Need serious help with SUGAR!!!!

perseverance14 · January 2014

This is from PubMed, not my personal opinion, but it agrees with what I have been trying to say (and jumped on over and over for it) in this topic:

Contemporary research has shown that a high number of alcohol-dependent and other drug-dependent individuals have a sweet preference, specifically for foods with a high sucrose concentration. Moreover, both human and animal studies have demonstrated that in some brains the consumption of sugar-rich foods or drinks primes the release of euphoric endorphins and dopamine within the nucleus accumbens, in a manner similar to some drugs of abuse. The neurobiological pathways of drug and "sugar addiction" involve similar neural receptors, neurotransmitters, and hedonic regions in the brain. Craving, tolerance, withdrawal and sensitization have been documented in both human and animal studies. In addition, there appears to be cross sensitization between sugar addiction and narcotic dependence in some individuals. It has also been observed that the biological children of alcoholic parents, particularly alcoholic fathers, are at greater risk to have a strong sweet preference, and this may manifest in some with an eating disorder. In the last two decades research has noted that specific genes may underlie the sweet preference in alcohol- and drug-dependent individuals, as well as in biological children of paternal alcoholics. There also appears to be some common genetic markers between alcohol dependence, bulimia, and obesity, such as the A1 allele gene and the dopamine 2 receptor gene.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20648910

perseverance14 · January 2014

No idea what this has to do with anything.

It is exactly what I have been talking about the whole time, which YOU (and your cohorts) keep trying to turn into something completely different, I really should just put you all on ignore and be done with it.

perseverance14 · January 2014

So how much of the thread did you actually read? Try reading it.

And you know what I think? Every time somebody posts something that doesn't agree with what you and your cohorts think, you attack them, how about you keep your opinion of what I posted to yourself, I don't remember asking.

prattiger65 · January 2014

So how much of the thread did you actually read? Try reading it.

And you know what I think? Every time somebody posts something that doesn't agree with what you and your cohorts think, you attack them, how about you keep your opinion of what I posted to yourself, I don't remember asking.

I have read this entire thread. I haven't seen Jon attack anyone. I have seen him attack weak arguments. So far, it looks like he is the only one who has been attacked personally. There is quite a bit of nonsense in this thread and the problem is that people who don't know enough may believe it. It is absolutely right to challenge weak arguments and downright nonsense. If you hang around here for a while, you will understand.

jonnythan · January 2014

I have read this entire thread. I haven't seen Jon attack anyone. I have seen him attack weak arguments. So far, it looks like he is the only one who has been attacked personally.

I appreciate that.

samanthajoellen · January 2014

I say you do not need to stop eating sugar... moderation is fine. I like the 100 calorie packs of cookies or chocolate covered pretzels! They are enough to fix the craving!

parkscs · January 2014

After catching up on this thread, I'm more convinced than ever that you guys are simply arguing semantics and getting lost in the weeds. There's no medical study that conclusively proves sugar is not addicting to some people, nor are there studies suggesting that it is addicting. At a minimum, there's at least some evidence out there that sugar can cause some addiction-like behavior. The real question in my mind is when someone feels they are addicted to sugary foods, what's the solution? Although, I suspect if there was a good answer to that question, a lot fewer people would be overweight.

jonnythan · January 2014

After catching up on this thread, I'm more convinced than ever that you guys are simply arguing semantics and getting lost in the weeds. There's no medical study that conclusively proves sugar is not addicting to some people, nor are there studies suggesting that it is addicting. At a minimum, there's at least some evidence out there that sugar can cause some addiction-like behavior. The real question in my mind is when someone feels they are addicted to sugary foods, what's the solution? Although, I suspect if there was a good answer to that question, a lot fewer people would be overweight.

Clearly the answer to sugar addiction is to eat sugar. That's why people recommend fruit to "sugar addicts."

chopperkat · January 2014

I have a problem with sugar too! Sounds a lot like your problem. Glad I found this thread. Hopefully, after reading all the posts, I will find a way to give it up!

__freckles__ · January 2014

So how much of the thread did you actually read? Try reading it.

And you know what I think? Every time somebody posts something that doesn't agree with what you and your cohorts think, you attack them, how about you keep your opinion of what I posted to yourself, I don't remember asking.

I have read this entire thread. I haven't seen Jon attack anyone. I have seen him attack weak arguments. So far, it looks like he is the only one who has been attacked personally. There is quite a bit of nonsense in this thread and the problem is that people who don't know enough may believe it. It is absolutely right to challenge weak arguments and downright nonsense. If you hang around here for a while, you will understand.

QFT.

cd_va · January 2014

It's not an addiction, but habitual. Takes about 21 days of consistent behavior to form a habit. You just need to form a new habit. Set aside what ever treats you like in a measured portion for that day and STICK TO IT. Do it for 21 days and see if you can stick to that habit. But you HAVE to want to do this. Don't go in with the case of the "well-uhs":

"Well uh this happened"
"Well uh I wanted more"
"Well uh I don't think I can do it"

Unless you change the habit, it will continue.

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

Love this advice! I'm working on reducing sugar, also, and I'm feeling much better after almost a month of closely watching my sugar intake. I'm wondering, from all those years of ingesting all that sugar, and feeling so bad, what the documented negative effects of refined sugar are on the body.

jayrudq · January 2014

Now I feel bad that I haven't been personally attacked. No fair.

perseverance14 · January 2014

Any point I have made has been totally ignored, like what I posted from PubMed, I never said alcohol had sugar or that they were the same thing, I said I thought they affected the same sensors (read what I posted from PubMed, research says that is true).

I can see it is a waste of time trying to discuss any opinion other than the one that agrees with the bullies in this forum.

RhineDHP · January 2014

I once snorted Pixie Sticks.

I dunno, felt it was relevant to the direction the forum thread has headed into.

jayrudq · January 2014

Great. Now I feel bad that I haven't been personally attacked. Jon gets the naughty chair, the wooden spoon, and all the attacks? No fair.

opps edited for I get the wine...

perseverance14 · January 2014

Now I feel bad that I haven't been personally attacked. No fair.

How passive-aggressive of you.

MarlaVSings · January 2014

"A cocaine addiction is a physical dependence."

Cocaine is not physically addictive. It is psychologically addictive.

Also, for people who do not believe in "food addiction", I'd like to know if you also do not believe in things like gambling addiction? Gambling is not physically addictive, yet it has destroyed many lives. To be fair though, I wouldn't really call either ones true addictions, but definitely compulsions, and they still have the power to cause highs, crashes, feelings of comfort or control. Making blanket statements like belittling the idea of food being addictive is very insensitive.

There were a couple of book suggestions in this thread and I'd like to suggest one as well. It's called "The End of Overeating" by Dr David Kessler. The main message of this book is how the food industry manipulates food, and how thoroughly they have researched ways to get us high - and addicted to their food - by perfecting the proportions of fat/sugar/salt in foods to get our blood sugars to spike, neurotransmitters to go haywire, and pleasure centers of our brain to be stimulated by their food. There was a section on milk production and how it is manipulated in order to increase stimulation of opioid receptors in our brains, when we drink it, and this makes perfect sense for me. Growing up we always had processed milk in the house and I drank it like crazy (for anyone who may not know, lactose is a sugar). A few years ago I started drinking only organic milk and noticed I did not have the powerful cravings I used to have for milk. I now only drink it rarely, and anytime it's processed I have to have several glasses at once.

Anyways, my point hereis if anyone is snickering at the possibility of food addiction, then why has the food industry spent so much time on R&D to get us hooked if food addiction supposedly isn't possible?

jayrudq · January 2014

Now I feel bad that I haven't been personally attacked. No fair.

How passive-aggressive of you.

Really? I think I do passive aggressive as well as most, and occasionally I rise to the occasion and excel. In this case, I was just feeling sorry for myself.

goldthistime · January 2014

I had a look at the Wikipedia entry for Sugar Addiction. Prior to July 2013 it appears that the wiki community leaned toward the idea of sugar addiction being valid. Now most of the earlier entry is still there, but laced with disclaimers like "factual accuracy is disputed", "dubious", and my favourite, "weasel words". At one time the term Internet Addiction Disorder (IAD) caught on, but now the term Problematic Internet Usage (PIU) is in vogue. Perhaps we can settle on PSU, obviously for Problematic Sugar Usage. (DSM authors, I hope you are reading this).

Tabbycat54 · January 2014

I find that I can actually do the little bits of sugar (lightly sweetened tea, koolaid, sharing a normal sized candy bar with my boyfriend, etc.) I am in the same boat that you are. I use another app in conjunction with MFP called My Diet Coach because of the panic button. Because I too am a stress eater, I'm terrible when it comes to the stress of my job and craving sweets. I drive by Braum's on the way home from work and the gym every day and I love ice cream more than almost any sweet. I know it's coming, so I press my panic button (a stopwatch also works), set it for 15 minutes, and wait it out. I know that when I get home, I can have a small cup of tea (I prefer Lipton's Orange, Passionfruit, and Jasmine) with a teaspoon of sugar in it. That is a total of 15 calories rather than 300+. Also, I love Kool-Aid and that also helps that OMG I NEED SUGAR RIGHT NOW!!! craving (60 calories with a singles pack). Just know that you can do it, just beast through it.

jayrudq · January 2014

Sorry. Statistically speaking, gambling is a diagnosable disorder.
"While gambling disorder is the only addictive disorder included in DSM-5 as a diagnosable condition,
Internet gaming disorder will be included in Section III of the manual. Disorders listed there require
further research before their consideration as formal disorders. This condition is included to reflect the
scientific literature on persistent and recurrent use of Internet games, and a preoccupation with them,
can result in clinically significant impairment or distress. Much of this literature comes from studies in
Asian countries. The condition criteria do not include general use of the Internet, gambling, or social
media at this time."
Instead of internet games, maybe...
Lots of folks quibble with the DSM and DSM V is quite controversial. Argue away...

MarlaVSings · January 2014

Anyways, OP (if you're still actually reading this thread anymore, haha), I have major problems with sugar, milk, carbs, chocolate, alcohol - not like as an alcoholic, but more like it makes me binge eat like crazy, even just a sip of white wine and I go off on eating binges. In the past I have tried to go cold turkey on the carbs, Atkins-induction-style, and I've made it a few times but wouldn't last very long.

Cold turkey may work for you but I know it does not work for me. Right now I try to keep my carb intake between 100-125g/day. I stay away from highly processed carbs or "whites" like bread, rice, etc.. I still do get cravings for sweets now, but nowhere near as bad as I used to and I can *usually* keep them at bay with willpower. Also, I have just started up exercising again. I don't know if you exercise, but when you do your body starts to store sugars and use them more efficiently instead of just flooding your bloodstream, which later causes you to crash and need more carbs. So, again, I don't know if you are exercising or not, but I thought I'd throw that out there too.

perseverance14 · January 2014

I had a look at the Wikipedia entry for Sugar Addiction. Prior to July 2013 it appears that the wiki community leaned toward the idea of sugar addiction being valid. Now most of the earlier entry is still there, but laced with disclaimers like "factual accuracy is disputed", "dubious", and my favourite, "weasel words". At one time the term Internet Addiction Disorder (IAD) caught on, but now the term Problematic Internet Usage (PIU) is in vogue. Perhaps we can settle on PSU, obviously for Problematic Sugar Usage. (DSM authors, I hope you are reading this).

Wikipeida? Let me quote what Wikipedia says about Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is not considered a credible source. Wikipedia is increasingly used by people in the academic community, from freshman students to professors, as an easily accessible tertiary source for information about anything and everything. However, citation of Wikipedia in research papers may be considered unacceptable, because Wikipedia is not considered a credible or authoritative source.[1][2]
This is especially true considering anyone can edit the information given at any time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Academic_use

HappyStack · January 2014

So how much of the thread did you actually read? Try reading it.

And you know what I think? Every time somebody posts something that doesn't agree with what you and your cohorts think, you attack them, how about you keep your opinion of what I posted to yourself, I don't remember asking.

Just because someone posts something that isn't an agreement doesn't mean they're attacking you.

And, perhaps, someone is posting something that isn't opinion but rooted in fact - not factoids, or abstracts of studies that may or may not be completely misinterpreted.

Here's the thing. Nobody here is asking you to lend their words any more credence than you would another stranger on the internet. Believing us without question is the same as believing something from holistic-bullcrap.com without question.

What we do is we give you pertinent opposing information to then go off and research more fully for yourself.

If that strengthens your initial position, great. If it makes you change your beliefs, great. All that means is everybody is engaging in healthy - open-minded - debate and becoming more knowledgeable as a result, and how can that be a bad thing?

MarlaVSings · January 2014

Sorry. Statistically speaking, gambling is a diagnosable disorder.
"While gambling disorder is the only addictive disorder included in DSM-5 as a diagnosable condition,
Internet gaming disorder will be included in Section III of the manual. Disorders listed there require
further research before their consideration as formal disorders. This condition is included to reflect the
scientific literature on persistent and recurrent use of Internet games, and a preoccupation with them,
can result in clinically significant impairment or distress. Much of this literature comes from studies in
Asian countries. The condition criteria do not include general use of the Internet, gambling, or social
media at this time."
Instead of internet games, maybe...
Lots of folks quibble with the DSM and DSM V is quite controversial. Argue away...

Yes, but I'm trying to say that gambling is no more a physical addiction than food addiction, you don't snort or inject it, there are no receptors or buildup of tolerance or physical withdrawal. At least the parts of food themselves enter your bloodstream, yet people seem to accept gambling disorders as addictions more readily than food as an addiction for some people. I think it could be because more folks are able to relate to the effects of gambling addiction (losing money, your home, your family...) than food addiction, but I don't know.

perseverance14 · January 2014

So how much of the thread did you actually read? Try reading it.

And you know what I think? Every time somebody posts something that doesn't agree with what you and your cohorts think, you attack them, how about you keep your opinion of what I posted to yourself, I don't remember asking.

Just because someone posts something that isn't an agreement doesn't mean they're attacking you.

And, perhaps, someone is posting something that isn't opinion but rooted in fact - not factoids, or abstracts of studies that may or may not be completely misinterpreted.

Here's the thing. Nobody here is asking you to lend their words any more credence than you would another stranger on the internet. Believing us without question is the same as believing something from holistic-bullcrap.com without question.

What we do is we give you pertinent opposing information to then go off and research more fully for yourself.

If that strengthens your initial position, great. If it makes you change your beliefs, great. All that means is everybody is engaging in healthy - open-minded - debate and becoming more knowledgeable as a result, and how can that be a bad thing?

You won't even get me to take you the least bit seriously if I can't make a point (and I posted an abstract about from PubMed that agreed with that point) without everything I said being twisted around, there is such a thing as discussion, instead of "I don't see what that has to do with anything".

parkscs · January 2014

Clearly the answer to sugar addiction is to eat sugar. That's why people recommend fruit to "sugar addicts."

If they meant substituting a piece of cake with an apple, that's probably not a horrible idea unless your life is miserable when you don't eat cake. If they meant fruit doesn't contain sugar... maybe um... avocado? Nope, still a little sugar there. I can't explain it.

HappyStack · January 2014

You won't even get me to take you the least bit seriously if I can't make a point (and I posted an abstract about from PubMed that agreed with that point) without everything I said being twisted around, there is such a thing as discussion, instead of "I don't see what that has to do with anything".

Nobody twisted anything you said.

Someone questioned its relevance.

parkscs · January 2014

Yes, but I'm trying to say that gambling is no more a physical addiction than food addiction, you don't snort or inject it, there are no receptors or buildup of tolerance or physical withdrawal. At least the parts of food themselves enter your bloodstream, yet people seem to accept gambling disorders as addictions more readily than food as an addiction for some people. I think it could be because more folks are able to relate to the effects of gambling addiction (losing money, your home, your family...) than food addiction, but I don't know.

If you want the non-scientific answer, this is a site based around people that follow basic calorie counting and IIFYM style approaches to weight loss. It's not a site for overall health, healthy eating, or really any mentality for losing weight other than basic calorie counting and IIFYM. Browse the forums a bit and you'll see what I mean. There's almost a cult-like phenomenon where people will make posts that consist only of general weight loss bullet points that have been repeated millions of times, and yet you'll see dozens of people pile in to say "well said!" and "great post!" as if it's breakthrough research. In short, there's a very clear and one-sided mentality that dominates this forum. As a result, these forums are not a great place to suggest you want to limit your carb intake to lose weight, and if you are suggesting you may even exhibit addiction-like symptoms towards something like sugar? Well, you're fighting an uphill battle, because such a thought clashes with the basic IIFYM and eat whatever you want mentality that pervades this site.

I suppose that's why I said earlier in this thread that it's pointless to argue over whether it's actually a physical addiction or a mental compulsion/disorder/addiction/whatever (e.g., much like gambling is). The more important question is if someone does struggle with overeating on carbs, what's the best solution for that person so that they can achieve a sustainable caloric deficit.

jonnythan · January 2014

So how much of the thread did you actually read? Try reading it.

And you know what I think? Every time somebody posts something that doesn't agree with what you and your cohorts think, you attack them, how about you keep your opinion of what I posted to yourself, I don't remember asking.

Just because someone posts something that isn't an agreement doesn't mean they're attacking you.

And, perhaps, someone is posting something that isn't opinion but rooted in fact - not factoids, or abstracts of studies that may or may not be completely misinterpreted.

Here's the thing. Nobody here is asking you to lend their words any more credence than you would another stranger on the internet. Believing us without question is the same as believing something from holistic-bullcrap.com without question.

What we do is we give you pertinent opposing information to then go off and research more fully for yourself.

If that strengthens your initial position, great. If it makes you change your beliefs, great. All that means is everybody is engaging in healthy - open-minded - debate and becoming more knowledgeable as a result, and how can that be a bad thing?

You won't even get me to take you the least bit seriously if I can't make a point (and I posted an abstract about from PubMed that agreed with that point) without everything I said being twisted around, there is such a thing as discussion, instead of "I don't see what that has to do with anything".

What's the point you're trying to make? You're kind of dancing around it, but haven't really come right out and said it.

I apologize if I missed it.

Need serious help with SUGAR!!!!

Replies

Categories