Is sugar addiction real?

In for answers on the diagnostic criteria for "sugar addiction" and proof that doesn't involve rats

I don't understand what this comment means?

It means someone likes to argue......and YES, sugar addiction is real.......says about 98% of humans, not rats......seems you are once again outnumbered :laugh: :laugh:

So approx 7 billion people agree that sugar addiction is real? You'd think if that was the case there would be pretty clear and uniform diagnostic criteria for it. Does health insurance typically cover sugar addiction treatment or is there a premier rehab clinic for sugar addiction?

I realize you want to throw the burden of proof on others......but again I ask you, where's your proof? Since you are so opinionated on the subject......got anything to back it up other than your opinion? And the health insurance thing......there is a lot they don't cover, doesn't mean the person's health issue isn't real.

The burden of proof is on the claim maker, so still awaiting you to present your evidence of it's existence. So far we've gotten anecdotal evidence and studies on rats.

waiting.....................zzzzzzzzzzzzzz........that's what I thought. :noway:

You'll have to please quote what claim you want substantiated.

As I said, so far I've only seen you post your opinion about sugar addiction but nothing to back it up. Just proof, plain and simple.......and per your self-imposed rules; no rats, please.

You'll have to please quote what claim you want substantiated. And to quote you "I realize you want to throw the burden of proof on others"

In for answers on the diagnostic criteria for "sugar addiction" and proof that doesn't involve rats

I don't understand what this comment means?

It means someone likes to argue......and YES, sugar addiction is real.......says about 98% of humans, not rats......seems you are once again outnumbered :laugh: :laugh:

So approx 7 billion people agree that sugar addiction is real? You'd think if that was the case there would be pretty clear and uniform diagnostic criteria for it. Does health insurance typically cover sugar addiction treatment or is there a premier rehab clinic for sugar addiction?

I realize you want to throw the burden of proof on others......but again I ask you, where's your proof? Since you are so opinionated on the subject......got anything to back it up other than your opinion? And the health insurance thing......there is a lot they don't cover, doesn't mean the person's health issue isn't real.

The burden of proof is on the claim maker, so still awaiting you to present your evidence of it's existence. So far we've gotten anecdotal evidence and studies on rats.

waiting.....................zzzzzzzzzzzzzz........that's what I thought. :noway:

You'll have to please quote what claim you want substantiated.

As I said, so far I've only seen you post your opinion about sugar addiction but nothing to back it up. Just proof, plain and simple.......and per your self-imposed rules; no rats, please.

You'll have to please quote what claim you want substantiated. And to quote you "I realize you want to throw the burden of proof on others"

I don't necessarily want to throw the burden of proof on others,.........I'm just tired of hearing others opinions vs what scientists have shown to be true. You may not accept it as proof but the medical community does and in MY OPINION that is more than good enough for me. As far as quoting what I want substantiated, it's more your opinion......that's the point. You've never, to my knowledge offered a 'REAL" claim based on anything other than your opinion. And while I'm asking, I would love to know what degrees you hold that back up your opinion. My opinion is not based on me but on the work of respected professors and scientists, which makes it fact not opinion.

I don't think you know what the word fact actually means in the context of this discussion. As for the medical profession accepting it as proof, you'll have to enlighten me why things like sugar addiction are not being included in the new DSM V, if it was a "fact" you'd think it would be included, if not there, you'd think there'd be some mention of it while searching the NIH website or other similar websites. At the very least if it was a fact, you'd think there'd be some universally accepted diagnostic criteria for such an ailment.

If i've never claimed anything in this debate, I fail to see what you want me to substantiate. You are the one making claims left and right, but fail to substantiate any of them.

Is it your opinion "sugar addicts" cannot have sugar in moderation and if so what amount quantifies as moderation?

IDK, but theres' definitely something to it. When I used to do a low carb diet that required quitting sugar completely it wasn't easy. Then once "clean" off the sugar, it was like if I had too much in the form of a simple sugar like cookie, cake, whatnot, it started me craving sugary foods and carbs in general. So to my mind, it's some kind of a trigger for wanting more of itself, so unsure what to call it but an addiction sounds close. Although I know addiction is the topic of the day, and so I hesitate to say it since I know some people are up in arms about the misuse of the word.

For sure though too much sugar makes you want more. That I know.

I beilieve that sugar is addictive, moreover, add wheat to sugar and you're hooked! You can't stop eating...or I can't when I've combined them in the past...bowls of sweetened cereal, cookies, cakes, donuts...couldn't stop til they were all gone...and then I'd crave some more. I read Wheat Belly last December, and it clicked. I stopped eating grains (and also sugar) and I honestly don't want them at all...I don't even think about them anymore.

Congrats! I've been thinking about reading that too. I'm practicing 80/20 primal. I've done it before and felt so much better.

Thanks! Wheat Belly's author is a well respected cardiologist, so the book is factual. I think you'd enjoy it and definitely learn some interesting things. I know many MFP members criticize low carb, but it's what works for me...and others as well. We all individually have to find what works for us, and then Do It.

Pls stop, the book is factual since he is a cardiologist? Did you do any other research on the subject, free of confirmation bias? Here let me help

Fast forward to the last min or so if you don't want to watch the whole thing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9Ucxeiyjpg

Also

http://noglutennoproblem.blogspot.com/2012/03/wheat-belly-busted.html

Point by point critique here:

http://www.aaccnet.org/publications/plexus/cfw/pastissues/2012/OpenDocuments/CFW-57-4-0177.pdf

dr oz is a cardiologist, too.

Are you implying that cardiologists (in general) are wrong...bad...irresponsible? Because that's too much of a generalization for me. If you haven't read the book, don't imply anything about the author. Thanks.

Way to completely miss the point.

In for answers on the diagnostic criteria for "sugar addiction" and proof that doesn't involve rats

I don't understand what this comment means?

It means someone likes to argue......and YES, sugar addiction is real.......says about 98% of humans, not rats......seems you are once again outnumbered :laugh: :laugh:

So approx 7 billion people agree that sugar addiction is real? You'd think if that was the case there would be pretty clear and uniform diagnostic criteria for it. Does health insurance typically cover sugar addiction treatment or is there a premier rehab clinic for sugar addiction?

I realize you want to throw the burden of proof on others......but again I ask you, where's your proof? Since you are so opinionated on the subject......got anything to back it up other than your opinion? And the health insurance thing......there is a lot they don't cover, doesn't mean the person's health issue isn't real.

The burden of proof is on the claim maker, so still awaiting you to present your evidence of it's existence. So far we've gotten anecdotal evidence and studies on rats.

waiting.....................zzzzzzzzzzzzzz........that's what I thought. :noway:

You'll have to please quote what claim you want substantiated.

As I said, so far I've only seen you post your opinion about sugar addiction but nothing to back it up. Just proof, plain and simple.......and per your self-imposed rules; no rats, please.

You'll have to please quote what claim you want substantiated. And to quote you "I realize you want to throw the burden of proof on others"

I don't necessarily want to throw the burden of proof on others,.........I'm just tired of hearing others opinions vs what scientists have shown to be true. You may not accept it as proof but the medical community does and in MY OPINION that is more than good enough for me. As far as quoting what I want substantiated, it's more your opinion......that's the point. You've never, to my knowledge offered a 'REAL" claim based on anything other than your opinion. And while I'm asking, I would love to know what degrees you hold that back up your opinion. My opinion is not based on me but on the work of respected professors and scientists, which makes it fact not opinion.

I don't think you know what the word fact actually means in the context of this discussion. As for the medical profession accepting it as proof, you'll have to enlighten me why things like sugar addiction are not being included in the new DSM V, if it was a "fact" you'd think it would be included, if not there, you'd think there'd be some mention of it while searching the NIH website or other similar websites. At the very least if it was a fact, you'd think there'd be some universally accepted diagnostic criteria for such an ailment.

If i've never claimed anything in this debate, I fail to see what you want me to substantiate. You are the one making claims left and right, but fail to substantiate any of them.

Is it your opinion "sugar addicts" cannot have sugar in moderation and if so what amount quantifies as moderation?

Of course I know what context it's being used. And I think you know exactly what I want you to substantiate but you can't so you keep trying to throw it back to me. We've had this conversation before and I've given you the studies and you refuse to accept them because of the rats. Once again, rats have been used and will continue to be used in studies in relation to humans. Do you know better than the scientists? Still waiting on your degrees too, btw.

You yourself stated I've made no claims, so what do you want substantiated? Also the rat studies withheld food for 12 hrs, how long is that relative to humans? Hint: Not 12 hrs

I have degrees in finance and economics, although not sure what that has anything to do with it.

In for answers on the diagnostic criteria for "sugar addiction" and proof that doesn't involve rats

I don't understand what this comment means?

It means someone likes to argue......and YES, sugar addiction is real.......says about 98% of humans, not rats......seems you are once again outnumbered :laugh: :laugh:

So approx 7 billion people agree that sugar addiction is real? You'd think if that was the case there would be pretty clear and uniform diagnostic criteria for it. Does health insurance typically cover sugar addiction treatment or is there a premier rehab clinic for sugar addiction?

I realize you want to throw the burden of proof on others......but again I ask you, where's your proof? Since you are so opinionated on the subject......got anything to back it up other than your opinion? And the health insurance thing......there is a lot they don't cover, doesn't mean the person's health issue isn't real.

The burden of proof is on the claim maker, so still awaiting you to present your evidence of it's existence. So far we've gotten anecdotal evidence and studies on rats.

waiting.....................zzzzzzzzzzzzzz........that's what I thought. :noway:

You'll have to please quote what claim you want substantiated.

As I said, so far I've only seen you post your opinion about sugar addiction but nothing to back it up. Just proof, plain and simple.......and per your self-imposed rules; no rats, please.

You'll have to please quote what claim you want substantiated. And to quote you "I realize you want to throw the burden of proof on others"

I don't necessarily want to throw the burden of proof on others,.........I'm just tired of hearing others opinions vs what scientists have shown to be true. You may not accept it as proof but the medical community does and in MY OPINION that is more than good enough for me. As far as quoting what I want substantiated, it's more your opinion......that's the point. You've never, to my knowledge offered a 'REAL" claim based on anything other than your opinion. And while I'm asking, I would love to know what degrees you hold that back up your opinion. My opinion is not based on me but on the work of respected professors and scientists, which makes it fact not opinion.

I don't think you know what the word fact actually means in the context of this discussion. As for the medical profession accepting it as proof, you'll have to enlighten me why things like sugar addiction are not being included in the new DSM V, if it was a "fact" you'd think it would be included, if not there, you'd think there'd be some mention of it while searching the NIH website or other similar websites. At the very least if it was a fact, you'd think there'd be some universally accepted diagnostic criteria for such an ailment.

If i've never claimed anything in this debate, I fail to see what you want me to substantiate. You are the one making claims left and right, but fail to substantiate any of them.

Is it your opinion "sugar addicts" cannot have sugar in moderation and if so what amount quantifies as moderation?

Of course I know what context it's being used. And I think you know exactly what I want you to substantiate but you can't so you keep trying to throw it back to me. We've had this conversation before and I've given you the studies and you refuse to accept them because of the rats. Once again, rats have been used and will continue to be used in studies in relation to humans. Do you know better than the scientists? Still waiting on your degrees too, btw.

Rat studies are useful only insofar as they are hypothesis-generating. No scientist worth his/her salt would make claims about humans based solely on animal models.

There were brain scans on humans too but of course those aren't good enough either........pffft

Oh the ones you've yet to produce?