Carb Addict!!!!

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 it 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 it 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.

Yes, trust process. As in you trust a blog or web site that has poor reference and poor info.

I do not wish to come across as attacking you - but am focusing on the information you provided. Which was poor.

Sucrose is now suddenly almost pure carbon and therefore leaches calcium? Please provide us with your "scientific reference" for this.

Your "processed food is bad and sugar is processed so therefore bad" is called a circular argument. You still need to provide how sugar, in reasonable limited quantity is bad. Hint: it isn't.

The rest of your post just makes no sense. Simply because white sugar is not bleached. White is just the color of pure sucrose. No bleach. I really don't know where you get your info, but start looking for other sources.

Don't tell yourself you can't have it, that often leads to eating a ton of it later. If you want it, have a little but just be in moderation and add it to your log. I eat chocolate or a cookie EVERY single day but I'm losing weight because I just have small amounts and fit it into my daily allotment.

One thing that helps me to have less is to put it off. I want a cookie? Then I can have one. In an hour. When the hour is up I tell myself to wait again for an hour. Usually I will finally have it at some point in the evening but by saying I CAN have it, just later, I don't feel as deprived. Then only having one feels just fine.

I'm off to do a line of ice cream off a stripper's stomach.

Hum.

Actually, that doesn't sound all that bad . . .

I'm off to do a line of ice cream off a stripper's stomach.

Hum.

Actually, that doesn't sound all that bad . . .

Make sure to log the calories from the glitter.

I'm a carb addict, too. Those on this list who think carb addiction is just a sweet tooth, or that it's possible to just 'cut out' carbs for a week or two, just don't know what carb addiction is like. It's not that I crave sweets. I like pasta, pastries, potatoes, pizza, bread, rice, corn,- I guess it's all the white foods we're supposed to resist. I can resist - for about half a day. Then I need to get a carb fix or I get irritable. I could actually list in this post the foods I'm willing to eat, but that would get boring for other readers.

The question is how do you recover from a carb addiction. You can't just stop cold turkey - at least, I can't.

You are talking about SUGAR, not carbs. When I think of carbs, I think of things like rice, veggies, etc. If you go back to starches that you find in nature (i.e. not anything in a box or a wrapper), you'll be fine. Good luck! And don't forget nature's "candy" -- fruit! :drinker:

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 can't agree with you. First, I wish you'd stop being so condescending, it's "harmful" to treat people with disrespect because you have a different opinion of something. We are all adults here and responding with respect is so much more constructive.

Let me respond to this new rebuttal with the resources you've asked for. According to the National Institute of Drug Abuse, addiction is (like you've classified ED) is a mental disorder. By definition "Addiction changes the brain, disturbing the normal hierarchy of needs and desires". This is pretty much what ED is.. even by your definition. Having experienced it to a life threatening degree myself? I know what the symptoms were like... You go though the same steps a drug addict does. Lying, denial, relapses, it's not as cut and paste as it appears you're trying to make it sound. Experts across the nation are likening it to addiction, people who study this clinically and unless you happen to be a doctor? I'm inclined to take their word for it. Just one link of many to proof: http://www.health.com/health/article/0,,20538012,00.html

Thank you for respecting what I've gone though, but KNOWING what I've gone though is an incredibly different scenario.

To address your other statement... All I had written was taken directly word for word from the resources I found. Wikipedia (one how sugar is processed) Dr. David Reuben (again a doctor, vs. random person/blog on the internet), Joy Dubost, R.D (nutritionist). All of them state that the way fruit and fruit sugars are used are different then candy and cakes sugars. One comes with nutrients the other does not... one is refined sugar is highly concentrated and has additional chemicals. I never said the chemical compound was changed, it's obviously still sugar, but how it's processed impedes the calcium in your system from repairing bones. This was a direct quote from a doctor... and I've absolutely done my research. I'm not saying you have not? But what information we are supplied is what we have to go on and there are so many varied studies and opinions it's difficult to know what is ever right (hell 5-7 years ago eggs were bad).. Anyway, despite all of this no one is going to tell me that Twinkies are better or equal to apples, I know how my body feels reacting to each over those and only one of them is a big No No.

But, like I said, have your win. As much as I enjoy debating, I prefer doing it with people who are open to talking with each other respectfully vs. battling each other with an air of patronizing superiority. This is about helping others not insulting their intelligence.