Research into sugar addiction.

Ah yes. A couple of threads where people opined the topic top death. Any research in those threads? What page?

Guys, note I didn't make any research post based on unfounded opinion. I even asked for research that invalidates the premise. This isn't about opinions. Science. Supported evidence is my aim.

I don't give a twig and two berries what you believe if you won't support it with evidence. Work with me here.

Ah, I see.... so your thread is different from every other sugar is / is not addictive thread.

Got it now.

Well..it is different from the threads I've personally seen so far. Granted, I've not seen them all. However we have people actually utilizing the internet to post and find relevant scientific research on the subject in this thread.

Do you actually have anything constructive along those lines, or just tired, worn out, pretentious commits masked in jaded indifference? Opinion based on nothing of substance? If that is all you have, then, brother, I'll tell you that has been around since the days of 56k dial up bb's.

Come on, man. Put up some relevant research. That's what I'm looking for.

Frankly, I'm not that interested in playing your little game. Go do your own searches in pubmed. Or not. I'm not that interested. Plus I can tell by your attitude that nothing about an ensuing discussion of scientific facts would be pleasant.

For those of you that don't believe that sugar is addicting..............try living with someone that is a sugar addict.

I don't buy it. He sneaks and eats it at work. He "has" to have it.........goes through similar withdrawal symptoms that someone that is an alcoholic goes through when he doesn't have sugar.

At home he way over consumes fruit, fruit and more fruit. He loves the sweetest fruits. It throws his blood work off.

It's very frustrating to say the least.

Do you actually have anything constructive along those lines, or just tired, worn out, pretentious commits masked in jaded indifference? Opinion based on nothing of substance? If that is all you have, then, brother, I'll tell you that has been around since the days of 56k dial up bb's.

Actually, I don't think I've expressed an opinion. You may have assumed my opinion by the 'tone' of my posts.... you might be surprised by my actual opinion. But, as you've stated, you're not looking for opinions. You want facts. For that, I got nothin'.

Ah yes. A couple of threads where people opined the topic top death. Any research in those threads? What page?

Guys, note I didn't make any research post based on unfounded opinion. I even asked for research that invalidates the premise. This isn't about opinions. Science. Supported evidence is my aim.

I don't give a twig and two berries what you believe if you won't support it with evidence. Work with me here.

Ah, I see.... so your thread is different from every other sugar is / is not addictive thread.

Got it now.

Well..it is different from the threads I've personally seen so far. Granted, I've not seen them all. However we have people actually utilizing the internet to post and find relevant scientific research on the subject in this thread.

Do you actually have anything constructive along those lines, or just tired, worn out, pretentious commits masked in jaded indifference? Opinion based on nothing of substance? If that is all you have, then, brother, I'll tell you that has been around since the days of 56k dial up bb's.

Come on, man. Put up some relevant research. That's what I'm looking for.

Frankly, I'm not that interested in playing your little game. Go do your own searches in pubmed. Or not. I'm not that interested. Plus I can tell by your attitude that nothing about an ensuing discussion of scientific facts would be pleasant.

I care, and I am curious about the research out there. I find it fascinating. The question, "is sugar addictive?" Is a good one. Research outcomes that display for or against the point are what is being asked for at this forum, to be evaluated, discussed, compared and contrasted.

Great! I never said it wasn't a worthy topic of discussion. What you really want to do is look for primary research. The results of scientific studies, rather than news articles or magazine articles where the author is trying to sum up the data from these published scientific studies. Because then you are exposed to the author's bias.

Go here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/

Have fun! :flowerforyou:

Ah yes. A couple of threads where people opined the topic top death. Any research in those threads? What page?

Guys, note I didn't make any research post based on unfounded opinion. I even asked for research that invalidates the premise. This isn't about opinions. Science. Supported evidence is my aim.

I don't give a twig and two berries what you believe if you won't support it with evidence. Work with me here.

Ah, I see.... so your thread is different from every other sugar is / is not addictive thread.

Got it now.

Well..it is different from the threads I've personally seen so far. Granted, I've not seen them all. However we have people actually utilizing the internet to post and find relevant scientific research on the subject in this thread.

Do you actually have anything constructive along those lines, or just tired, worn out, pretentious commits masked in jaded indifference? Opinion based on nothing of substance? If that is all you have, then, brother, I'll tell you that has been around since the days of 56k dial up bb's.

Come on, man. Put up some relevant research. That's what I'm looking for.

Frankly, I'm not that interested in playing your little game. Go do your own searches in pubmed. Or not. I'm not that interested. Plus I can tell by your attitude that nothing about an ensuing discussion of scientific facts would be pleasant.

I care, and I am curious about the research out there. I find it fascinating. The question, "is sugar addictive?" Is a good one. Research outcomes that display for or against the point are what is being asked for at this forum, to be evaluated, discussed, compared and contrasted.

Great! I never said it wasn't a worthy topic of discussion. What you really want to do is look for primary research. The results of scientific studies, rather than news articles or magazine articles where the author is trying to sum up the data from these published scientific studies. Because then you are exposed to the author's bias.

Go here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/

Have fun! :flowerforyou:

Thanks, Bloom.

Mr Knight,

I think you have a very narrow definition of addiction and you really have not added anything of value here. I'm going to post the definition of addiction here because I'll admit I'm a little shocked at the lack of understanding of what defines addiction.

Addiction

Main Entry: ad·dic·tion Pronunciation: \ə-ˈdik-shən\
Function: noun: 

compulsive physiological need for and use of a habit-forming substance (as heroin, nicotine, alcohol) characterized by tolerance and by well-defined physiological symptoms upon withdrawal; 

broadly : persistent compulsive use of a substance known by the user to be physically, psychologically, or socially harmful.



There are studies posted above that show sugar creates habit forming psychological and physiological changes. There is evidence posted above that demonstrates the removal of sugar can generate physiological symptoms and signs in the brain.

There is growing evidence that the amount/quantity of sugar consumed in the American diet is harmful.

Do you have any research, scientific articles, data that refutes the information already posted?

1. The consumption of sugar is actually lower than it was 100 years ago, why is it suddenly harmful now if it wasn't then?

2. Exercise has been shown to have those same brain effects. As I've already said, those are generally normal mental functions that illicit drugs co-opt. They aren't "drug addict reactions" that food somehow emulates.

3. There really isn't enough science to even come close to validating the "sugar is an addiction" hypothesis. The closest I've seen is a study where scientists said it MIGHT be possible.

Someone recently posted a study refuting the entire hypothesis, but I don't have it in front of me, and I seem to have lost the thread it was in. I'll try to track it down.

Thanks, tiger. Would love to see it.

For those of you that don't believe that sugar is addicting..............try living with someone that is a sugar addict.

I don't buy it. He sneaks and eats it at work. He "has" to have it.........goes through similar withdrawal symptoms that someone that is an alcoholic goes through when he doesn't have sugar.

At home he way over consumes fruit, fruit and more fruit. He loves the sweetest fruits. It throws his blood work off.

It's very frustrating to say the least.

So what does he do? Buy bags of sugar and eat it straight? I don't get how a sugar 'addiction' works.

He has had sugar poisoning when he was a kid and broke out in blisters that left scars on a few parts of his body...

He used to eat sugar right out of the bowl on the kitchen table..........started when he was a kid and still does this.

He can eat a whole cake or batch of cookies if I bake it in a very short time. His body craves sugar like an alcoholic craves alcohol.

1. The consumption of sugar is actually lower than it was 100 years ago, why is it suddenly harmful now if it wasn't then?

1. According to whom? Seriously, I would like to read that information.

I'm not sure what the poster you are responding to had in mind, but I do know when this topic came up before it turned out that the recent increase in sugar consumption is a fraction of the increase in sugar consumption that occurred in the US between Independence (1776) and 1930. That previous era had an 8-fold (700%) increase, and since then has gone up barely 50%.

And somehow, that earlier larger, longer ramp in sugar consumption didn't cause obesity problems or any other kind of problems.

I'm afraid the key to this health riddle is not what the Sugar Nazis want it to be.

Here's an article that uses the dsm-iv criteria to classify food addictions. Gives a good framework to establish a definition of what an addiction is, and how it relates to food.


Refined food addiction: A classic substance use disorder

q J.R. Ifland a,*, H.G. Preuss b, M.T. Marcus c, K.M. Rourke a, W.C. Taylor d,
K. Burau d, W.S. Jacobs e, W. Kadish a, G. Manso f

Received 22 October 2008 Accepted 6 November 2008

summary
Overeating in industrial societies is a significant problem, linked to an increasing incidence of overweight and obesity, and the resultant adverse health consequences. We advance the hypothesis that a possible explanation for overeating is that processed foods with high concentrations of sugar and other refined sweeteners, refined carbohydrates, fat, salt, and caffeine are addictive substances. Therefore, many people lose control over their ability to regulate their consumption of such foods. The loss of control over these foods could account for the global epidemic of obesity and other metabolic disorders. We assert that overeating can be described as an addiction to refined foods that conforms to the DSM-IV criteria for sub- stance use disorders. To examine the hypothesis, we relied on experience with self-identified refined foods addicts, as well as critical reading of the literature on obesity, eating behavior, and drug addiction. Reports by self-identified food addicts illustrate behaviors that conform to the 7 DSM-IV criteria for sub- stance use disorders. The literature also supports use of the DSM-IV criteria to describe overeating as a substance use disorder. The observational and empirical data strengthen the hypothesis that certain refined food consumption behaviors meet the criteria for substance use disorders, not unlike tobacco and alcohol. This hypothesis could lead to a new diagnostic category, as well as therapeutic approaches to changing overeating behaviors.

Conclusion
The epidemic of illness related to overweight and obesity is a public health problem of great significance. Unfortunately, pa- tients’ attempts to reduce weight have been disturbingly resistant to known treatment approaches. In this paper, we advanced the hypothesis that a fundamental reason for this failure is that many people suffer from an addiction to refined foods. The observational and empirical data in support of this hypothesis were discussed in the framework of the DSM-IV criteria for addictive disorders. Although these findings do not establish the existence of such a syndrome, they are sufficiently compelling to warrant further basic and clinical research.
The hypothesis for refined food addiction is attractive because it provides an explanatory context by which the obesity epidemic and its myriad adverse health consequences can be understood in the same framework as the epidemic of tobacco addiction and its attendant consequences. The syndrome may also be understood in the framework of addictions and evolution, ‘‘Psychoactive sub- stances. . . disrupt the very emotions that evolved to regulate our behavior. They arouse reward mechanism artificially, thus stimu- lating the circuits that are normally fired by an events that provide a huge gain in fitness; but they provide no fitness gain, they simply create an illusion” [77].
In the absence of an addiction framework, irrational overeating of refined foods remains a puzzle without a solution. With the pos- sible validation of the refined food addiction syndrome, the health community could move forward with recommendations of absti- nence from specific substances. We sincerely hope that the addic- tion research community will explore this hypothesis with targeted research.


Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Relation of Reward From Food Intake and Anticipated Food Intake to Obesity: A Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Study

Eric Stice and Sonja Spoor Cara Bohon Oregon Research Institute University of Oregon
Marga G. Veldhuizen and Dana M. Small Yale University and John B. Pierce Laboratory

The authors tested the hypothesis that obese individuals experience greater reward from food consump- tion (consummatory food reward) and anticipated consumption (anticipatory food reward) than lean individuals using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) with 33 adolescent girls (mean age ???? 15.7, SD ???? 0.9). Obese relative to lean adolescent girls showed greater activation bilaterally in the gustatory cortex (anterior and mid insula, frontal operculum) and in somatosensory regions (parietal operculum and Rolandic operculum) in response to anticipated intake of chocolate milkshake (vs. a tasteless solution) and to actual consumption of milkshake (vs. a tasteless solution); these brain regions encode the sensory and hedonic aspects of food. However, obese relative to lean adolescent girls also showed decreased activation in the caudate nucleus in response to consumption of milkshake versus a tasteless solution, potentially because they have reduced dopamine receptor availability. Results suggest that individuals who show greater activation in the gustatory cortex and somatosensory regions in response to anticipation and consumption of food, but who show weaker activation in the striatum during food intake, may be at risk for overeating and consequent weight gain.

Ugh, Taubes has actually been discredited and torn to shreds many times. He completely cherry picks his work, ignoring and hiding any information that refutes his pet theory (which is actually about as unscientific as you can get.)

He's also been involved in a few scandals for unethical behavior, stemming from his various books. Fabricating evidence, intentionally misrepresenting data. He's certainly NOT a trustworthy source.

Ugh, Taubes has actually been discredited and torn to shreds many times. He completely cherry picks his work, ignoring and hiding any information that refutes his pet theory (which is actually about as unscientific as you can get.)

He's also been involved in a few scandals for unethical behavior, stemming from his various books. Fabricating evidence, intentionally misrepresenting data. He's certainly NOT a trustworthy source.

He's great at what he sets out to do though. And that is to make a lot of money selling books.

For a look at a critique of one of his books by an actual scientist, look below. It backs up what Tiger is saying.
http://weightology.net/?p=265