Interesting Video on 'Sugar: The Bitter Truth'
Replies
-
No, not true. All foods stimulates the pleasure center of the brain, because we need it to survive. Mother nature's way of making sure we can carry on to reproduce. That doesn't mean it is addictive.
Yes, but some foods do this more than others. Including foods never seen in nature in the form we see them in now, not to mention the abundance. Saying we can't addict ourselves to food is like saying we can't addict ourselves to alcohol because our ancestors have been drinking it for thousands of years and sometimes it was a safer bet than water.
I am sorry, but the idea that you overeat due to a specific food is flat out laughable. It has nothing to do with the food itself. It is 100% the issue of the individual person's willpower and ability to say stop. Blaming food for your problems is far from healthy mentally and is an easy way to try and escape personal responsibility. So really, maybe you should be looking deeper into your issues with food and overeating instead of trying to escape the problem.
And I am saying this from experience, not just to be snarky.
I would add to this emotional issues with the food. I do believe foods can be triggers for people who must learn to control themselves with them (or not eat them), but agree it's not because of some physical property of the food. But that doesn't mean just saying exercise willpower will work. You may need to work on why it's hard for you.
Also I do think (of course) that some diets will be more filling than others for many people, but even if you aren't full, the inability to refrain from eating or tendency to binge requires more. Something mental or emotional that you bring to the table, not the food itself.
The idea that it's harder to resist some pop tart or whopper than a traditional home cooked pie or gourmet meal prepared in traditional fashion by a chef is so odd to me and is why I think all this stuff about food scientists making us overeat by making the food extra hard to resist is just bunk. Fact is food is more available for most and we do less physical labor. I don't have the same need as my farmer ancestors to fill up on bread and potatoes in the quantities they did.0 -
No, not true. All foods stimulates the pleasure center of the brain, because we need it to survive. Mother nature's way of making sure we can carry on to reproduce. That doesn't mean it is addictive.
Yes, but some foods do this more than others. Including foods never seen in nature in the form we see them in now, not to mention the abundance. Saying we can't addict ourselves to food is like saying we can't addict ourselves to alcohol because our ancestors have been drinking it for thousands of years and sometimes it was a safer bet than water.
I am sorry, but the idea that you overeat due to a specific food is flat out laughable. It has nothing to do with the food itself. It is 100% the issue of the individual person's willpower and ability to say stop. Blaming food for your problems is far from healthy mentally and is an easy way to try and escape personal responsibility. So really, maybe you should be looking deeper into your issues with food and overeating instead of trying to escape the problem.
And I am saying this from experience, not just to be snarky.
I would add to this emotional issues with the food. I do believe foods can be triggers for people who must learn to control themselves with them (or not eat them), but agree it's not because of some physical property of the food. But that doesn't mean just saying exercise willpower will work. You may need to work on why it's hard for you.
Also I do think (of course) that some diets will be more filling than others for many people, but even if you aren't full, the inability to refrain from eating or tendency to binge requires more. Something mental or emotional that you bring to the table, not the food itself.
The idea that it's harder to resist some pop tart or whopper than a traditional home cooked pie or gourmet meal prepared in traditional fashion by a chef is so odd to me and is why I think all this stuff about food scientists making us overeat by making the food extra hard to resist is just bunk. Fact is food is more available for most and we do less physical labor. I don't have the same need as my farmer ancestors to fill up on bread and potatoes in the quantities they did.
Yes, because rats have mental and emotional problems and that is why they get addicted to sugar. Had a hard day in the maze, had to binge. Mommy didn't love them enough, got addicted to chocolate.
I think it's time to accept that it can be a purely physical issue in some cases, although if you add stress into the life of any organism I'm guessing you can exacerbate anything.0 -
-
This content has been removed.
-
That's right I will gladly take the role of ambassador of sugar. Much better than being someone who makes excuses and has no results to show as a result.
The level of derp never ceases to amaze me.The thing about the sugar debate I don't get is why is sugar singled out for attention, when most of the food we love to abuse is high in both fat and sugar? Apart from lollies (candy), and sugary drinks, of course.
Same for fat and salt combinations, which are equally as delicious and gimme-moreish. Why sugar alone?
More money and easier.
No, it's because fat without carbs isn't addicting. As everyone who has ever lost weight on a low carb diet knows.
NO :noway:
Everyone on a low carb diet knows?! That's the secret to losing weight? Seriously? Okaaaayyy expert.
I think I'll stick with eating carbs and sugar. Key lime pie almost done.
I lost a lot of weight on high fat, low carb. I rarely overate (cheese once in awhile got me). But if I took a fatty cut of steak and made a steak sandwich out of it with some bread, I'd eat myself sick, then want a bowl of ice cream. I don't know why, but that is what happened.
Your results may vary, but if fat alone were the overeating trigger, people would have a hard time losing weight on low carb, which is by its nature high fat.
And speaking of the ambassador of the sugar defenders association of America!
You got a source for that citation? It's so weighty, contributes so much to the conversation, and is so clearly on topic, it would be a pity of you didn't have a citation!
Meanwhile, have some actual research:
A small new study suggests the brain responds to Oreo cookies quite like it responds to actual drugs – at least if you’re a rat. The “pleasure center” of the brain, the nucleus accumbens, apparently gets just as activated in response to Oreos as it does to cocaine and morphine, which could actually have some major public health implications. While the study was done in rats, the authors say it’s likely relevant to humans as well, and could explain why people have such a hard time resisting eating an entire sleeve of the cookies. The study, which will be presented at the Society for Neuroscience’s annual conference next month, also made another discovery: Rats, like humans, like to eat Oreo’s creamy center first.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2013/10/16/why-your-brain-treats-oreos-like-a-drug/
As you’d expect, the high-glycemic milkshakes led to a fast rise in blood sugar, followed by a marked drop four hours later. What was interesting to the researchers was that the “crash” was accompanied both by higher self-reported ratings of hunger and greater activation in the nucleus accumbens, an area of the brain that has long been linked to addictive behaviors and sensations, including reward and craving. This was all relative to the low-glycemic milkshake group, which had lower measures of both variables.
“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 study author David Ludwig, of the New Balance Foundation Obesity Prevention Center at Boston Children’s Hospital, in a statement. Still, he and his team are loth to call this sugar reaction “addiction.”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2013/06/27/study-are-cheap-carbs-really-like-drugs-to-your-brain/
Brb.....selling my TV for Oreos.
Alans links trump all the garbage you spew.
No results? I started at 245 pounds. I have plenty of results. You on the other hand are pushing something that isn't nutritionally or medically necessary for health and that has zero nutritional value. I can't for the life of me figure out why.0 -
Yes, because rats have mental and emotional problems and that is why they get addicted to sugar. Had a hard day in the maze, had to binge. Mommy didn't love them enough, got addicted to chocolate.
I think it's time to accept that it can be a purely physical issue in some cases, although if you add stress into the life of any organism I'm guessing you can exacerbate anything.
Getting snarky doesn't do much to convince anyone that your answers are the right ones.
Rats =/= humans. And even then, I am not at all convinced that their conclusions fit their results. But I'm not interested in a discussion with you, because you've already made up your mind and feel threatened when your viewpoints are challenged.0 -
The level of derp never ceases to amaze me.The thing about the sugar debate I don't get is why is sugar singled out for attention, when most of the food we love to abuse is high in both fat and sugar? Apart from lollies (candy), and sugary drinks, of course.
Same for fat and salt combinations, which are equally as delicious and gimme-moreish. Why sugar alone?
More money and easier.
No, it's because fat without carbs isn't addicting. As everyone who has ever lost weight on a low carb diet knows.
NO :noway:
Everyone on a low carb diet knows?! That's the secret to losing weight? Seriously? Okaaaayyy expert.
I think I'll stick with eating carbs and sugar. Key lime pie almost done.
I lost a lot of weight on high fat, low carb. I rarely overate (cheese once in awhile got me). But if I took a fatty cut of steak and made a steak sandwich out of it with some bread, I'd eat myself sick, then want a bowl of ice cream. I don't know why, but that is what happened.
Your results may vary, but if fat alone were the overeating trigger, people would have a hard time losing weight on low carb, which is by its nature high fat.
And speaking of the ambassador of the sugar defenders association of America!
You got a source for that citation? It's so weighty, contributes so much to the conversation, and is so clearly on topic, it would be a pity of you didn't have a citation!
Meanwhile, have some actual research:
A small new study suggests the brain responds to Oreo cookies quite like it responds to actual drugs – at least if you’re a rat. The “pleasure center” of the brain, the nucleus accumbens, apparently gets just as activated in response to Oreos as it does to cocaine and morphine, which could actually have some major public health implications. While the study was done in rats, the authors say it’s likely relevant to humans as well, and could explain why people have such a hard time resisting eating an entire sleeve of the cookies. The study, which will be presented at the Society for Neuroscience’s annual conference next month, also made another discovery: Rats, like humans, like to eat Oreo’s creamy center first.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2013/10/16/why-your-brain-treats-oreos-like-a-drug/
As you’d expect, the high-glycemic milkshakes led to a fast rise in blood sugar, followed by a marked drop four hours later. What was interesting to the researchers was that the “crash” was accompanied both by higher self-reported ratings of hunger and greater activation in the nucleus accumbens, an area of the brain that has long been linked to addictive behaviors and sensations, including reward and craving. This was all relative to the low-glycemic milkshake group, which had lower measures of both variables.
“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 study author David Ludwig, of the New Balance Foundation Obesity Prevention Center at Boston Children’s Hospital, in a statement. Still, he and his team are loth to call this sugar reaction “addiction.”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2013/06/27/study-are-cheap-carbs-really-like-drugs-to-your-brain/
Do you have links to the actually studies instead of a write up in Forbes? And any links to real studies that use human subjects and have a decent amount of control and a higher N? Then maybe I can take it a bit more seriously but I am seeing nothing here but sensationalized media.0 -
No results? I started at 245 pounds. I have plenty of results. You on the other hand are pushing something that isn't nutritionally or medically necessary for health and that has zero nutritional value. I can't for the life of me figure out why.
No nutritional value? Our bodies RUN on sugar. I think that makes it pretty damn valuable. That's one reason it is so highly palatable to all animals including us.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
That's right I will gladly take the role of ambassador of sugar. Much better than being someone who makes excuses and has no results to show as a result.
The level of derp never ceases to amaze me.The thing about the sugar debate I don't get is why is sugar singled out for attention, when most of the food we love to abuse is high in both fat and sugar? Apart from lollies (candy), and sugary drinks, of course.
Same for fat and salt combinations, which are equally as delicious and gimme-moreish. Why sugar alone?
More money and easier.
No, it's because fat without carbs isn't addicting. As everyone who has ever lost weight on a low carb diet knows.
NO :noway:
Everyone on a low carb diet knows?! That's the secret to losing weight? Seriously? Okaaaayyy expert.
I think I'll stick with eating carbs and sugar. Key lime pie almost done.
I lost a lot of weight on high fat, low carb. I rarely overate (cheese once in awhile got me). But if I took a fatty cut of steak and made a steak sandwich out of it with some bread, I'd eat myself sick, then want a bowl of ice cream. I don't know why, but that is what happened.
Your results may vary, but if fat alone were the overeating trigger, people would have a hard time losing weight on low carb, which is by its nature high fat.
And speaking of the ambassador of the sugar defenders association of America!
You got a source for that citation? It's so weighty, contributes so much to the conversation, and is so clearly on topic, it would be a pity of you didn't have a citation!
Meanwhile, have some actual research:
A small new study suggests the brain responds to Oreo cookies quite like it responds to actual drugs – at least if you’re a rat. The “pleasure center” of the brain, the nucleus accumbens, apparently gets just as activated in response to Oreos as it does to cocaine and morphine, which could actually have some major public health implications. While the study was done in rats, the authors say it’s likely relevant to humans as well, and could explain why people have such a hard time resisting eating an entire sleeve of the cookies. The study, which will be presented at the Society for Neuroscience’s annual conference next month, also made another discovery: Rats, like humans, like to eat Oreo’s creamy center first.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2013/10/16/why-your-brain-treats-oreos-like-a-drug/
As you’d expect, the high-glycemic milkshakes led to a fast rise in blood sugar, followed by a marked drop four hours later. What was interesting to the researchers was that the “crash” was accompanied both by higher self-reported ratings of hunger and greater activation in the nucleus accumbens, an area of the brain that has long been linked to addictive behaviors and sensations, including reward and craving. This was all relative to the low-glycemic milkshake group, which had lower measures of both variables.
“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 study author David Ludwig, of the New Balance Foundation Obesity Prevention Center at Boston Children’s Hospital, in a statement. Still, he and his team are loth to call this sugar reaction “addiction.”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2013/06/27/study-are-cheap-carbs-really-like-drugs-to-your-brain/
Brb.....selling my TV for Oreos.
Alans links trump all the garbage you spew.
No results? I started at 245 pounds. I have plenty of results. You on the other hand are pushing something that isn't nutritionally or medically necessary for health and that has zero nutritional value. I can't for the life of me figure out why.
Oreos serving size 3 cookies
160 calories
7g fat
190mg sodium
25g carb
Fiber 1g
Sugar 14g
2 g Protein.
10% iron
Looks like they have nutritional value to me!0 -
Yes, because rats have mental and emotional problems and that is why they get addicted to sugar. Had a hard day in the maze, had to binge. Mommy didn't love them enough, got addicted to chocolate.
I think it's time to accept that it can be a purely physical issue in some cases, although if you add stress into the life of any organism I'm guessing you can exacerbate anything.
Getting snarky doesn't do much to convince anyone that your answers are the right ones.
Rats =/= humans. And even then, I am not at all convinced that their conclusions fit their results. But I'm not interested in a discussion with you, because you've already made up your mind and feel threatened when your viewpoints are challenged.
The second study is a human study. And there are lots of others. I'm not spending all day posting them. Or defending attacks by people who slander my willpower or mental health just because bread and sugar make me more hungry after I eat them and therefore I choose foods that make me less hungry after I eat them.
The people who first became snarky and defensive were all solidly in the sugar is fine camp. But I shouldn't have responded in kind. It's pointless to do so as a random internet poster when even an expert in the relevant field is attacked. I'll listen to the expert.0 -
That's right I will gladly take the role of ambassador of sugar. Much better than being someone who makes excuses and has no results to show as a result.
The level of derp never ceases to amaze me.The thing about the sugar debate I don't get is why is sugar singled out for attention, when most of the food we love to abuse is high in both fat and sugar? Apart from lollies (candy), and sugary drinks, of course.
Same for fat and salt combinations, which are equally as delicious and gimme-moreish. Why sugar alone?
More money and easier.
No, it's because fat without carbs isn't addicting. As everyone who has ever lost weight on a low carb diet knows.
NO :noway:
Everyone on a low carb diet knows?! That's the secret to losing weight? Seriously? Okaaaayyy expert.
I think I'll stick with eating carbs and sugar. Key lime pie almost done.
I lost a lot of weight on high fat, low carb. I rarely overate (cheese once in awhile got me). But if I took a fatty cut of steak and made a steak sandwich out of it with some bread, I'd eat myself sick, then want a bowl of ice cream. I don't know why, but that is what happened.
Your results may vary, but if fat alone were the overeating trigger, people would have a hard time losing weight on low carb, which is by its nature high fat.
And speaking of the ambassador of the sugar defenders association of America!
You got a source for that citation? It's so weighty, contributes so much to the conversation, and is so clearly on topic, it would be a pity of you didn't have a citation!
Meanwhile, have some actual research:
A small new study suggests the brain responds to Oreo cookies quite like it responds to actual drugs – at least if you’re a rat. The “pleasure center” of the brain, the nucleus accumbens, apparently gets just as activated in response to Oreos as it does to cocaine and morphine, which could actually have some major public health implications. While the study was done in rats, the authors say it’s likely relevant to humans as well, and could explain why people have such a hard time resisting eating an entire sleeve of the cookies. The study, which will be presented at the Society for Neuroscience’s annual conference next month, also made another discovery: Rats, like humans, like to eat Oreo’s creamy center first.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2013/10/16/why-your-brain-treats-oreos-like-a-drug/
As you’d expect, the high-glycemic milkshakes led to a fast rise in blood sugar, followed by a marked drop four hours later. What was interesting to the researchers was that the “crash” was accompanied both by higher self-reported ratings of hunger and greater activation in the nucleus accumbens, an area of the brain that has long been linked to addictive behaviors and sensations, including reward and craving. This was all relative to the low-glycemic milkshake group, which had lower measures of both variables.
“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 study author David Ludwig, of the New Balance Foundation Obesity Prevention Center at Boston Children’s Hospital, in a statement. Still, he and his team are loth to call this sugar reaction “addiction.”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2013/06/27/study-are-cheap-carbs-really-like-drugs-to-your-brain/
Brb.....selling my TV for Oreos.
Alans links trump all the garbage you spew.
No results? I started at 245 pounds. I have plenty of results. You on the other hand are pushing something that isn't nutritionally or medically necessary for health and that has zero nutritional value. I can't for the life of me figure out why.
Oreos serving size 3 cookies
160 calories
7g fat
190mg sodium
25g carb
Fiber 1g
Sugar 14g
2 g Protein.
10% iron
Looks like they have nutritional value to me!
You're correct. I should have put virtually no nutritional value. But now we are just going on with semantics. I'm done with this thread. I'll listen to the experts and read the studies. I don't care how ripped you are or how many pictures of desserts you post, you aren't a doctor or researcher in the relevant field, and neither am I, so there is no point. If sugar and breads work for you, eat it. Eat all the sugar. But it doesn't work for me.0 -
Yes, because rats have mental and emotional problems and that is why they get addicted to sugar. Had a hard day in the maze, had to binge. Mommy didn't love them enough, got addicted to chocolate.
I think it's time to accept that it can be a purely physical issue in some cases, although if you add stress into the life of any organism I'm guessing you can exacerbate anything.
Getting snarky doesn't do much to convince anyone that your answers are the right ones.
Rats =/= humans. And even then, I am not at all convinced that their conclusions fit their results. But I'm not interested in a discussion with you, because you've already made up your mind and feel threatened when your viewpoints are challenged.
The second study is a human study. And there are lots of others. I'm not spending all day posting them. Or defending attacks by people who slander my willpower or mental health just because bread and sugar make me more hungry after I eat them and therefore I choose foods that make me less hungry after I eat them.
The people who first became snarky and defensive were all solidly in the sugar is fine camp. But I shouldn't have responded in kind. It's pointless to do so as a random internet poster when even an expert in the relevant field is attacked. I'll listen to the expert.
You seem to have a problem with reading peoples posts as snarky.
No one is attacking you or caring about your choices in food.
Eat what you want to eat - it won't affect me at all.
But don't try to blame sugar for being overweight.
And don't call it addictive - since it isn't.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
The second study is a human study. And there are lots of others. I'm not spending all day posting them. Or defending attacks by people who slander my willpower or mental health just because bread and sugar make me more hungry after I eat them and therefore I choose foods that make me less hungry after I eat them.
The people who first became snarky and defensive were all solidly in the sugar is fine camp. But I shouldn't have responded in kind. It's pointless to do so as a random internet poster when even an expert in the relevant field is attacked. I'll listen to the expert.
Even though the 'expert' was not ready to say that food is addictive based on his results?0 -
The second study is a human study. And there are lots of others. I'm not spending all day posting them. Or defending attacks by people who slander my willpower or mental health just because bread and sugar make me more hungry after I eat them and therefore I choose foods that make me less hungry after I eat them.
The people who first became snarky and defensive were all solidly in the sugar is fine camp. But I shouldn't have responded in kind. It's pointless to do so as a random internet poster when even an expert in the relevant field is attacked. I'll listen to the expert.
Even though the 'expert' was not ready to say that food is addictive based on his results?
Some people only hear what they want to hear!0 -
You're right, he calls it strike two and a half as far as deciding it is indeed addictive in humans, although it's definitely addictive in rats. The whole piece is worth a read, obviously I can't post it all here.
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/01/the-sugar-addiction-taboo/282699/
The Sugar-Addiction Taboo
When can you call a food addictive?
ROBERT H. LUSTIGJAN 2 2014, 11:00 AM ET
I've argued previously that excess sugar has been added to processed food because the food industry knows that when they add it, we buy more. And 77 percent of the food items available in the American grocery store are spiked with added sugar. But is this just “wanting”, or are we “needing”? Is sugar just abused, or is it downright addictive? In animals, it’s a “no-brainer.” Dr. Nicole Avena of Columbia University exposes rats to sugar water in an excess-deprivation paradigm for three weeks, and they demonstrate all the criteria needed to diagnose addiction: binging, withdrawal, craving, and addiction transfer (when you’re addicted to one substance, you’re addicted to others as well).0 -
As a diabetic I did watch all 90 minutes of the video. I thought it was interesting. But I like these two links above better! Thanks!0 -
I've tried several times over the years to get through that Lustig video. His credentials sound good but his delivery style turns me off. It feels too sensationalized to be authoritative.
"Fructose IS POISON."
"The rise in sugar and drop in fat is AN ABSOLUTE UNMITIGATED DISASTER."
"Every single word Yudkin wrote decades ago was prophecy, It's ASTOUNDING. Every. single. word."
"There's no sugar in the Italian diet, other than gelatto."
And he talks about logical fallacies but he shows chart after chart of correlations but never seems to mention causation. Yes, fruit juice intake has gone up and so has obesity. So has the price of cars. Or maybe he does get into causation. I never get to the end.
I suspect there's a kernel of truth in his stuff and Taubes', though. I wouldn't dismiss it all out of hand, I just think they probably take it a little too far.0 -
I agree.
0 -
I really hate fear-mongering of all kinds.0
-
I like this Lustig video as well. I think it delves more into the interplay of foods available to us, including calorie content, personal choice, and affects of certain foods on satiety:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXlL7yWtAAg 0 -
But that's not virtually no nutritional value. It's got fat, carbs, protein, fiber and micronutrients. Virtually no nutritional value is in lettuce for example, 99% water and then a little bit of fiber and maybe a few vitamins.
That's right I will gladly take the role of ambassador of sugar. Much better than being someone who makes excuses and has no results to show as a result.
The level of derp never ceases to amaze me.The thing about the sugar debate I don't get is why is sugar singled out for attention, when most of the food we love to abuse is high in both fat and sugar? Apart from lollies (candy), and sugary drinks, of course.
Same for fat and salt combinations, which are equally as delicious and gimme-moreish. Why sugar alone?
More money and easier.
No, it's because fat without carbs isn't addicting. As everyone who has ever lost weight on a low carb diet knows.
NO :noway:
Everyone on a low carb diet knows?! That's the secret to losing weight? Seriously? Okaaaayyy expert.
I think I'll stick with eating carbs and sugar. Key lime pie almost done.
I lost a lot of weight on high fat, low carb. I rarely overate (cheese once in awhile got me). But if I took a fatty cut of steak and made a steak sandwich out of it with some bread, I'd eat myself sick, then want a bowl of ice cream. I don't know why, but that is what happened.
Your results may vary, but if fat alone were the overeating trigger, people would have a hard time losing weight on low carb, which is by its nature high fat.
And speaking of the ambassador of the sugar defenders association of America!
You got a source for that citation? It's so weighty, contributes so much to the conversation, and is so clearly on topic, it would be a pity of you didn't have a citation!
Meanwhile, have some actual research:
A small new study suggests the brain responds to Oreo cookies quite like it responds to actual drugs – at least if you’re a rat. The “pleasure center” of the brain, the nucleus accumbens, apparently gets just as activated in response to Oreos as it does to cocaine and morphine, which could actually have some major public health implications. While the study was done in rats, the authors say it’s likely relevant to humans as well, and could explain why people have such a hard time resisting eating an entire sleeve of the cookies. The study, which will be presented at the Society for Neuroscience’s annual conference next month, also made another discovery: Rats, like humans, like to eat Oreo’s creamy center first.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2013/10/16/why-your-brain-treats-oreos-like-a-drug/
As you’d expect, the high-glycemic milkshakes led to a fast rise in blood sugar, followed by a marked drop four hours later. What was interesting to the researchers was that the “crash” was accompanied both by higher self-reported ratings of hunger and greater activation in the nucleus accumbens, an area of the brain that has long been linked to addictive behaviors and sensations, including reward and craving. This was all relative to the low-glycemic milkshake group, which had lower measures of both variables.
“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 study author David Ludwig, of the New Balance Foundation Obesity Prevention Center at Boston Children’s Hospital, in a statement. Still, he and his team are loth to call this sugar reaction “addiction.”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2013/06/27/study-are-cheap-carbs-really-like-drugs-to-your-brain/
Brb.....selling my TV for Oreos.
Alans links trump all the garbage you spew.
No results? I started at 245 pounds. I have plenty of results. You on the other hand are pushing something that isn't nutritionally or medically necessary for health and that has zero nutritional value. I can't for the life of me figure out why.
Oreos serving size 3 cookies
160 calories
7g fat
190mg sodium
25g carb
Fiber 1g
Sugar 14g
2 g Protein.
10% iron
Looks like they have nutritional value to me!
You're correct. I should have put virtually no nutritional value. But now we are just going on with semantics. I'm done with this thread. I'll listen to the experts and read the studies. I don't care how ripped you are or how many pictures of desserts you post, you aren't a doctor or researcher in the relevant field, and neither am I, so there is no point. If sugar and breads work for you, eat it. Eat all the sugar. But it doesn't work for me.0 -
But that's not virtually no nutritional value. It's got fat, carbs, protein, fiber and micronutrients. Virtually no nutritional value is in lettuce for example, 99% water and then a little bit of fiber and maybe a few vitamins.
I disagree, Oreos have virtually no nutritional value. I do agree with you on the lettuce, though. Total waste. Not many calories, so less of a problem than cookies, but otherwise, it's nasty, damp, crunchy, worthless filler that should be replaced with fresh spinach.0 -
I've tried several times over the years to get through that Lustig video. His credentials sound good but his delivery style turns me off. It feels too sensationalized to be authoritative.
"Fructose IS POISON."
"The rise in sugar and drop in fat is AN ABSOLUTE UNMITIGATED DISASTER."
"Every single word Yudkin wrote decades ago was prophecy, It's ASTOUNDING. Every. single. word."
"There's no sugar in the Italian diet, other than gelatto."
And he talks about logical fallacies but he shows chart after chart of correlations but never seems to mention causation. Yes, fruit juice intake has gone up and so has obesity. So has the price of cars. Or maybe he does get into causation. I never get to the end.
I suspect there's a kernel of truth in his stuff and Taubes', though. I wouldn't dismiss it all out of hand, I just think they probably take it a little too far.
The consummate showman. Selling his snake oil. Let truth win out.0 -
But that's not virtually no nutritional value. It's got fat, carbs, protein, fiber and micronutrients. Virtually no nutritional value is in lettuce for example, 99% water and then a little bit of fiber and maybe a few vitamins.
I disagree, Oreos have virtually no nutritional value. I do agree with you on the lettuce, though. Total waste. Not many calories, so less of a problem than cookies, but otherwise, it's nasty, damp, crunchy, worthless filler that should be replaced with fresh spinach.
1/10th of our daily iron needs is 'virtually no nutritional value'? I don't think you know what 'virtual' means.0 -
But that's not virtually no nutritional value. It's got fat, carbs, protein, fiber and micronutrients. Virtually no nutritional value is in lettuce for example, 99% water and then a little bit of fiber and maybe a few vitamins.
I disagree, Oreos have virtually no nutritional value. I do agree with you on the lettuce, though. Total waste. Not many calories, so less of a problem than cookies, but otherwise, it's nasty, damp, crunchy, worthless filler that should be replaced with fresh spinach.
1/10th of our daily iron needs is 'virtually no nutritional value'? I don't think you know what 'virtual' means.
For that amount of calories? Yes, it's virtually no nutritional value. Compare it to tumeric or spinach.
But it's okay, you enjoy your sweet vices, I'll enjoy my different but equally unhealthy vices. Like this rum I'm sipping. Can't say much for the flavor, but hey, at least it probably doesn't have spiders in it!
0 -
Yes, because rats have mental and emotional problems and that is why they get addicted to sugar. Had a hard day in the maze, had to binge. Mommy didn't love them enough, got addicted to chocolate.
I think it's time to accept that it can be a purely physical issue in some cases, although if you add stress into the life of any organism I'm guessing you can exacerbate anything.
I think it's quite possible that rats have mental and emotional problems, and I think that sugar is more stimulating to the pleasure center than some other foods. It wouldn't surprise me at all to find out some rats went for the treats more than others. We couldn't attribute that to mental or emotional factors, there are variants involved, but I would be curious (but not curious enough for them to do a study trying to create emotional distress.)
But it's not just sugar. There are behavioral science studies with rats going to great lengths for other types of foods. Food tastes good. To us, to rats. I do think sugar is one of the more palatable items out there, and I think some people are more sensitive to it. One reason I don't believe it's physically addictive (rather than very tempting and making it hard to manage impulse control) is that before it was as common as it is now, and not a once in a while treat, people were able to manage themselves. If we're posting on this forum, most of us are living in an area where delicious food is pretty readily available pretty much everywhere. I actually can't think of stores that don't have candy, chips, or pop available (and I'm thinking about stores like Home Depot). I do agree that that is a new challenge and I don't fault people (self included) for struggling with it. We have to learn to be strategic with managing temptation when the access is that easy, and that's a new skill in some ways when it comes to food.
I rambled, am not sure I made sense, and really just came in here to defend rats' abilities to have emotional problems.0 -
Yes, because rats have mental and emotional problems and that is why they get addicted to sugar. Had a hard day in the maze, had to binge. Mommy didn't love them enough, got addicted to chocolate.
I think it's time to accept that it can be a purely physical issue in some cases, although if you add stress into the life of any organism I'm guessing you can exacerbate anything.
I think it's quite possible that rats have mental and emotional problems, and I think that sugar is more stimulating to the pleasure center than some other foods. It wouldn't surprise me at all to find out some rats went for the treats more than others. We couldn't attribute that to mental or emotional factors, there are variants involved, but I would be curious (but not curious enough for them to do a study trying to create emotional distress.)
But it's not just sugar. There are behavioral science studies with rats going to great lengths for other types of foods. Food tastes good. To us, to rats. I do think sugar is one of the more palatable items out there, and I think some people are more sensitive to it. One reason I don't believe it's physically addictive (rather than very tempting and making it hard to manage impulse control) is that before it was as common as it is now, and not a once in a while treat, people were able to manage themselves. If we're posting on this forum, most of us are living in an area where delicious food is pretty readily available pretty much everywhere. I actually can't think of stores that don't have candy, chips, or pop available (and I'm thinking about stores like Home Depot). I do agree that that is a new challenge and I don't fault people (self included) for struggling with it. We have to learn to be strategic with managing temptation when the access is that easy, and that's a new skill in some ways when it comes to food.
I rambled, am not sure I made sense, and really just came in here to defend rats' abilities to have emotional problems.
They didn't mention any differences among the rats getting the sugary snack foods, but it wouldn't surprise me if they found that low status monkeys were more inclined to binge on calorie rich foods more than high status monkeys. Stress can exacerbate conditions, as I already said, and in that situation binge eating could even have survival value, since a low status monkey would want to put away as much high calorie food as possible before getting it taken away by a higher status monkey. And people are not in a dissimilar hierarchical society, so I could see that translating to us, too. Poverty, meaningless work, a bullying boss, and other stress could certainly worsen and maybe even trigger abnormal eating of any calorie dense food.
But if anyone has studied that aspect, I haven't seen it. I just wouldn't be surprised. However, I also don't think it's all about the social and psychological. From what I've been reading, there are issues with satiety signals caused by some foods as well as issues with triggering reward centers in the brain.0 -
I just wouldn't be surprised. However, I also don't think it's all about the social and psychological. From what I've been reading, there are issues with satiety signals caused by some foods as well as issues with triggering reward centers in the brain.
No, I don't believe that it's all psychological or emotional either. I believe the rats would gorge on Oreo's over spinach leaves, and I think that difference is obviously physical. Humans have the capacity to manage our impulses, though our abilities, knowledge, and susceptibilities are not all equal. I consider cereal (for myself, not others) to be dessert because something about eating it ignites my appetite. So I usually just eat it at home before bed rather than deal with a grumbling stomach during work. But that's what differentiates us from the rats-the ability to recognize the need to create strategies to manage our impulses. How good each person is at that varies wildly even in the same person, depending on the pleasure. I love comforting scents, but I don't spend much money at all on that stuff, and when I do, it lasts. There's a built in immediate consequence of it costing more than it's usually worth, and money is a great motivator for me. On the other hand, I can eat a pint of "non-dairy frozen dessert
,) and not feel full, so the consequence is delayed, which has less impact. It's easiest for me to just not have it around and if I buy it, accept that I may eat the pint and be willing to deal with that. Other people do better with knowing they can have of it every day. 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
- 427 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