Need serious help with SUGAR!!!!
Replies
-
Potentially. But why partake in something that has a 50/50 chance of failure because of unsustainability? why not increase those chances exponentially by operating in a way that you can still have the things you feel you'll crave, as long as all of your other food goals are in check.
By the way, as I said previously in this thread, sugar and carbs are synonyms. Carbs (as a whole) contain C, H and O atoms in varying amounts. Sugar's molecular formula is C12H22O11.
Because it sounds like they tried your way, failed and could benefit from trying something different?
And just because they all contain carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen doesn't mean your body will take them in the same way. Why do medical organizations, including AHA, recommend limiting sugar intake to 36g a day for men? If all carbs are indeed equal, shouldn't I be able to ingest 150g of sugar a day and be ok?
Conventional dieting is actually "accomplished" more using "your" way.
Being synonymous as a term doesn't mean they're created equal. You're talking about nutrient density. Nobody is arguing about the importance of micro and macronutrients. The RDI for sugar all sugar - including fruit sugar - is a guideline designed to help people choose foods which are higher in micros.
At this point, you're just being silly.0 -
Potentially. But why partake in something that has a 50/50 chance of failure because of unsustainability? why not increase those chances exponentially by operating in a way that you can still have the things you feel you'll crave, as long as all of your other food goals are in check.
By the way, as I said previously in this thread, sugar and carbs are synonyms. Carbs (as a whole) contain C, H and O atoms in varying amounts. Sugar's molecular formula is C12H22O11.
Because it sounds like they tried your way, failed and could benefit from trying something different?
And just because they all contain carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen doesn't mean your body will take them in the same way. Why do medical organizations, including AHA, recommend limiting sugar intake to 36g a day for men? If all carbs are indeed equal, shouldn't I be able to ingest 150g of sugar a day and be ok?
Conventional dieting is actually "accomplished" more using "your" way.
Being synonymous as a term doesn't mean they're created equal. You're talking about nutrient density. Nobody is arguing about the importance of micro and macronutrients. The RDI for sugar all sugar - including fruit sugar - is a guideline designed to help people choose foods which are higher in micros.
At this point, you're just being silly.
Right back at you. I'd love to indulge you and get more and more pedantic about carbohydrates but at this point it's tiring. I'll continue eating a moderate amount of fruit daily and limiting my sugar intake otherwise, and you go ahead and eat all the cake/cookies/ice cream you please.0 -
How can I sticky this?I can't believe I read all 20 pages of this and no one posted the below study. My head seriously hurts from it, :laugh:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20056521
Conclusion: There is no support from the human literature for the hypothesis that sucrose may be physically addictive or that addiction to sugar plays a role in eating disorders.
So it goes back to a handful of people say, it's a habit. Just like the reason why children become fat when both parents are fat... they form unhealthy habits.
http://www.wsro.org/Portals/12/Docs/position-statement-sugar-and-addiction-2012.pdf
"In summary, the current evidence does not support the idea that human addiction to sugar is a valid concept or that it is a characteristic of individuals who are obese"
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 nutrition0 -
Grin - now here's a thought!
Found it quite enlightening, though. Let's see what other surprises come up if I track something else.0 -
I can't believe I read all 20 pages of this and no one posted the below study. My head seriously hurts from it, :laugh:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20056521
Conclusion: There is no support from the human literature for the hypothesis that sucrose may be physically addictive or that addiction to sugar plays a role in eating disorders.
So it goes back to a handful of people say, it's a habit. Just like the reason why children become fat when both parents are fat... they form unhealthy habits.
http://www.wsro.org/Portals/12/Docs/position-statement-sugar-and-addiction-2012.pdf
"In summary, the current evidence does not support the idea that human addiction to sugar is a valid concept or that it is a characteristic of individuals who are obese"
I did refer to this study on page 19 of this discussion.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2235907/
You lost me at "In this animal model".. If you can show me a plausible study with humans, I might concur. But personally, I hold little value in animal models since many times, they are given a extraordinary amount that a human could not or would not normally consume. Also, how many humans eat with the same pattern as the rats?0 -
I can't believe I read all 20 pages of this and no one posted the below study. My head seriously hurts from it, :laugh:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20056521
Conclusion: There is no support from the human literature for the hypothesis that sucrose may be physically addictive or that addiction to sugar plays a role in eating disorders.
So it goes back to a handful of people say, it's a habit. Just like the reason why children become fat when both parents are fat... they form unhealthy habits.
http://www.wsro.org/Portals/12/Docs/position-statement-sugar-and-addiction-2012.pdf
"In summary, the current evidence does not support the idea that human addiction to sugar is a valid concept or that it is a characteristic of individuals who are obese"
While the first study is certainly valid, the second one is literally a position paper from the sugar industry.
And the first study was partially funded by the World Sugar Research Organization. I wonder why?
http://www.clinicalnutritionjournal.com/article/S0261-5614(09)00239-8/fulltext#sec7
They did annotate with:
"The author has no financial interest in the sale of any sugar or sugar containing product. It is, however, gratefully acknowledged that the writing of this review was partially funded by the World Sugar Research Organization. The views expressed are, however, entirely those of the author who established the format of the review and was entirely free to express whatsoever views he thought appropriate."
Doesn't that count?:laugh:0 -
I can't believe I read all 20 pages of this and no one posted the below study. My head seriously hurts from it, :laugh:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20056521
Conclusion: There is no support from the human literature for the hypothesis that sucrose may be physically addictive or that addiction to sugar plays a role in eating disorders.
So it goes back to a handful of people say, it's a habit. Just like the reason why children become fat when both parents are fat... they form unhealthy habits.
http://www.wsro.org/Portals/12/Docs/position-statement-sugar-and-addiction-2012.pdf
"In summary, the current evidence does not support the idea that human addiction to sugar is a valid concept or that it is a characteristic of individuals who are obese"
Wonder why your NIH article wasn't mentioned? Because this is NOT AN ACTUAL STUDY. This is a consensus statement.
There are plenty of studies right here, footnotes included (which your "study" clearly lacks).....
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2235907/
Umm also, your second link - another position statement, by the way, only states that results were inconsistent. That does not mean a theory has been disproven. But, at least there were actual links to studies here.
Back to your NIH "study" though.... did you happen to notice who it belongs to?? Elsevier Ltd and European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism.
If you look up Elsevier Ltd on Wikipedia you will notice mention of a 2009 lawsuit against Merk in regards to Vioxx,
"At a 2009 court case in Australia where Merck & Co. was being sued by a user of Vioxx, the plaintiff alleged that Merck had paid Elsevier to publish the Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine, which had the appearance of being a peer-reviewed academic journal but in fact contained only articles favourable to Merck drugs.[40][41][42][43] Merck has described the journal as a "complimentary publication", denied claims that articles within it were ghost written by Merck, and stated that the articles were all reprinted from peer-reviewed medical journals.[44] "
....oh but wait, it gets better....
"In May 2009, Elsevier Health Sciences CEO Hansen released a statement regarding Australia-based sponsored journals, conceding that these were "sponsored article compilation publications, on behalf of pharmaceutical clients, that were made to look like journals and lacked the proper disclosures." The statement acknowledged that this "was an unacceptable practice." "
--that kind of a poop stain on Elsevier's record damages their credibility.
Anyways, I can't believe this thread spilled into a part 2, I wish it would just go away already.0 -
A few pages back, there was a question of why to choose apples over cake.
All the food we eat affects our blood sugar. It you want to control weight, it is very important to control spikes in your blood sugar. Fibre and protein help control spikes in your blood sugar. The apple and the cake both have significant amounts of sugar but, apples has fibre - this helps slow the absorption of the sugar into your blood stream - meaning that eating an apple vs cake would cause less of a blood sugar spike. Every time your blood sugar spikes, your body releases a pile of insulin which tells your body to get rid of the excess sugar in your blood - easiest way - store as fat. To lose weight, you need to reduce the number of times insulin tells your body to store fat!
This website explains blood sugar well - http://www.caloriesperhour.com/tutorial_sugar.php
Also, every time you have a blood sugar spike, it is followed by a low and then usually another high as your body tries to regulate itself. This is the sugar crash (low) and sugar cravings (causes high cause we eat too much sugar) we all experience.0 -
I can't believe I read all 20 pages of this and no one posted the below study. My head seriously hurts from it, :laugh:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20056521
Conclusion: There is no support from the human literature for the hypothesis that sucrose may be physically addictive or that addiction to sugar plays a role in eating disorders.
So it goes back to a handful of people say, it's a habit. Just like the reason why children become fat when both parents are fat... they form unhealthy habits.
http://www.wsro.org/Portals/12/Docs/position-statement-sugar-and-addiction-2012.pdf
"In summary, the current evidence does not support the idea that human addiction to sugar is a valid concept or that it is a characteristic of individuals who are obese"
Wonder why your NIH article wasn't mentioned? Because this is NOT AN ACTUAL STUDY. This is a consensus statement.
There are plenty of studies right here, footnotes included (which your "study" clearly lacks).....
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2235907/
Umm also, your second link - another position statement, by the way, only states that results were inconsistent. That does not mean a theory has been disproven. But, at least there were actual links to studies here.
Back to your NIH "study" though.... did you happen to notice who it belongs to?? Elsevier Ltd and European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism.
If you look up Elsevier Ltd on Wikipedia you will notice mention of a 2009 lawsuit against Merk in regards to Vioxx,
"At a 2009 court case in Australia where Merck & Co. was being sued by a user of Vioxx, the plaintiff alleged that Merck had paid Elsevier to publish the Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine, which had the appearance of being a peer-reviewed academic journal but in fact contained only articles favourable to Merck drugs.[40][41][42][43] Merck has described the journal as a "complimentary publication", denied claims that articles within it were ghost written by Merck, and stated that the articles were all reprinted from peer-reviewed medical journals.[44] "
....oh but wait, it gets better....
"In May 2009, Elsevier Health Sciences CEO Hansen released a statement regarding Australia-based sponsored journals, conceding that these were "sponsored article compilation publications, on behalf of pharmaceutical clients, that were made to look like journals and lacked the proper disclosures." The statement acknowledged that this "was an unacceptable practice." "
--that kind of a poop stain on Elsevier's record damages their credibility.
Anyways, I can't believe this thread spilled into a part 2, I wish it would just go away already.
So we are back to the rat study? Because starving rats and then feeding them palatable foods and sugar water remotely resembles how humans eat? If you consistently starve or deprive anyone, over time, they will think anything taste good. Can you show me any studies on humans? Below are some key points in that study, IMO.
"The evidence supports the hypothesis that under certain circumstances rats can become sugar dependent. This may translate to some human conditions as suggested by the literature on eating disorders and obesity."
And my favorite line:
"The correspondence to some people with binge eating disorder or bulimia is striking, but whether or not it is a good idea to call this a “food addiction” in people is both a scientific and societal question that has yet to be answered. What this review demonstrates is that rats with intermittent access to food and a sugar solution can show both a constellation of behaviors and parallel brain changes that are characteristic of rats that voluntarily self-administer addictive drugs. In the aggregrate, this is evidence that sugar can be addictive."
Again, even the study doesn't fully support calling sugar addictive in humans... but it can be addictive... but for humans?0 -
How long have you been working for McDonalds?I'll rephrase then - where's the fear mongering in what I've been saying over the last few posts.
You continue to characterize some foods as simply "unhealthy."
That's what's wrong.
For the most part only whole foods are healthy. That means one ingredient. Cake-fine if you really want it but it' s gotta be some quality whole foods ingredients to be even close to healthy.0 -
OK, I didn't read all of this. But the bits I did - interesting discussion.
I only started on this website a few days ago. And am also wondering about my sugar intake: Calories in check, as are total carbs, fat, protein. Sugars - always more than "allowed" by the website. Looking through what I eat, most of the sugars come from fruit, no "junk" in there. So - do I now feel riddled by guilt because of this high sugar intake, do I cut down fruit and live on cucumber or tomatoes, or do I simply ignore it, because I like fruit and it really is meant to be good for you - whatever that exactly means?
Unless you have blood sugar control problems (diabetes, hypoglycemia, etc) then there's no reason for you to even track sugar. Go to your diary, click Settings, and track something else like fiber instead.
Don't like 1 in 3 of us have blood sugar issues?0 -
How long have you been working for McDonalds?I'll rephrase then - where's the fear mongering in what I've been saying over the last few posts.
You continue to characterize some foods as simply "unhealthy."
That's what's wrong.
For the most part only whole foods are healthy. That means one ingredient. Cake-fine if you really want it but it' s gotta be some quality whole foods ingredients to be even close to healthy.
Who's healthier? A man 180 lb man with 10% body fat, blood pressure that is 110/70, RHR at 70 bpm, exercises 6 days a week, and eats 80% of the calories from whole foods and 20% from everything else or a man 220 lbs, 20% body fat, blood pressure 140/90, HR at 85 bpm and exercise 3x a week but eats 100% clean?
The fact is, there term healthy is very loose and means absolutely nothing. To suggest you are healthier than me because you eat more whole foods and I eat a little dirty would be quite narrow minded. There are a ton of factors in one's health. Weight & genetics playing a huge role, so do antibiotics, environment (to include stress) and overall lifestyle. I think it's clear that those of us who say eating dirty is ok, mean that we follow the 80/20 rule or close. In fact, I do IIFYM and eat a Klondike every night. I never have an issue hitting my macros or micros, if you don't believe me, feel free to look at my diary. My doctors are impressed with how fit I am. I can do many workouts that most of my friends (even skinnier ones) and I can do them longer. I have good body composition, I have extremely good blood pressure and cholesterol. The only thing that is "high" is my LDL (bad cholesterol) and that is genetic. Both my parents carry that trait (it's still in a good range, but on the high end".
If you feel better about yourself because you eat more whole foods, then good on you. But there is no quantifiable way of measuring one persons health vs another persons. You can only measure your own improvement.0 -
OK, I didn't read all of this. But the bits I did - interesting discussion.
I only started on this website a few days ago. And am also wondering about my sugar intake: Calories in check, as are total carbs, fat, protein. Sugars - always more than "allowed" by the website. Looking through what I eat, most of the sugars come from fruit, no "junk" in there. So - do I now feel riddled by guilt because of this high sugar intake, do I cut down fruit and live on cucumber or tomatoes, or do I simply ignore it, because I like fruit and it really is meant to be good for you - whatever that exactly means?
Unless you have blood sugar control problems (diabetes, hypoglycemia, etc) then there's no reason for you to even track sugar. Go to your diary, click Settings, and track something else like fiber instead.
Don't like 1 in 3 of us have blood sugar issues?
Highly unlikely. If anything, it's more like 5-10%. And the question would be, was the insulin issue caused by genetics or poor nutrition?0 -
How long have you been working for McDonalds?I'll rephrase then - where's the fear mongering in what I've been saying over the last few posts.
You continue to characterize some foods as simply "unhealthy."
That's what's wrong.
For the most part only whole foods are healthy. That means one ingredient. Cake-fine if you really want it but it' s gotta be some quality whole foods ingredients to be even close to healthy.
Who's healthier? A man 180 lb man with 10% body fat, blood pressure that is 110/70, RHR at 70 bpm, exercises 6 days a week, and eats 80% of the calories from whole foods and 20% from everything else or a man 220 lbs, 20% body fat, blood pressure 140/90, HR at 85 bpm and exercise 3x a week but eats 100% clean?
The fact is, there term healthy is very loose and means absolutely nothing. To suggest you are healthier than me because you eat more whole foods and I eat a little dirty would be quite narrow minded. There are a ton of factors in one's health. Weight & genetics playing a huge role, so do antibiotics, environment (to include stress) and overall lifestyle. I think it's clear that those of us who say eating dirty is ok, mean that we follow the 80/20 rule or close. In fact, I do IIFYM and eat a Klondike every night. I never have an issue hitting my macros or micros, if you don't believe me, feel free to look at my diary. My doctors are impressed with how fit I am. I can do many workouts that most of my friends (even skinnier ones) and I can do them longer. I have good body composition, I have extremely good blood pressure and cholesterol. The only thing that is "high" is my LDL (bad cholesterol) and that is genetic. Both my parents carry that trait (it's still in a good range, but on the high end".
If you feel better about yourself because you eat more whole foods, then good on you. But there is no quantifiable way of measuring one persons health vs another persons. You can only measure your own improvement.
Are you ok dude?
You may in fact be healthier than I am. Although you brought that up not me.
It's just more likely that a whole food is health promoting than a processed food is. No need to defend your food choices. It's your call.0 -
A few pages back, there was a question of why to choose apples over cake.
All the food we eat affects our blood sugar. It you want to control weight, it is very important to control spikes in your blood sugar. Fibre and protein help control spikes in your blood sugar. The apple and the cake both have significant amounts of sugar but, apples has fibre - this helps slow the absorption of the sugar into your blood stream - meaning that eating an apple vs cake would cause less of a blood sugar spike. Every time your blood sugar spikes, your body releases a pile of insulin which tells your body to get rid of the excess sugar in your blood - easiest way - store as fat. To lose weight, you need to reduce the number of times insulin tells your body to store fat!
This website explains blood sugar well - http://www.caloriesperhour.com/tutorial_sugar.php
Also, every time you have a blood sugar spike, it is followed by a low and then usually another high as your body tries to regulate itself. This is the sugar crash (low) and sugar cravings (causes high cause we eat too much sugar) we all experience.
I addressed insulin spikes already.
- it happens with all food.
- it varies with all food.
- insulin is not the devil, it is an anabolic hormone.
I would also recommend not using a website with a bunch of weight-loss pills and supplements in its "sponsored links".
A surplus of calories hinders a loss of body fat, nothing else.
ETA: impartial source on the effects of food intake on insulin: http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=3190 -
In again. Even though
Too much Science.0 -
I can't believe I read all 20 pages of this and no one posted the below study. My head seriously hurts from it, :laugh:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20056521
Conclusion: There is no support from the human literature for the hypothesis that sucrose may be physically addictive or that addiction to sugar plays a role in eating disorders.
So it goes back to a handful of people say, it's a habit. Just like the reason why children become fat when both parents are fat... they form unhealthy habits.
http://www.wsro.org/Portals/12/Docs/position-statement-sugar-and-addiction-2012.pdf
"In summary, the current evidence does not support the idea that human addiction to sugar is a valid concept or that it is a characteristic of individuals who are obese"
Wonder why your NIH article wasn't mentioned? Because this is NOT AN ACTUAL STUDY. This is a consensus statement.
There are plenty of studies right here, footnotes included (which your "study" clearly lacks).....
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2235907/
Umm also, your second link - another position statement, by the way, only states that results were inconsistent. That does not mean a theory has been disproven. But, at least there were actual links to studies here.
Back to your NIH "study" though.... did you happen to notice who it belongs to?? Elsevier Ltd and European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism.
If you look up Elsevier Ltd on Wikipedia you will notice mention of a 2009 lawsuit against Merk in regards to Vioxx,
"At a 2009 court case in Australia where Merck & Co. was being sued by a user of Vioxx, the plaintiff alleged that Merck had paid Elsevier to publish the Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine, which had the appearance of being a peer-reviewed academic journal but in fact contained only articles favourable to Merck drugs.[40][41][42][43] Merck has described the journal as a "complimentary publication", denied claims that articles within it were ghost written by Merck, and stated that the articles were all reprinted from peer-reviewed medical journals.[44] "
....oh but wait, it gets better....
"In May 2009, Elsevier Health Sciences CEO Hansen released a statement regarding Australia-based sponsored journals, conceding that these were "sponsored article compilation publications, on behalf of pharmaceutical clients, that were made to look like journals and lacked the proper disclosures." The statement acknowledged that this "was an unacceptable practice." "
--that kind of a poop stain on Elsevier's record damages their credibility.
Anyways, I can't believe this thread spilled into a part 2, I wish it would just go away already.
So we are back to the rat study? Because starving rats and then feeding them palatable foods and sugar water remotely resembles how humans eat? If you consistently starve or deprive anyone, over time, they will think anything taste good. Can you show me any studies on humans? Below are some key points in that study, IMO.
"The evidence supports the hypothesis that under certain circumstances rats can become sugar dependent. This may translate to some human conditions as suggested by the literature on eating disorders and obesity."
And my favorite line:
"The correspondence to some people with binge eating disorder or bulimia is striking, but whether or not it is a good idea to call this a “food addiction” in people is both a scientific and societal question that has yet to be answered. What this review demonstrates is that rats with intermittent access to food and a sugar solution can show both a constellation of behaviors and parallel brain changes that are characteristic of rats that voluntarily self-administer addictive drugs. In the aggregrate, this is evidence that sugar can be addictive."
Again, even the study doesn't fully support calling sugar addictive in humans... but it can be addictive... but for humans?
So "yet to be determined" is your criteria for impossible?
I don't believe the main point of the study was to get rats to mimic human food intake - it was to study the effects of sugar for potentially addictive effects. That's not the same thing. This does not state for a certainty that sugar is addictive, but it does not exclude the possibility of it either, and nothing you have posted excludes the possibility either. Yet people carry on as if there is irrefutable proof that sugar has no addictive properties when studies like these demonstrate a possibility.0 -
Who's healthier? A man 180 lb man with 10% body fat, blood pressure that is 110/70, RHR at 70 bpm, exercises 6 days a week, and eats 80% of the calories from whole foods and 20% from everything else or a man 220 lbs, 20% body fat, blood pressure 140/90, HR at 85 bpm and exercise 3x a week but eats 100% clean?
Apples and oranges my friend (forgive the pun). Take a single man who's X weight, blood pressure is Y/Z, RHR is R bpm, exercises E days a week... what's more likely to be healthier on any given day in this specific man's diet - an apple or a big old piece of cake? Now of course, it's possible for this man can fit a piece of cake into his diet and still hit his target calories, nutrients, etc. But on an average day, for the typical person, an apple is going to provide fewer calories (usually a good thing, as most people don't struggle with undereating in modern society), more micronutrients (fiber, potassium, vitamins, etc.), no saturated fat and so on. On average, the apple is going to be the more healthy choice.
It's not that the occasional piece of cake is the end of the world. But if you had to advise someone to either eat an apple a day or a piece of cake a day, I'm betting you'd pick the apple. I think that's all we're saying when we say one is healthier than the other. Ultimately though, it's semantics and I don't think we disagree on how this plays out in practice, so no point really arguing the point any further. I suspect where we can agree is that people need to a good balance of eating for enjoyment and eating for health.So "yet to be determined" is your criteria for impossible?
But... rats!!!!
0 -
When you read and quote science papers, one has to be aware of a few things.I can't believe I read all 20 pages of this and no one posted the below study. My head seriously hurts from it, :laugh:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20056521
Conclusion: There is no support from the human literature for the hypothesis that sucrose may be physically addictive or that addiction to sugar plays a role in eating disorders.
1. Published in 2010. So what is the evidence undertaken and either reported (with a delay from editing) or work in progress.
2. This is a review, and they draw the conclusions from the "literature" which by itself will now be older than 4 years. Theirs is not a double blind, randomised experiment.
3. Science can seldom prove the negative. You only need 1 person to be addicted; even if 99 are not.
So while a good commentary of the past, the paper is not particularly helpful.
What may be more helpful is to refer to the number of current research using functional MRI or other techniques and behavioural work that is currently underway AND independently funded (i.e. not by the sugar producers) that show that the brain lights up even more than other addictive substances. These current physical and psychological studies show sugar creates the same neurological response as known additive compounds. This evidence strongly suggest sugar may be as addictive as crack. (For example). So it may be that the anecdotal "correlative" evidence of sugar being addictive may be true. It may be due to more addictive nature of people. For example, it was thought that ex smokers who put on weight did so due to a range of reasons - taste, do something with their hands etc etc. Some behavioural researchers now suggest an addictive personality will express through a range of addictive ways: smoking, drugs, or food. Their brains are different to others.0 -
A pattern of aversion and binging is more responsible for overeating sugary products, not the product itself.
Even studies utilising MRI scans showing the way the brain reacts thanks to ingesting sugar are done after a period of deprivation.0 -
A pattern of aversion and binging is more responsible for overeating sugary products, not the product itself.
Even studies utilising MRI scans showing the way the brain reacts thanks to ingesting sugar are done after a period of deprivation.
Don't you think that's intentional though? If you're trying to show something is an addicting substance, it needs to trigger an enhanced response when you consume it after a period of deprivation. Think about it - take smokers for example. What is it that makes them want that next cigarette? It's that feeling of pleasure they get when they have that next cigarette after not having one for a while. If I just got done smoking a cigarette, I'm not going to get that same feeling if I immediately light another one up. But, if I go 6 hours and deprive myself of nicotine, suddenly I'm going to get a feeling of pleasure/satisfaction when I once again light up a cigarette.
What would they prove by testing it without having a period of deprivation?0 -
Don't you think that's intentional though? If you're trying to show something is an addicting substance, it needs to trigger an enhanced response when you consume it after a period of deprivation. Think about it - take smokers for example. What is it that makes them want that next cigarette? It's that feeling of pleasure they get when they have that next cigarette after not having one for a while. If I just got done smoking a cigarette, I'm not going to get that same feeling if I immediately light another one up. But, if I go 6 hours and deprive myself of nicotine, suddenly I'm going to get a feeling of pleasure/satisfaction when I once again light up a cigarette.
What would they prove by testing it without having a period of deprivation?
No, not really. In my experience of medical study, it's a method of accurately measuring responses to a certain trigger. Basically, even the control groups (if there are any) are subject to the same deprivation.
It just shows that the dopamine responses associated with a sugary/carby reward is much more potent following a period of deprivation. It doesn't show that you need more sugar or certain types of sugar in order to trigger that same neural response.
You show that something is addictive by measuring these responses against the amount of substance required to gain the same "high". Thus why social smokers become chain smokers, why heroin addicts need more and more heroin, and so on. It's drug tolerance.0 -
Again back to my dog poo analogy:
Deprive a sugar "addict" of sugar for a day. No hand them some dog poo with sugar sprinkled all over it. Does anyone think they'd be "addicted" enough to eat it?
We know that heroin and cocaine addicts will risk health (dirty needles) to get their fix.
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 nutrition0 -
Again back to my dog poo analogy:
Deprive a sugar "addict" of sugar for a day. No hand them some dog poo with sugar sprinkled all over it. Does anyone think they'd be "addicted" enough to eat it?
Depends on if they've met their macros.
We know that heroin and cocaine addicts will risk health (dirty needles) to get their fix.
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 nutrition0 -
It just shows that the dopamine responses associated with a sugary/carby reward is much more potent following a period of deprivation. It doesn't show that you need more sugar or certain types of sugar in order to trigger that same neural response.
And isn't that type of dopamine response similar to the dopamine response found with certain other addictive substances? I think that's their point with those studies. I'm not sure what "more sugar or certain types of sugar" has to do with it.0 -
It just shows that the dopamine responses associated with a sugary/carby reward is much more potent following a period of deprivation. It doesn't show that you need more sugar or certain types of sugar in order to trigger that same neural response.
And isn't that type of dopamine response similar to the dopamine response found with certain other addictive substances? I think that's their point with those studies. I'm not sure what "more sugar or certain types of sugar" has to do with it.
Yes and no.This isn't even remotely my area of expertise (or interest, really) but this is just what I understand of it.
Dopamine is just one of the neurotransmitters released by the pituitary gland in response to something that's pleasurable. Any food. Sex. Opioids, and stimulants (such as caffeine). Exercise, etc. they all do this.
The physical response to it is measured in two ways, "seeking" or "liking" something. Addictive behaviour is characterised by "seeking"... a person will exhibit abnormal behaviour in order to acquire what they seek.
"Liking" something means that a drive to acquire it is present, because it's likeable, but it's not abnormal. It doesn't consume rationality.
And it matters because if the response in the brain is the same, and all carbs are broken down the exact same way in the body (i.e. they are molecularly identical once digested), and nobody ever tells you that instead of Twinkies or Pop Tarts they're addicted to fruit and vegetables... what you end up with is a behavioural or habitual desire to consume "bad" foods.0 -
I am very much ok.. the point being is, foods can't not be quantified as healthy or not... they serve their purpose.... and that is energy.
How long have you been working for McDonalds?I'll rephrase then - where's the fear mongering in what I've been saying over the last few posts.
You continue to characterize some foods as simply "unhealthy."
That's what's wrong.
For the most part only whole foods are healthy. That means one ingredient. Cake-fine if you really want it but it' s gotta be some quality whole foods ingredients to be even close to healthy.
Who's healthier? A man 180 lb man with 10% body fat, blood pressure that is 110/70, RHR at 70 bpm, exercises 6 days a week, and eats 80% of the calories from whole foods and 20% from everything else or a man 220 lbs, 20% body fat, blood pressure 140/90, HR at 85 bpm and exercise 3x a week but eats 100% clean?
The fact is, there term healthy is very loose and means absolutely nothing. To suggest you are healthier than me because you eat more whole foods and I eat a little dirty would be quite narrow minded. There are a ton of factors in one's health. Weight & genetics playing a huge role, so do antibiotics, environment (to include stress) and overall lifestyle. I think it's clear that those of us who say eating dirty is ok, mean that we follow the 80/20 rule or close. In fact, I do IIFYM and eat a Klondike every night. I never have an issue hitting my macros or micros, if you don't believe me, feel free to look at my diary. My doctors are impressed with how fit I am. I can do many workouts that most of my friends (even skinnier ones) and I can do them longer. I have good body composition, I have extremely good blood pressure and cholesterol. The only thing that is "high" is my LDL (bad cholesterol) and that is genetic. Both my parents carry that trait (it's still in a good range, but on the high end".
If you feel better about yourself because you eat more whole foods, then good on you. But there is no quantifiable way of measuring one persons health vs another persons. You can only measure your own improvement.
Are you ok dude?
You may in fact be healthier than I am. Although you brought that up not me.
It's just more likely that a whole food is health promoting than a processed food is. No need to defend your food choices. It's your call.0 -
So "yet to be determined" is your criteria for impossible?
I don't believe the main point of the study was to get rats to mimic human food intake - it was to study the effects of sugar for potentially addictive effects. That's not the same thing. This does not state for a certainty that sugar is addictive, but it does not exclude the possibility of it either, and nothing you have posted excludes the possibility either. Yet people carry on as if there is irrefutable proof that sugar has no addictive properties when studies like these demonstrate a possibility.
I believe this was brought up on page 10 or something..the question should be, is it palatable food that is addictive or just sugar. I believe someone else annotated that by showing the sugar content of fruit vs a donut. I personally think, people just enjoy food. Heck, if I had the chance, I would eat Korean BBQ because it's so savory.0 -
Raise your hand if you're a sugar addict and will resort to simply eating suaar right from a 5 lb bag if there are no cookies.0
-
I was a serious sugar addict until about a month ago when I started just a cleaner way of eating. I cut out refined sugar, gluten and soy and the results have been amazing. I truly believe there is something to the sugar addiction because about a week into this, I had a cupcake and all of a sudden, I wanted the whole box of them. Once I got it out of my system, I don't even think about sweets anymore.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions