FRUCTOSE CONVERTS TO FAT
Options
Replies
-
I'm worried by this ignorant, knee-jerk dismissal of the problems associated specifically with fructose, as opposed to sugar generally that I'm seeing in this thread.
Fructose is biochemically a VERY different thing than glucose. As was pointed out in the OP, it cannot be metabolized by the body without first being broken down by the liver, in a process very similar to alcohol.
THIS IS NOT A "SUGAR BAD" ARGUMENT. This is about the problems that come from a higher proportion of total sugar intake coming from fructose. The metabolism of fructose releases the already mentioned triglycerides, yes, but the more worrying thing is the production of glycation end products (google them if you've never had any biochem). GEP's cause vascular inflammation, and a resultant increase in cholesterol.
Please stop dumbing this down into "STOP PICKING ON SUGAR". I'm not picking on sugar. I'm picking on the increased amount of FRUCTOSE we're consuming.
I'm not anti-sugar, and I'm tired of any concerns about the verified medical issues associated with fructose specifically being written off ignorantly.
You might as well give up. People on this site put down anyone who isn't "Caloric Deficit Only". They complain that groups of people are elitist but show themselves to be elitists. The world is fatter now because of inactivity and calorie consumption...fact. Whether you eat wheat, sugar, cane sugar, Paleo, Atkins or Weight Watchers, the problem is still there.
If you've lost 20 or more pounds, you obviously ate too much and became overweight. And, just because you are leaner now doesn't mean you are an expert. It also doesn't mean that what worked for you will work form someone with less willpower. Instead of demonizing an article, how bout keeping the lips sealed and letting others decide for themselves.
right, so if the OP cherry picks an article and posts it as fact that sugar is "bad" then all of us that disagree should just sit back and say nothing and let all the novices assume that this is accurate....
totally legit reasoning...
I have not read all the responses so perhaps your post is fueled by something other than the OP, but OP did not say that sugar is bad. If that is what you got from it, I suggest you re-read it.
To ignore the reality that OP is the most vocal proponent of "sugar is bad" on MFP is disingenuous at best.0 -
have you read the actual article or just OP's post
she stated some effects of sugar, which may not be true considering what the rest of the article says, and said "none of this is good", which is essentially saying its badI'm worried by this ignorant, knee-jerk dismissal of the problems associated specifically with fructose, as opposed to sugar generally that I'm seeing in this thread.
Fructose is biochemically a VERY different thing than glucose. As was pointed out in the OP, it cannot be metabolized by the body without first being broken down by the liver, in a process very similar to alcohol.
THIS IS NOT A "SUGAR BAD" ARGUMENT. This is about the problems that come from a higher proportion of total sugar intake coming from fructose. The metabolism of fructose releases the already mentioned triglycerides, yes, but the more worrying thing is the production of glycation end products (google them if you've never had any biochem). GEP's cause vascular inflammation, and a resultant increase in cholesterol.
Please stop dumbing this down into "STOP PICKING ON SUGAR". I'm not picking on sugar. I'm picking on the increased amount of FRUCTOSE we're consuming.
I'm not anti-sugar, and I'm tired of any concerns about the verified medical issues associated with fructose specifically being written off ignorantly.
You might as well give up. People on this site put down anyone who isn't "Caloric Deficit Only". They complain that groups of people are elitist but show themselves to be elitists. The world is fatter now because of inactivity and calorie consumption...fact. Whether you eat wheat, sugar, cane sugar, Paleo, Atkins or Weight Watchers, the problem is still there.
If you've lost 20 or more pounds, you obviously ate too much and became overweight. And, just because you are leaner now doesn't mean you are an expert. It also doesn't mean that what worked for you will work form someone with less willpower. Instead of demonizing an article, how bout keeping the lips sealed and letting others decide for themselves.
right, so if the OP cherry picks an article and posts it as fact that sugar is "bad" then all of us that disagree should just sit back and say nothing and let all the novices assume that this is accurate....
totally legit reasoning...
I have not read all the responses so perhaps your post is fueled by something other than the OP, but OP did not say that sugar is bad. If that is what you got from it, I suggest you re-read it.
That remark was talking about the reaction in the liver to fructose, not about sugar in general. The article clearly is talking about the amount of fructose in the average diet today. Context and dosage.
I didn't see a link to the full article, but I stated that I was refering to the OP.0 -
I'm worried by this ignorant, knee-jerk dismissal of the problems associated specifically with fructose, as opposed to sugar generally that I'm seeing in this thread.
Fructose is biochemically a VERY different thing than glucose. As was pointed out in the OP, it cannot be metabolized by the body without first being broken down by the liver, in a process very similar to alcohol.
THIS IS NOT A "SUGAR BAD" ARGUMENT. This is about the problems that come from a higher proportion of total sugar intake coming from fructose. The metabolism of fructose releases the already mentioned triglycerides, yes, but the more worrying thing is the production of glycation end products (google them if you've never had any biochem). GEP's cause vascular inflammation, and a resultant increase in cholesterol.
Please stop dumbing this down into "STOP PICKING ON SUGAR". I'm not picking on sugar. I'm picking on the increased amount of FRUCTOSE we're consuming.
I'm not anti-sugar, and I'm tired of any concerns about the verified medical issues associated with fructose specifically being written off ignorantly.
You might as well give up. People on this site put down anyone who isn't "Caloric Deficit Only". They complain that groups of people are elitist but show themselves to be elitists. The world is fatter now because of inactivity and calorie consumption...fact. Whether you eat wheat, sugar, cane sugar, Paleo, Atkins or Weight Watchers, the problem is still there.
If you've lost 20 or more pounds, you obviously ate too much and became overweight. And, just because you are leaner now doesn't mean you are an expert. It also doesn't mean that what worked for you will work form someone with less willpower. Instead of demonizing an article, how bout keeping the lips sealed and letting others decide for themselves.
right, so if the OP cherry picks an article and posts it as fact that sugar is "bad" then all of us that disagree should just sit back and say nothing and let all the novices assume that this is accurate....
totally legit reasoning...
I have not read all the responses so perhaps your post is fueled by something other than the OP, but OP did not say that sugar is bad. If that is what you got from it, I suggest you re-read it.
To ignore the reality that OP is the most vocal proponent of "sugar is bad" on MFP is disingenuous at best.
I am no familiar with the OP (original poster), I was refering to the OP (original post in this thread).0 -
you should read it, or at least the parts that she left out which are posted by others on the first page of this thread
have you read the actual article or just OP's post
she stated some effects of sugar, which may not be true considering what the rest of the article says, and said "none of this is good", which is essentially saying its badI'm worried by this ignorant, knee-jerk dismissal of the problems associated specifically with fructose, as opposed to sugar generally that I'm seeing in this thread.
Fructose is biochemically a VERY different thing than glucose. As was pointed out in the OP, it cannot be metabolized by the body without first being broken down by the liver, in a process very similar to alcohol.
THIS IS NOT A "SUGAR BAD" ARGUMENT. This is about the problems that come from a higher proportion of total sugar intake coming from fructose. The metabolism of fructose releases the already mentioned triglycerides, yes, but the more worrying thing is the production of glycation end products (google them if you've never had any biochem). GEP's cause vascular inflammation, and a resultant increase in cholesterol.
Please stop dumbing this down into "STOP PICKING ON SUGAR". I'm not picking on sugar. I'm picking on the increased amount of FRUCTOSE we're consuming.
I'm not anti-sugar, and I'm tired of any concerns about the verified medical issues associated with fructose specifically being written off ignorantly.
You might as well give up. People on this site put down anyone who isn't "Caloric Deficit Only". They complain that groups of people are elitist but show themselves to be elitists. The world is fatter now because of inactivity and calorie consumption...fact. Whether you eat wheat, sugar, cane sugar, Paleo, Atkins or Weight Watchers, the problem is still there.
If you've lost 20 or more pounds, you obviously ate too much and became overweight. And, just because you are leaner now doesn't mean you are an expert. It also doesn't mean that what worked for you will work form someone with less willpower. Instead of demonizing an article, how bout keeping the lips sealed and letting others decide for themselves.
right, so if the OP cherry picks an article and posts it as fact that sugar is "bad" then all of us that disagree should just sit back and say nothing and let all the novices assume that this is accurate....
totally legit reasoning...
I have not read all the responses so perhaps your post is fueled by something other than the OP, but OP did not say that sugar is bad. If that is what you got from it, I suggest you re-read it.
That remark was talking about the reaction in the liver to fructose, not about sugar in general. The article clearly is talking about the amount of fructose in the average diet today. Context and dosage.
I didn't see a link to the full article, but I stated that I was refering to the OP.0 -
you should read it, or at least the parts that she left out which are posted by others on the first page of this thread
have you read the actual article or just OP's post
she stated some effects of sugar, which may not be true considering what the rest of the article says, and said "none of this is good", which is essentially saying its badI'm worried by this ignorant, knee-jerk dismissal of the problems associated specifically with fructose, as opposed to sugar generally that I'm seeing in this thread.
Fructose is biochemically a VERY different thing than glucose. As was pointed out in the OP, it cannot be metabolized by the body without first being broken down by the liver, in a process very similar to alcohol.
THIS IS NOT A "SUGAR BAD" ARGUMENT. This is about the problems that come from a higher proportion of total sugar intake coming from fructose. The metabolism of fructose releases the already mentioned triglycerides, yes, but the more worrying thing is the production of glycation end products (google them if you've never had any biochem). GEP's cause vascular inflammation, and a resultant increase in cholesterol.
Please stop dumbing this down into "STOP PICKING ON SUGAR". I'm not picking on sugar. I'm picking on the increased amount of FRUCTOSE we're consuming.
I'm not anti-sugar, and I'm tired of any concerns about the verified medical issues associated with fructose specifically being written off ignorantly.
You might as well give up. People on this site put down anyone who isn't "Caloric Deficit Only". They complain that groups of people are elitist but show themselves to be elitists. The world is fatter now because of inactivity and calorie consumption...fact. Whether you eat wheat, sugar, cane sugar, Paleo, Atkins or Weight Watchers, the problem is still there.
If you've lost 20 or more pounds, you obviously ate too much and became overweight. And, just because you are leaner now doesn't mean you are an expert. It also doesn't mean that what worked for you will work form someone with less willpower. Instead of demonizing an article, how bout keeping the lips sealed and letting others decide for themselves.
right, so if the OP cherry picks an article and posts it as fact that sugar is "bad" then all of us that disagree should just sit back and say nothing and let all the novices assume that this is accurate....
totally legit reasoning...
I have not read all the responses so perhaps your post is fueled by something other than the OP, but OP did not say that sugar is bad. If that is what you got from it, I suggest you re-read it.
That remark was talking about the reaction in the liver to fructose, not about sugar in general. The article clearly is talking about the amount of fructose in the average diet today. Context and dosage.
I didn't see a link to the full article, but I stated that I was refering to the OP.
Do you have a link to the article?0 -
Go back to page 1 of the thread
you should read it, or at least the parts that she left out which are posted by others on the first page of this thread
have you read the actual article or just OP's post
she stated some effects of sugar, which may not be true considering what the rest of the article says, and said "none of this is good", which is essentially saying its badI'm worried by this ignorant, knee-jerk dismissal of the problems associated specifically with fructose, as opposed to sugar generally that I'm seeing in this thread.
Fructose is biochemically a VERY different thing than glucose. As was pointed out in the OP, it cannot be metabolized by the body without first being broken down by the liver, in a process very similar to alcohol.
THIS IS NOT A "SUGAR BAD" ARGUMENT. This is about the problems that come from a higher proportion of total sugar intake coming from fructose. The metabolism of fructose releases the already mentioned triglycerides, yes, but the more worrying thing is the production of glycation end products (google them if you've never had any biochem). GEP's cause vascular inflammation, and a resultant increase in cholesterol.
Please stop dumbing this down into "STOP PICKING ON SUGAR". I'm not picking on sugar. I'm picking on the increased amount of FRUCTOSE we're consuming.
I'm not anti-sugar, and I'm tired of any concerns about the verified medical issues associated with fructose specifically being written off ignorantly.
You might as well give up. People on this site put down anyone who isn't "Caloric Deficit Only". They complain that groups of people are elitist but show themselves to be elitists. The world is fatter now because of inactivity and calorie consumption...fact. Whether you eat wheat, sugar, cane sugar, Paleo, Atkins or Weight Watchers, the problem is still there.
If you've lost 20 or more pounds, you obviously ate too much and became overweight. And, just because you are leaner now doesn't mean you are an expert. It also doesn't mean that what worked for you will work form someone with less willpower. Instead of demonizing an article, how bout keeping the lips sealed and letting others decide for themselves.
right, so if the OP cherry picks an article and posts it as fact that sugar is "bad" then all of us that disagree should just sit back and say nothing and let all the novices assume that this is accurate....
totally legit reasoning...
I have not read all the responses so perhaps your post is fueled by something other than the OP, but OP did not say that sugar is bad. If that is what you got from it, I suggest you re-read it.
That remark was talking about the reaction in the liver to fructose, not about sugar in general. The article clearly is talking about the amount of fructose in the average diet today. Context and dosage.
I didn't see a link to the full article, but I stated that I was refering to the OP.
Do you have a link to the article?0 -
hereOh Joanne, do you think we can't google? Here's another snip from the article that you conveniently left out:Experts still have a long way to go to connect the dots between fructose and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and cancer. Higher intakes of fructose are associated with these conditions, but clinical trials have yet to show that it causes them.
And here's a link to the article in its entirety, since I have a little thing called ethics:
http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/is-fructose-bad-for-you-2011042624250 -
hereOh Joanne, do you think we can't google? Here's another snip from the article that you conveniently left out:Experts still have a long way to go to connect the dots between fructose and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and cancer. Higher intakes of fructose are associated with these conditions, but clinical trials have yet to show that it causes them.
And here's a link to the article in its entirety, since I have a little thing called ethics:
http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/is-fructose-bad-for-you-201104262425
Thanks! I read it and it didn't say much more than what the OP quoted. It seems pretty clear to me that both the quoted section and the full article are talking about the amount of sugar eaten today. I thought it was pretty interesting.
I imagine much of the uproar is based on posts other than this one.0 -
sugar that's eaten in excess of the body's calorie requirements converts to fat
bears sh** in the woods
the Pope is catholic
ETA: this is high school biology... your cells break sugar down for energy:
sugar + oxygen ----> energy + carbon dioxide + water
unless your cells don't need that energy because you're eating too much, in which case it's stored as fat. Not just fructose, all sugars (all carbs in fact), and fat, and if you actually manage to eat too much protein, that too.
ETA #2: if you like high school chemistry, you can get the same chemical reaction much more quickly by burning sugar. It happens more slowly in your cell because of enzymes and stuff controlling the reaction to get the energy out slowly so the cell can use the energy, instead of dying in a mini ball of flames. But if you do that don't forget your safety goggles and to follow the school science lab safety rules or you'll get a detention.
My post has now gone off topic. The take-home message should be that there's nothing groundbreaking about fructose being converted to fat by the body. It's high school biology. And it only happens when you're in calorie surplus.
This actually isn't entirely true.
Your body still does triglyceride anabolism even when you're in a calorie deficit and losing weight, and some fructose will be converted to fat regardless of whether you haven't met your energy requirements.
When you're in a deficit, the rate of catabolism exceeds the rate of anabolism, but anabolism doesn't cease.0 -
like i said, these are your personal opinions. ive used this analogy before; if i stubbed my toe and said i was in pain, is that an insult to someone who has been tortured, no.
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
your views on addiction are twisted my friend. it is a looser definition than you thinkon 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..
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..
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?
you have experience with HIGH DEGREE ADDICTIONS, which sucks, but dont disregard anything else as such just because your own experiences were worse.
My point was people do say that they are basically helpless against sugar because the addiction is so strong. They are saying they have a high degree of addiction, some people like to highlight that they seem to lack the same nasty side effects that come with that high degree of addiction.0 -
sugar that's eaten in excess of the body's calorie requirements converts to fat
bears sh** in the woods
the Pope is catholic
ETA: this is high school biology... your cells break sugar down for energy:
sugar + oxygen ----> energy + carbon dioxide + water
unless your cells don't need that energy because you're eating too much, in which case it's stored as fat. Not just fructose, all sugars (all carbs in fact), and fat, and if you actually manage to eat too much protein, that too.
ETA #2: if you like high school chemistry, you can get the same chemical reaction much more quickly by burning sugar. It happens more slowly in your cell because of enzymes and stuff controlling the reaction to get the energy out slowly so the cell can use the energy, instead of dying in a mini ball of flames. But if you do that don't forget your safety goggles and to follow the school science lab safety rules or you'll get a detention.
My post has now gone off topic. The take-home message should be that there's nothing groundbreaking about fructose being converted to fat by the body. It's high school biology. And it only happens when you're in calorie surplus.
This actually isn't entirely true.
Your body still does triglyceride anabolism even when you're in a calorie deficit and losing weight, and some fructose will be converted to fat regardless of whether you haven't met your energy requirements.
When you're in a deficit, the rate of catabolism exceeds the rate of anabolism, but anabolism doesn't cease.
you're right.... thank you for correcting me :flowerforyou:0 -
your views on addiction are twisted my friend. it is a looser definition than you thinkon 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..
Sugar is not physically addicting. There is absolutely zero evidence that it is. Your arguments please?0 -
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
from websters;
your views on addiction are twisted my friend. it is a looser definition than you thinkon 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..
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.
-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
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.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763407000589
Animal models are useless when trying to prove something exists in humans. As far as dopamine and acetycholine release, eating protein releases those well. Yet I never hear anyone claiming to be hooked on protein. It only makes sense that reward pathways are involved when it comes to the most essential behaviors related to survival - food (of any kind) and sex.
Also, you will note that what MOST people have trouble controlling their consumptions of is a combination of sugar and fat, not just pure sugar.
Edited for grammar. Yikes.0 -
It seems like at least a day since the last Joanne thread - oh wait it was.
Definition on addiction by the way:
Short Definition of Addiction:
Addiction is a primary, chronic disease of brain reward, motivation, memory and related circuitry. Dysfunction in these circuits leads to characteristic biological, psychological, social and spiritual manifestations. This is reflected in an individual pathologically pursuing reward and/or relief by substance use and other behaviors.
Addiction is characterized by inability to consistently abstain, impairment in behavioral control, craving, diminished recognition of significant problems with one’s behaviors and interpersonal relationships, and a dysfunctional emotional response. Like other chronic diseases, addiction often involves cycles of relapse and remission. Without treatment or engagement in recovery activities, addiction is progressive and can result in disability or premature death.0 -
your views on addiction are twisted my friend. it is a looser definition than you thinkon 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..
Sugar is not physically addicting. There is absolutely zero evidence that it is. Your arguments please?
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/95/4/810.abstract?sid=6e96c043-b521-404c-893b-be8c7f1a8371
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23719144
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/176680740 -
what would be your arguments against.
your views on addiction are twisted my friend. it is a looser definition than you thinkon 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..
Sugar is not physically addicting. There is absolutely zero evidence that it is. Your arguments please?
ive already spent too much time on this one, look at my other posts0 -
and if animal models are useless then why would people continue to use them in studies? just to *kitten* with rats?
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
from websters;
your views on addiction are twisted my friend. it is a looser definition than you thinkon 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..
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.
-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
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.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763407000589
Animal models are useless when trying to prove something exists in humans. As far as dopamine and acetycholine release, eating protein releases those well. Yet I never hear anyone claiming to be hooked on protein. It only makes sense that reward pathways are involved when it comes to the most essential behaviors related to survival - food (of any kind) and sex.
Also, you will note that what MOST people have trouble controlling their consumptions of is a combination of sugar and fat, not just pure sugar.
Edited for grammar. Yikes.0 -
and if animal models are useless then why would people continue to use them in studies? just to *kitten* with rats?
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
from websters;
your views on addiction are twisted my friend. it is a looser definition than you thinkon 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..
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.
-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
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.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763407000589
Animal models are useless when trying to prove something exists in humans. As far as dopamine and acetycholine release, eating protein releases those well. Yet I never hear anyone claiming to be hooked on protein. It only makes sense that reward pathways are involved when it comes to the most essential behaviors related to survival - food (of any kind) and sex.
Also, you will note that what MOST people have trouble controlling their consumptions of is a combination of sugar and fat, not just pure sugar.
Edited for grammar. Yikes.
They're useful insofar as they are hypothesis generating, and can be used as a preliminary step to human trials.
They cannot be used to draw direct conclusions about humans.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 939 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions