Interesting Video on 'Sugar: The Bitter Truth'
Replies
-
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.
I manage my impulses every time I go into the grocery store, I just don't buy the stuff. I could buy it and eat it, but it makes me hungry. Which annoys me, much as food that causes mild allergic reaction annoys people if it makes them itch. I am also annoyed by people who seem to think I should or must eat these foods 'in moderation'. Why? No doctor is ever going to tell me I have a serious cookie deficiency.
If one ever does, I'm afraid I might just end up in that mythical fat and happy category I hear tell about. :laugh:0 -
I manage my impulses every time I go into the grocery store, I just don't buy the stuff. I could buy it and eat it, but it makes me hungry. Which annoys me, much as food that causes mild allergic reaction annoys people if it makes them itch. I am also annoyed by people who seem to think I should or must eat these foods 'in moderation'. Why? No doctor is ever going to tell me I have a serious cookie deficiency.
If one ever does, I'm afraid I might just end up in that mythical fat and happy category I hear tell about. :laugh:
Well, exactly. Your strategy is the same as my usual strategy. I also get annoyed when people insist that I eat "all the food" in moderation. There was a good discussion some time back about how moderation can also include not buying something you want unless it's really worth whatever cost is going to come to you. It's a lot less trouble for me to just leave it at the store and not have to worry about moderating myself at home. If I go overboard at a party or the time I do buy it, that sucks, but I'd probably accumulate more calories over time keeping it at home.
But because rats don't have the same insight into reasons to manage impulse control, I have a lot of reservations over the ability to claim that tasty stuff is addicting. (If they made the sweet stuff taste unpalatable, I'd be more interested if they continually came back to take a hit.)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.
I manage my impulses every time I go into the grocery store, I just don't buy the stuff. I could buy it and eat it, but it makes me hungry. Which annoys me, much as food that causes mild allergic reaction annoys people if it makes them itch. I am also annoyed by people who seem to think I should or must eat these foods 'in moderation'. Why? No doctor is ever going to tell me I have a serious cookie deficiency.
If one ever does, I'm afraid I might just end up in that mythical fat and happy category I hear tell about. :laugh:
"In moderation" means eating foods you like and enjoy in moderation, either through portion size or frequency. I don't eat beans, avocado, or bananas because the texture bothers me, and no one has ever come to my home and tried to force-feed me these items in the name of moderation.
And if people really are telling you that you have to eat cookies, I would call their cookie consumption and dedication into question. No self-respecting cookie connoisseur forces someone else to eat cookies, because that means less cookies for them. I would suspect them of fraud and possibly being a member of a larger government conspiracy.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.
I manage my impulses every time I go into the grocery store, I just don't buy the stuff. I could buy it and eat it, but it makes me hungry. Which annoys me, much as food that causes mild allergic reaction annoys people if it makes them itch. I am also annoyed by people who seem to think I should or must eat these foods 'in moderation'. Why? No doctor is ever going to tell me I have a serious cookie deficiency.
If one ever does, I'm afraid I might just end up in that mythical fat and happy category I hear tell about. :laugh:
"In moderation" means eating foods you like and enjoy in moderation, either through portion size or frequency. I don't eat beans, avocado, or bananas because the texture bothers me, and no one has ever come to my home and tried to force-feed me these items in the name of moderation.
And if people really are telling you that you have to eat cookies, I would call their cookie consumption and dedication into question. No self-respecting cookie connoisseur forces someone else to eat cookies, because that means less cookies for them. I would suspect them of fraud and possibly being a member of a larger government conspiracy.
I make my foil hats out of McDuffles shortbread wrappers.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!
Demonizes sugar. Drinks spirits made from sugar cane.0 -
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.
This. I've read about the rat study, and not just in the Forbes article, and it doesn't support a claim of addiction IMO. But more important, that rats react in a particular way to highly palatable foods doesn't mean that humans lack control the moment they taste them and binge on everything in sight. Obesity on a macro level is probably simpler than that--we aren't as active as through most of human history and have easy access to palatable, cheap foods with lots of calories. And on an individual level it's probably more complicated why some people control the calories they eat over their lives and others don't. I'm not ruling out that there may be something like addiction for some (but not necessary related to the properties of food itself, vs developed reactions, even if so) but so far the arguments for it don't make much sense as they single out some foods when others react in the body the same way.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.
I didn't slander your mental health, of course. The comment in question was a generic one aimed at the claim that binging was due to a lack of willpower. I have inadequate information to know how you react to food or why. But, sure, I don't think food makes people binge, vs. other issues.
My issue is not what you've decided works for you or even if you really want to believe that flour has this special property that removes all your self control and makes you super hungry. That's your business and it seems to be working for you. My issue is that you keep claiming that that is a property of bread and other carbs that occurs to people generally, such that if they eat certain foods they will have no self control because of the food. As a general statement, that's bunk.
Edit: and having read the last few posts now, no one was saying you had to eat cookies. This thread is about claims that humans in general can't control themselves around sugar and also carbs more generally. You made assertions about how humans in general--not you--respond to these items. That's what is being argued. Eat whatever you want, but don't claim sugar deprives me of willpower or makes me unhealthy or that if I eat a sandwich I'll go nuts and binge, because I know that's false.0 -
I would be a hypocrite if I watched that video because I love sugar and work it into my diet every single day, and I've lost 44 pounds.0
-
I didn't slander your mental health, of course. The comment in question was a generic one aimed at the claim that binging was due to a lack of willpower. I have inadequate information to know how you react to food or why. But, sure, I don't think food makes people binge, vs. other issues.
My issue is not what you've decided works for you or even if you really want to believe that flour has this special property that removes all your self control and makes you super hungry. That's your business and it seems to be working for you. My issue is that you keep claiming that that is a property of bread and other carbs that occurs to people generally, such that if they eat certain foods they will have no self control because of the food. As a general statement, that's bunk.
Edit: and having read the last few posts now, no one was saying you had to eat cookies. This thread is about claims that humans in general can't control themselves around sugar and also carbs more generally. You made assertions about how humans in general--not you--respond to these items. That's what is being argued. Eat whatever you want, but don't claim sugar deprives me of willpower or makes me unhealthy or that if I eat a sandwich I'll go nuts and binge, because I know that's false.
Oh, so it's my willpower you slandered. That's okay then. Just kidding, I've seen that study, I know what it's saying, and I agree to an extent.
Yet at the same time I exercise willpower every day by simply not starting to eat foods that make me hungry. I don't claim everyone gets hungry when they eat the foods that make me hungry. I know that's not true. But I know there are foods, or rather food combinations, that make me hungry.
Bread? Just plain bread, no margarine, no peanut butter, no jelly? No buttery flavor built in? I'd have to be very hungry to eat a loaf. But bread with any of those things, or with cheese or meat when I used to eat cheese and meat, and I'd eat the whole loaf. But I wouldn't eat just the cheese or meat by itself to excess (well, cheese sometimes). I might eat the peanut butter off the spoon without the bread, though. I would not eat just the jelly off the spoon.
I argue that people who can eat these foods without triggering excessive hunger are not practicing willpower because they don't even need to, so the ones (not you) coming in here judging me for having to exercise it or claiming it's a mental illness or claiming I'm not actually hungrier after eating certain foods are extremely irritating. But I'm grateful to them as well, because without their belittling and constant snark, I never would have read more widely and more carefully on the subject to learn more about it.0 -
I never would have read more widely and more carefully on the subject to learn more about it.
http://www.skepdic.com/confirmbias.html0 -
I never would have read more widely and more carefully on the subject to learn more about it.
http://www.skepdic.com/confirmbias.html
Familiar with it, thanks though. I've read plenty on why sugary food is not an addiction and doesn't alter satiety, too. Oddly most of the sources aren't researchers or doctors in the relevant fields. Even the man quoted several times is a nutritionist (a well educated, respected one, yes) who is experienced mostly in training athletes. Well, I'm not an athlete and most other people aren't, either. Looking around, I'd say the norm is that a bunch of us overeat. And the question is, what are the causes? All the causes, not just the convenient ones the food industry would like us to look at, such as lack of willpower and lack of exercise.
Edit: typos and in general not awake enough to debate yet.0 -
OK GUYS PLEASE!! XD
Look I an understand why some people think that sugar and carbs are addictive and that's because they kind of ARE but they are addictive in the same way that say ... cannabis is addictive. In that they form lazy habits that need to be broken and are quite difficult to do sometimes.
You see when your body needs something it starts making you want to eat. Big surprise there. But your body doesn't know the difference between "healthy" and "unhealthy" food and if more often than not you eat unhealthy food then that's what your body will tell you to get. You don't get addicted to unhealthy food but it DOES become a habit. Like biting your nails. Or clicking your fingers. In some respects it is similar to an addiction but there are distinct differences. Addictions actually have a chemical component and usually how difficult they are to break depends on the chemical involved. Not only this but usually once a person is addicted to that chemical they usually can't touch it again for fear of instantly re triggering the addiction.
I said usually way too much in that last paragraph .. moving on ...
HOWEVER though a sugar/unhealthy food habit can indeed give you cravings that make you think you are addicted the fact is that once you break yourself of that habit and get your body used to healthy food you will be able to handle sugar with no cravings occurring. Once a habit is broken it's gone for good or until re established by repeated behavior
Also there is a great big list of things your brain treats like drugs. Including Sex. Guess we should all stop doing that huh? The bad thing about drugs is they stimulate the brain that way artificially. It's not about the way they stimulate the brain.0 -
0 -
OK GUYS PLEASE!! XD
Look I an understand why some people think that sugar and carbs are addictive and that's because they kind of ARE but they are addictive in the same way that say ... cannabis is addictive. In that they form lazy habits that need to be broken and are quite difficult to do sometimes.
You see when your body needs something it starts making you want to eat. Big surprise there. But your body doesn't know the difference between "healthy" and "unhealthy" food and if more often than not you eat unhealthy food then that's what your body will tell you to get. You don't get addicted to unhealthy food but it DOES become a habit. Like biting your nails. Or clicking your fingers. In some respects it is similar to an addiction but there are distinct differences. Addictions actually have a chemical component and usually how difficult they are to break depends on the chemical involved. Not only this but usually once a person is addicted to that chemical they usually can't touch it again for fear of instantly re triggering the addiction.
I said usually way too much in that last paragraph .. moving on ...
HOWEVER though a sugar/unhealthy food habit can indeed give you cravings that make you think you are addicted the fact is that once you break yourself of that habit and get your body used to healthy food you will be able to handle sugar with no cravings occurring. Once a habit is broken it's gone for good or until re established by repeated behavior
Also there is a great big list of things your brain treats like drugs. Including Sex. Guess we should all stop doing that huh? The bad thing about drugs is they stimulate the brain that way artificially. It's not about the way they stimulate the brain.
What makes you think food addiction has no chemical component? I never in my life ate all the lettuce in the fridge in a sitting. Ice cream, yes. Why? Chemical differences between lettuce and ice cream are obviously involved.
By your logic it's fine to try smoking a few cigarettes a day, too, because we don't give up sex. That makes no sense. I've never met a smoker who went from a pack a day to one or two cigarettes a day. And the ones I know who quit and started again started because they started with 'I'll just have one'.
Also, just because the same chemicals are involved in various behaviors doesn't mean they automatically make everything that involves them safe. In fact, one definition of addiction is that you don't have one until your behavior in pursuit of whatever substance you are after becomes a problem for you.
And there is no simple solution like learn to eat healthy and then the problem is fixed. I know this from personal experience, and there are also reports of cross addiction for people who have had bariatric surgery and afterward substituted gambling, shopping, alcohol, or drugs for the foods they gave up.0 -
Instead of just posting a stupid gif why don't you try some intelligent discussion. Stupid crap like this is just insulting to both sides of any debate. You make a fool of yourself. Hell I don't think you've even posted in this topic and now you come in spam a stupid gif as if your experience covers the sum totality of knowledge. Lady just because you have never formed a sugar or carb habit doesn't mean it can't happen. So kindly stow the arrogance.
And ok chemical component is perhaps the wrong word everything has a chemical component. But the mechanism of addiction is totally different from a formed habit. A habit is entirely formed and governed within the realm of normal psychology. Sugar and carbs are in no way at all in any sense chemically addictive in and of themselves. They just form strong habits because people like them. And people confuse this with an addiction. Usually people who have never really experienced a strong addiction in their lives. And don't really know what they are talking about. Sorry but it's true.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!
Demonizes sugar. Drinks spirits made from sugar cane.
Glad to read someone else understands the base of rum. :drinker:
And just for RHachicho, since simply posting the above response will get him all over my butt for not taking part in the "intelligent discussion" and because I've only posted in this thread once:
1. No, I didn't watch the video.
2. I don't think sugar is evil or addicting.
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!
Demonizes sugar. Drinks spirits made from sugar cane.
Glad to read someone else understands the base of rum. :drinker:
And just for RHachicho, since simply posting the above response will get him all over my butt for not taking part in the "intelligent discussion" and because I've only posted in this thread once:
1. No, I didn't watch the video.
2. I don't think sugar is evil or addicting.
Dude she didn't even say a single word. She didn't even STATE her opinion. She just posted a smart-*kitten* gif and left. I just think that's insulting to everyone. I don't think sugar is evil or addicting either. I just say I can understand why some people THINK it is cos it's pretty easy to habit form around over consumption of sugar. I got no problem with your response.0 -
Instead of just posting a stupid gif why don't you try some intelligent discussion. Stupid crap like this is just insulting to both sides of any debate. You make a fool of yourself. Hell I don't think you've even posted in this topic and now you come in spam a stupid gif as if your experience covers the sum totality of knowledge. Lady just because you have never formed a sugar or carb habit doesn't mean it can't happen. So kindly stow the arrogance.
And ok chemical component is perhaps the wrong word everything has a chemical component. But the mechanism of addiction is totally different from a formed habit. A habit is entirely formed and governed within the realm of normal psychology. Sugar and carbs are in no way at all in any sense chemically addictive in and of themselves. They just form strong habits because people like them. And people confuse this with an addiction. Usually people who have never really experienced a strong addiction in their lives. And don't really know what they are talking about. Sorry but it's true.
You. I get where you're coming from, even though we don't see eye to eye. :drinker:0 -
Instead of just posting a stupid gif why don't you try some intelligent discussion. Stupid crap like this is just insulting to both sides of any debate. You make a fool of yourself. Hell I don't think you've even posted in this topic and now you come in spam a stupid gif as if your experience covers the sum totality of knowledge. Lady just because you have never formed a sugar or carb habit doesn't mean it can't happen. So kindly stow the arrogance.
And ok chemical component is perhaps the wrong word everything has a chemical component. But the mechanism of addiction is totally different from a formed habit. A habit is entirely formed and governed within the realm of normal psychology. Sugar and carbs are in no way at all in any sense chemically addictive in and of themselves. They just form strong habits because people like them. And people confuse this with an addiction. Usually people who have never really experienced a strong addiction in their lives. And don't really know what they are talking about. Sorry but it's true.
In a world where elections for the head of state can turn, based on a comment taken out of context, due to the lassitude (or inability) of the voting populace to educate themselves (at least in the U.S.), do you really expect a "weight-loss" forum to aspire to a higher standard?0 -
Just when you think an intelligent discussion is taking place, in pops the gif brigade to remind you some here are in junior high.
Instead of just posting a stupid gif why don't you try some intelligent discussion. Stupid crap like this is just insulting to both sides of any debate. You make a fool of yourself. Hell I don't think you've even posted in this topic and now you come in spam a stupid gif as if your experience covers the sum totality of knowledge. Lady just because you have never formed a sugar or carb habit doesn't mean it can't happen. So kindly stow the arrogance.
And ok chemical component is perhaps the wrong word everything has a chemical component. But the mechanism of addiction is totally different from a formed habit. A habit is entirely formed and governed within the realm of normal psychology. Sugar and carbs are in no way at all in any sense chemically addictive in and of themselves. They just form strong habits because people like them. And people confuse this with an addiction. Usually people who have never really experienced a strong addiction in their lives. And don't really know what they are talking about. Sorry but it's true.
You. I get where you're coming from, even though we don't see eye to eye. :drinker:0 -
Just when you think an intelligent discussion is taking place, in pops the gif brigade to remind you some here are in junior high.
I get snarky back sometimes too, when I should just post relevant links for those who, like me, find it fascinating, and let those who dismiss the entire concept go on their merry way.
So in the spirit of being a better internet forum poster:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3WkXJokBAU
I think this lecture is Dr. Lustig at his best. He's solidly in his area of expertise: pediatric endocrinology.0 -
Yep, thats what sugar does if you eat of an excess of it anyway! But if you eat a small amount in moderation its okay.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!
Demonizes sugar. Drinks spirits made from sugar cane.
0 -
Just when you think an intelligent discussion is taking place, in pops the gif brigade to remind you some here are in junior high.
Instead of just posting a stupid gif why don't you try some intelligent discussion. Stupid crap like this is just insulting to both sides of any debate. You make a fool of yourself. Hell I don't think you've even posted in this topic and now you come in spam a stupid gif as if your experience covers the sum totality of knowledge. Lady just because you have never formed a sugar or carb habit doesn't mean it can't happen. So kindly stow the arrogance.
And ok chemical component is perhaps the wrong word everything has a chemical component. But the mechanism of addiction is totally different from a formed habit. A habit is entirely formed and governed within the realm of normal psychology. Sugar and carbs are in no way at all in any sense chemically addictive in and of themselves. They just form strong habits because people like them. And people confuse this with an addiction. Usually people who have never really experienced a strong addiction in their lives. And don't really know what they are talking about. Sorry but it's true.
You. I get where you're coming from, even though we don't see eye to eye. :drinker:
And it's real mature to try to subtly insult people because they aren't participating in a discussion the way "you" want them to.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
As an aside, on my weekly alcohol consumption: The reason I use some calories to drink on average one evening a week isn't that I think it's healthier than eating cookies. It's not. And it isn't because it's less calories, because about half the time I get the alcohol munchies and overeat some of my healthy foods.
It's because if I have a couple of drinks I won't wake up the next morning craving another one. I will wake up after eating cookies the night before craving more cookies. If I ever wake up craving alcohol, I'll probably never have another drink in my life. It's a damn bad sign when that happens.0 -
Just when you think an intelligent discussion is taking place, in pops the gif brigade to remind you some here are in junior high.
Instead of just posting a stupid gif why don't you try some intelligent discussion. Stupid crap like this is just insulting to both sides of any debate. You make a fool of yourself. Hell I don't think you've even posted in this topic and now you come in spam a stupid gif as if your experience covers the sum totality of knowledge. Lady just because you have never formed a sugar or carb habit doesn't mean it can't happen. So kindly stow the arrogance.
And ok chemical component is perhaps the wrong word everything has a chemical component. But the mechanism of addiction is totally different from a formed habit. A habit is entirely formed and governed within the realm of normal psychology. Sugar and carbs are in no way at all in any sense chemically addictive in and of themselves. They just form strong habits because people like them. And people confuse this with an addiction. Usually people who have never really experienced a strong addiction in their lives. And don't really know what they are talking about. Sorry but it's true.
You. I get where you're coming from, even though we don't see eye to eye. :drinker:
And it's real mature to try to subtly insult people because they aren't participating in a discussion the way "you" want them to.
I wasn't aware of being subtle. And was not trying to be. I am out and out condemning her for not participating in the discussion at all. What she did is the equivalent of jumping in the middle of two people having a conversation and obnoxiously blowing raspberry at them. What she did was not making a point she didn't even clearly come down on one side or the other. Why are you even defending her lol?0 -
Yep, thats what sugar does if you eat of an excess of it anyway! But if you eat a small amount in moderation its okay.
What if I eat a *large* amount in moderation? I mean, what if I meet my other nutrient requirements and am still at caloric maintenance (or even at a surplus for the day, but net caloric maintenance over time) while eating sugar?0 -
Anything in excess is not good, but I'm a firm believer that most foods God created won't harm us in moderation.
Yes, and the key words are IN MODERATION. :glasses:0 -
Dude she didn't even say a single word. She didn't even STATE her opinion. She just posted a smart-*kitten* gif and left. I just think that's insulting to everyone. I don't think sugar is evil or addicting either. I just say I can understand why some people THINK it is cos it's pretty easy to habit form around over consumption of sugar. I got no problem with your response.
Are you the thread police?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