Carb Addict!!!!

Detox. Srsly. Give yourself a couple of weeks off of the sugar. Instead, eat whole grains and fruit. It'll get easier.

Fruit contains sugar too, how is that 'detox'?

The sugar in a little debbie is not the same sugar you get from a fresh fruit. One has completely empty unnatural sugars your body will turn immediately into toxic fat because your body isn't sure what to do with it, the other is nutrient rich and immediately burnable. Plus fruit contains fiber that aides in digestion where a little debbie just "sticks to your thighs".

The only thing true in that paragraph is fruit contains fiber.

If you're going to disagree, at least explain why.. otherwise your statement holds no validity.

Here's my research: http://www.fruitsandveggiesmorematters.org/sugar-in-fruit-vs-table-sugar

Where is yours?

My statement holds validity whether I explain or not. You're confusing your trust process with something else.

Ok, I'll explain why. I'll even read your source.
You write "The sugar in a little debbie is not the same sugar you get from a fresh fruit"

Your sources says "The primary sugar in fruit is fructose". This is patently false - it really depends on the fruit. For example, apricot sugars are mostly sucrose. The same is true for peach, pineapples, carrots and, of course, beets. (Source: memory - but you can read about sugar levels in specific fruit anywhere) Beets are obvious because the are used to manufacture "sucrose".

You say "one has complete empty unnatural sugars your body will turn immediately into toxic fat"
Sucrose is not an unnatural sugar, even HFCS is not unnatural. It's processed, but the sucrose, fructose and other sugar molecules are the same. The processing and purification only removes other thing, it does not alter the chemical composition of these sugars.
Empty? Of what, these are pretty good calorie sources and acceptable as such. Are they lacking in micronutrients? Certainly, but so are many of the things you eat. It's ok, in reasonable quantities. (Like your source says)

Are these sugars turned immediately into toxic fat? Wut? Your source doesn't say that. At all. In fact, sucrose is broken down in the body into.... fructose and glucose. Which are in turn used as energy sources - actual needs, plasma and muscle levels determine if these sugars are going to be stored as such, converted to energy or stored as lipids. There is nothing instant about it. Finally fats are not toxic. Without fat every single cell in your body would be dead, or actually non existent. Lipids make up the cell walls. (Source basic biology)

Immediately burnable? Nope, wrong again. Fruit digestion takes from 1, 2-4 hrs. These is why gel blocks of glucose or other sugars are consumed by athletes for immediate availability. Btw, nothing burns in the body - I understand it is a metaphor, but it's wrong. While ATP generation is and oxidative process like combustion, it is a reversible chemical process. (Again source: basic biology)

Do you eat your cake and cookies in the bathroom stall too?

I finally feel less alone

Sugar and food addictions can lead to anorexia, bulimia, or other ED's that not only destroy relationships but cause death if not controlled. Sugar addictions eventually cause diabetes, renal failure, obesity, and again... death. I'm sorry, but there is nothing trivial about it.

You stand in a dialysis clinic for an hour and listen to the stories of the people stung to a machine who just "couldn't control their food habits" and tell me how "trival" we're making this.

Detox. Srsly. Give yourself a couple of weeks off of the sugar. Instead, eat whole grains and fruit. It'll get easier.

Fruit contains sugar too, how is that 'detox'?

The sugar in a little debbie is not the same sugar you get from a fresh fruit. One has completely empty unnatural sugars your body will turn immediately into toxic fat because your body isn't sure what to do with it, the other is nutrient rich and immediately burnable. Plus fruit contains fiber that aides in digestion where a little debbie just "sticks to your thighs".

I'm tired of people claiming addiction for every little stupid thing...

Exercise some self control...it's food...you are not addicted to anything...you lack self control.

Carb addiction isn't a stupid little thing. Please don't insinuate that people on MFP are lacking self control. It is that thought process that makes people quit their goals all together because they feel hopeless. If weight loss was as easy and simple as having the proper self control, less people would be obese. There is more to it than lack of self control. There are real things as withdrawals from sugar and addiction to sugar.

:flowerforyou:

So...you puke your guts out when you forgo your cookie break? Please...pathetic....

Uh, no. You obviously have a very narrow personal definition of addiction.

^^^^^^ TRUTH.

The sugar in a little debbie is not the same sugar you get from a fresh fruit. One has completely empty unnatural sugars your body will turn immediately into toxic fat because your body isn't sure what to do with it, the other is nutrient rich and immediately burnable. Plus fruit contains fiber that aides in digestion where a little debbie just "sticks to your thighs".

The only thing true in that paragraph is fruit contains fiber.

If you're going to disagree, at least explain why.. otherwise your statement holds no validity.

Here's my research: http://www.fruitsandveggiesmorematters.org/sugar-in-fruit-vs-table-sugar

Where is yours?

My statement holds validity whether I explain or not. You're confusing your trust process with something else.

Ok, I'll explain why. I'll even read your source.
You write "The sugar in a little debbie is not the same sugar you get from a fresh fruit"

Your sources says "The primary sugar in fruit is fructose". This is patently false - it really depends on the fruit. For example, apricot sugars are mostly sucrose. The same is true for peach, pineapples, carrots and, of course, beets. (Source: memory - but you can read about sugar levels in specific fruit anywhere) Beets are obvious because the are used to manufacture "sucrose".

You say "one has complete empty unnatural sugars your body will turn immediately into toxic fat"
Sucrose is not an unnatural sugar, even HFCS is not unnatural. It's processed, but the sucrose, fructose and other sugar molecules are the same. The processing and purification only removes other thing, it does not alter the chemical composition of these sugars.
Empty? Of what, these are pretty good calorie sources and acceptable as such. Are they lacking in micronutrients? Certainly, but so are many of the things you eat. It's ok, in reasonable quantities. (Like your source says)

Are these sugars turned immediately into toxic fat? Wut? Your source doesn't say that. At all. In fact, sucrose is broken down in the body into.... fructose and glucose. Which are in turn used as energy sources - actual needs, plasma and muscle levels determine if these sugars are going to be stored as such, converted to energy or stored as lipids. There is nothing instant about it. Finally fats are not toxic. Without fat every single cell in your body would be dead, or actually non existent. Lipids make up the cell walls. (Source basic biology)

Immediately burnable? Nope, wrong again. Fruit digestion takes from 1, 2-4 hrs. These is why gel blocks of glucose or other sugars are consumed by athletes for immediate availability. Btw, nothing burns in the body - I understand it is a metaphor, but it's wrong. While ATP generation is and oxidative process like combustion, it is a reversible chemical process. (Again source: basic biology)

My "trust process"...? To me you we're just being a that "well actually" guy for no reason. I was trying to help someone not assert my mental dominance. We're aren't here to bash or attack each other, but welcome to the internet I suppose.

Let me further explain my statement then lets call it quits because I won't be continuing this conversation with you or anyone else (aka Mr. "Burn") who isn't here to actually help people.

I asked you to explain your response because it didn't offer advice to the original poster or any of the people seeking advice, you only responded to attack/correct me. And I say "attack" because it had no substance except to damage my comment.

Now on a few points: "The sugar you get from a Little Debbie is not the same sugar" you corrected me by saying they are both of the same source. Yes they are, however one is bleached through processes that cause it to become almost pure carbon which then has a chemical affinity or attraction for calcium and the minute that it gets in your blood it immediately attracts all the calcium that's near it and unites with the calcium making the calcium virtually unusable. So then the systems in your body that need the calcium? Can't use it (aka. teeth, bones etc.). To me, that sounds quite toxic and VERY different then the Frucose it started as which is far more natural and easier on your body. Regular sugar damages your organs and prevents bone repair... Fruit however provides energy

"Empty? Of what..." You answered your own question. Nutrients. If you are going to consume sugar? Why consume the kind that is bad for you? And yes it IS bad for you... most highly processed foods are.

"Finally fats are not toxic..." Not all fats no. But then I never said all fats were, you've politely put that into my statement, thank you. However you are wrong. Toxic fat, scientifically known as visceral fat, is the internal fatty tissue which surrounds vital organs such as the heart, liver, kidney and pancreas.

While the presence of excess fat under the skin (also known as subcutaneous fat) is often obvious, toxic fat is buried deep within us, making it harder to gauge how much fat is there. Toxic fat is more dangerous than the fat near the skin. Toxic fat is known to release dangerous levels of chemicals, including hormones, into the body. Because of this, excess toxic fat can lead to heart disease, type 2 diabetes and several cancers. Where do you think the chemicals used to "bleach" sugars go? Our body can't process them like it can natural fructose... What is can't process? Has to go somewhere if not through the bowels? It ends up in our blood stream which then ends up in our tissues and fat. It's one of many triggers for Acne... and yet a diet that contains fruit clears the skin. Curious...

All I was saying to the girl was.. chose a fruit over a snack cake because the bodies response of the sugar in the two are not the same. Tell me I'm wrong until your blue in the face, but I'd rather see her eat an apple vs. any need to be right.

The sugar in a little debbie is not the same sugar you get from a fresh fruit. One has completely empty unnatural sugars your body will turn immediately into toxic fat because your body isn't sure what to do with it, the other is nutrient rich and immediately burnable. Plus fruit contains fiber that aides in digestion where a little debbie just "sticks to your thighs".

The only thing true in that paragraph is fruit contains fiber.

If you're going to disagree, at least explain why.. otherwise your statement holds no validity.

Here's my research: http://www.fruitsandveggiesmorematters.org/sugar-in-fruit-vs-table-sugar

Where is yours?

My statement holds validity whether I explain or not. You're confusing your trust process with something else.

Ok, I'll explain why. I'll even read your source.
You write "The sugar in a little debbie is not the same sugar you get from a fresh fruit"

Your sources says "The primary sugar in fruit is fructose". This is patently false - it really depends on the fruit. For example, apricot sugars are mostly sucrose. The same is true for peach, pineapples, carrots and, of course, beets. (Source: memory - but you can read about sugar levels in specific fruit anywhere) Beets are obvious because the are used to manufacture "sucrose".

You say "one has complete empty unnatural sugars your body will turn immediately into toxic fat"
Sucrose is not an unnatural sugar, even HFCS is not unnatural. It's processed, but the sucrose, fructose and other sugar molecules are the same. The processing and purification only removes other thing, it does not alter the chemical composition of these sugars.
Empty? Of what, these are pretty good calorie sources and acceptable as such. Are they lacking in micronutrients? Certainly, but so are many of the things you eat. It's ok, in reasonable quantities. (Like your source says)

Are these sugars turned immediately into toxic fat? Wut? Your source doesn't say that. At all. In fact, sucrose is broken down in the body into.... fructose and glucose. Which are in turn used as energy sources - actual needs, plasma and muscle levels determine if these sugars are going to be stored as such, converted to energy or stored as lipids. There is nothing instant about it. Finally fats are not toxic. Without fat every single cell in your body would be dead, or actually non existent. Lipids make up the cell walls. (Source basic biology)

Immediately burnable? Nope, wrong again. Fruit digestion takes from 1, 2-4 hrs. These is why gel blocks of glucose or other sugars are consumed by athletes for immediate availability. Btw, nothing burns in the body - I understand it is a metaphor, but it's wrong. While ATP generation is and oxidative process like combustion, it is a reversible chemical process. (Again source: basic biology)

My "trust process"...? To me you we're just being a that "well actually" guy for no reason. I was trying to help someone not assert my mental dominance. We're aren't here to bash or attack each other, but welcome to the internet I suppose.

Let me further explain my statement then lets call it quits because I won't be continuing this conversation with you or anyone else (aka Mr. "Burn") who isn't here to actually help people.

I asked you to explain your response because it didn't offer advice to the original poster or any of the people seeking advice, you only responded to attack/correct me. And I say "attack" because it had no substance except to damage my comment.

Now on a few points: "The sugar you get from a Little Debbie is not the same sugar" you corrected me by saying they are both of the same source. Yes they are, however one is bleached through processes that cause it to become almost pure carbon which then has a chemical affinity or attraction for calcium and the minute that it gets in your blood it immediately attracts all the calcium that's near it and unites with the calcium making the calcium virtually unusable. So then the systems in your body that need the calcium? Can't use it (aka. teeth, bones etc.). To me, that sounds quite toxic and VERY different then the Frucose it started as which is far more natural and easier on your body. Regular sugar damages your organs and prevents bone repair... Fruit however provides energy

"Empty? Of what..." You answered your own question. Nutrients. If you are going to consume sugar? Why consume the kind that is bad for you? And yes it IS bad for you... most highly processed foods are.

"Finally fats are not toxic..." Not all fats no. But then I never said all fats were, you've politely put that into my statement, thank you. However you are wrong. Toxic fat, scientifically known as visceral fat, is the internal fatty tissue which surrounds vital organs such as the heart, liver, kidney and pancreas.

While the presence of excess fat under the skin (also known as subcutaneous fat) is often obvious, toxic fat is buried deep within us, making it harder to gauge how much fat is there. Toxic fat is more dangerous than the fat near the skin. Toxic fat is known to release dangerous levels of chemicals, including hormones, into the body. Because of this, excess toxic fat can lead to heart disease, type 2 diabetes and several cancers. Where do you think the chemicals used to "bleach" sugars go? Our body can't process them like it can natural fructose... What is can't process? Has to go somewhere if not through the bowels? It ends up in our blood stream which then ends up in our tissues and fat. It's one of many triggers for Acne... and yet a diet that contains fruit clears the skin. Curious...

All I was saying to the girl was.. chose a fruit over a snack cake because the bodies response of the sugar in the two are not the same. Tell me I'm wrong until your blue in the face, but I'd rather see her eat an apple vs. any need to be right.

Wow. You really need to change your information sources, because none of this is factual. Your advice is all actually HARMFUL. Hence people's attempts to correct your misinformation and help anyone else who is reading this thread.

You are also throwing up strawmen right and left to try and defend your position. We are talking about the fats we eat, not the fats that already exists in our bodies. And you are completely wrong about processed sugar. It does NOT change its chemical structure. It is still sucrose, which is made up of one molecule of fructose and one molecule of glucose. Our bodies know exactly how to process and use sucrose, whether it exists in a matrix of cellulose or has been purified.

I'm tired of people claiming addiction for every little stupid thing...

Exercise some self control...it's food...you are not addicted to anything...you lack self control.

Carb addiction isn't a stupid little thing. Please don't insinuate that people on MFP are lacking self control. It is that thought process that makes people quit their goals all together because they feel hopeless. If weight loss was as easy and simple as having the proper self control, less people would be obese. There is more to it than lack of self control. There are real things as withdrawals from sugar and addiction to sugar.

:flowerforyou:

So...you puke your guts out when you forgo your cookie break? Please...pathetic....

Uh, no. You obviously have a very narrow personal definition of addiction.

^^^^^^ TRUTH.

Addiction does, in fact, have a narrow definition.

noun
the state of being enslaved to a habit or practice or to something that is psychologically or physically habit-forming, as narcotics, to such an extent that its cessation causes severe trauma.

I wouldn't say that craving sweets can be equated with severe trauma. Addiction is the latest buzz word that is being thrown around in an effort to shift the blame and guilt that over eating can cause. You all are giving sweets WAY too much power over your lives. Take responsibility for the food choices you make. It really is that simple.

I wish it were that simple.

For some people food is directly connected to emotions that can cause severe habit forming practices. I know this first hand and was almost in patient hospitalized for my addictive issues. Let me paint a picture for you to better understand this. A person craves the things that aren't good for them, something simple like sweets, then immediately feels bad for consuming them. It starts out small, a candy here, a chocolate bar there.. suddenly they realize they are gaining weight which makes them feel horrible which only causes more emotional eating. Now they have to remedy the issue... so they try to reduce eating. It becomes easier and easier to eat less because the see the weight coming off!! But the craving for the sweets are still there, however the affirmation from the weight loss is just as addictive. So what to do? Eat the sweets only find a clever way to dispose of them before destroying the work done to lose the weight. And so you've started an eating disorder... You begin to hate food, you lose muscle, your skin becomes a mess (not unlike that of a heroine addict), your hair starts falling out, you get cramps in your legs and have violent fainting spells... It's only then when you've driven your body into a menopausal state 30 years too early that people intervene to hopefully save your kidney's before they stop functioning.

It took me four years to bounce back from that.

I'm sorry, but unless you've been there? You can't understand what food addictions can really lead to. The mentality is no different then a heroine addict and the consequences can be just as damaging. It's hard to turn the switch off for some people or just "take responsibility for what you eat"... I know is sounds that easy, but that's your experience, not every ones.

I wish it were that simple.

For some people food is directly connected to emotions that can cause severe habit forming practices.

Sugar and food addictions can lead to anorexia, bulimia, or other ED's that not only destroy relationships but cause death if not controlled. Sugar addictions eventually cause diabetes, renal failure, obesity, and again... death. I'm sorry, but there is nothing trivial about it.

You stand in a dialysis clinic for an hour and listen to the stories of the people stung to a machine who just "couldn't control their food habits" and tell me how "trival" we're making this.

These are mental disorders in their own right, not food addiction... and especially not sugar addiction. Anorexics, bulimics, etc. really don't care if what they're eating and purging is a carb or not.

Overeating is a behavioural problem at best. It's like saying every problem child has ADHD.

There are likely some people who have an emotional need to overeat, just like there are likely some children with ADHD. It certainly doesn't count for the vast majority of obesity or being overweight.

I'm tired of people claiming addiction for every little stupid thing...

Exercise some self control...it's food...you are not addicted to anything...you lack self control.

Carb addiction isn't a stupid little thing. Please don't insinuate that people on MFP are lacking self control. It is that thought process that makes people quit their goals all together because they feel hopeless. If weight loss was as easy and simple as having the proper self control, less people would be obese. There is more to it than lack of self control. There are real things as withdrawals from sugar and addiction to sugar.

:flowerforyou:

So...you puke your guts out when you forgo your cookie break? Please...pathetic....

Uh, no. You obviously have a very narrow personal definition of addiction.

^^^^^^ TRUTH.

Addiction does, in fact, have a narrow definition.

noun
the state of being enslaved to a habit or practice or to something that is psychologically or physically habit-forming, as narcotics, to such an extent that its cessation causes severe trauma.

I wouldn't say that craving sweets can be equated with severe trauma. Addiction is the latest buzz word that is being thrown around in an effort to shift the blame and guilt that over eating can cause. You all are giving sweets WAY too much power over your lives. Take responsibility for the food choices you make. It really is that simple.

I wish it were that simple.

For some people food is directly connected to emotions that can cause severe habit forming practices. I know this first hand and was almost in patient hospitalized for my addictive issues. Let me paint a picture for you to better understand this. A person craves the things that aren't good for them, something simple like sweets, then immediately feels bad for consuming them. It starts out small, a candy here, a chocolate bar there.. suddenly they realize they are gaining weight which makes them feel horrible which only causes more emotional eating. Now they have to remedy the issue... so they try to reduce eating. It becomes easier and easier to eat less because the see the weight coming off!! But the craving for the sweets are still there, however the affirmation from the weight loss is just as addictive. So what to do? Eat the sweets only find a clever way to dispose of them before destroying the work done to lose the weight. And so you've started an eating disorder... You begin to hate food, you lose muscle, your skin becomes a mess (not unlike that of a heroine addict), your hair starts falling out, you get cramps in your legs and have violent fainting spells... It's only then when you've driven your body into a menopausal state 30 years too early that people intervene to hopefully save your kidney's before they stop functioning.

It took me four years to bounce back from that.

I'm sorry, but unless you've been there? You can't understand what food addictions can really lead to. The mentality is no different then a heroine addict and the consequences can be just as damaging. It's hard to turn the switch off for some people or just "take responsibility for what you eat"... I know is sounds that easy, but that's your experience, not every ones.

ED are a mental illness. Not an addiction issue. I have great respect for what you have gone through, having issues of my own. However, it is harmful to classify mental illness in the context of an addiction to food. Your struggles were the result of an untreated mental illness. :flowerforyou:

I wish it were that simple.

For some people food is directly connected to emotions that can cause severe habit forming practices.

This is the point everyone is trying to get you to understand. The desire to eat food is caused by emotions, not the food itself. You are not addicted to carbs, sugar, or any other food. You are eating in response to an underlying cause not related to food. The problem is the behavioral response, not the food or any chemical within the food. It really is that simple.