I know someone that prior rehab would lie to his wife so he can go down the street, meet his dealer, get high, and then come back home and act like everything is fine...

ever see anyone do that for a sugar fix?

FRUCTOSE CONVERTS TO FAT

Replies

Categories