Stop singling out sugar

Except that the sugar refined from corn is not food, it is a drug. Coca leaves have been used by aboriginals for thousands of years but became deadly when refined into Cocaine. Food containing naturally occuring sugars is not what is being demonized. What's being demonized is taking a food like corn, removing all the nutrition, and refining it into an addictive drug because it is much more lucrative than selling corn.

According to this logic, vanilla extract is a drug. I better pour the three bottles in my kitchen down the toilet before I'm arrested as a dealer.

Yes, write anything to justify your fix. the pushers...er... corn refiners don't want you to stop buying it.

Coca plant




Sugar Cane



Corn



Vanilla

Could you point to some peer-reviewed studies on nutrition or exercise that weren't funded, at least in part, by some portion of the the food or exercise industry, for comparison?

I can:

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2013/06/26/ajcn.113.064113.abstract?sid=44ef5031-b040-4501-8e93-af85301d69c6

From: http://hms.harvard.edu/news/addicted-food-7-3-13

“Beyond reward and craving, this part of the brain is also linked to substance abuse and dependence, which raises the question as to whether certain foods might be addictive,” said Ludwig, who is also director of the New Balance Foundation Obesity Prevention Center at the hospital.

To examine the link, researchers measured blood glucose levels and hunger, while also using functional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to observe brain activity during the crucial four-hour period after a meal, which influences eating behavior at the next meal. (Previous studies have tended to evaluate patients with MRI soon after eating.)

On two occasions, 12 overweight or obese men consumed two test meals delivered as milkshakes with the same taste, sweetness and number of calories. One milkshake contained rapidly digestible (high-glycemic index) carbohydrates and the other contained slowly digestible (low-glycemic index) carbohydrates.

After the men consumed the high-glycemic index milkshake, they had an initial surge in blood sugar levels, followed by a sharp crash four hours later. This decrease in blood glucose was associated with excessive hunger and intense activation of the nucleus accumbens, a critical brain region involved in addictive behaviors.

There is considerable research to support the notion that sugar *should* be something eaten in moderation. However, studies such as the above are demonstrating what anecdotal evidence has suggested for years - that a subset of people aren't able to moderate sugar intake well.

Though we know there is no true "physiological" addiction to sugar (in that there are no withdrawal symptoms) the fact that it's consumption by many people CAN show definite neurological changes in the brain-reward system shows it not-only is a real issue people face, but when we're talking about neurological changes, we ARE talking physiology. No, it's not a true chemical dependence - but it is most-certainly a dependence.

While debated in many circles right now, food addiction is now recognized by the DSM-V.

The WHO recommendations are based on obesity and overeating, this is true - however if overeating may be a result of the brain-reward-system (even if in only a subset of the population), this must be addressed - possibly by severely limiting sugar in certain individuals.

The American Heart Association recommends limiting sugar due to the highly associated cardiovascular risk. And the idea to ignore evidence simply because it's epidemiological isn't medically advisable.

Lets be honest people, NOBODY would tell a gambling addict they should simply "have more willpower" and "gamble in moderation". (Except maybe those who are complete dic*heads or they work in the industry) ... Yet there are dozens of people telling those who meet the clinical definition of 'food addiction' that sugar is awesome and they should just have more willpower.

Research is continuing on the topic - but as we better-understand the mechanisms that are driving 'food addiction' the evidence gets stronger every day in support of it - and it's pointing more-and-more to higher-GI foods such as refined flours/sugars. Nobody in the independent medical or scientific community disputes this, even though the weight of the evidence isn't overwhelming enough for a consensus yet.

Just because eating 25% of your calories from sugar is fine for some individuals doesn't mean it's fine for others. Nor does it mean others shouldn't restrict it if they choose to.

It is not enough to know that gram for gram sugar has no nutritional value?

I find it very difficult to stay slim when I consume empty calories. But I don't demonize sugar. If, at the end of the day, I've reached my goal for protein and fiber and still have a few calories left, then I enjoy a cookie. But as a small woman, that is not every day and usually just one cookie.

Regarding food addiction:

I'd have a lot more compassion/sensitivity for people who were "food addicts" if people weren't idiots and self diagnosing. When the average person doesn't understand the difference between "addiction" and "compulsive behavior" and then also applies labels to themselves based on what they found on the internet or heard on television, how can we take a label seriously? (It doesn't help when the media throws the addict label on everything, including things that are clearly compulsive behaviors.)

I've met multiple people who used the word "allergic" when they meant "upset my tummy that one time", they've never gone in for allergy testing. I've also met people who have gone rabid over gluten and when I asked them about what their doctor said, what kind of tests were run, etc. the answer was "well I read this article and decided that was what was wrong with me". Which is the completely backwards way to go about it, the issue could be caused by another ingredient frequently occurring in the food items that person ingests. It could because the person was making better substitutions (eating more fruits and veggies instead of sandwiches) and meeting other gaps in his/her diet. It could completely be in that person's head.

I had a coworker who THOUGHT he had a shellfish allergy and then found out that it was actually to a preservative put on shellfish before selling it in stores, and he could have it if it was fresh caught and being sold right at the dock (or when he was in other countries). He would have gone the rest of his life thinking he couldn't have foods that he really enjoyed eating.

I also have friends with extremely life threatening allergies to common foods and several with Celiac's disease. They also hate the posers whose antics result in others not taking their real issues seriously. I take their needs very seriously to the point where I clean down my kitchen and I write down all the ingredients AND their manufacturer before bringing over homemade goods and I'm okay if they still pass.

Well said, FireOpalCO.

Pfft.



She was probably paid by Big Sugar to make that post.

Regarding food addiction:

I'd have a lot more compassion/sensitivity for people who were "food addicts" if people weren't idiots and self diagnosing. When the average person doesn't understand the difference between "addiction" and "compulsive behavior" and then also applies labels to themselves based on what they found on the internet or heard on television, how can we take a label seriously? (It doesn't help when the media throws the addict label on everything, including things that are clearly compulsive behaviors.)

I've met multiple people who used the word "allergic" when they meant "upset my tummy that one time", they've never gone in for allergy testing. I've also met people who have gone rabid over gluten and when I asked them about what their doctor said, what kind of tests were run, etc. the answer was "well I read this article and decided that was what was wrong with me". Which is the completely backwards way to go about it, the issue could be caused by another ingredient frequently occurring in the food items that person ingests. It could because the person was making better substitutions (eating more fruits and veggies instead of sandwiches) and meeting other gaps in his/her diet. It could completely be in that person's head.

I had a coworker who THOUGHT he had a shellfish allergy and then found out that it was actually to a preservative put on shellfish before selling it in stores, and he could have it if it was fresh caught and being sold right at the dock (or when he was in other countries). He would have gone the rest of his life thinking he couldn't have foods that he really enjoyed eating.

I also have friends with extremely life threatening allergies to common foods and several with Celiac's disease. They also hate the posers whose antics result in others not taking their real issues seriously. I take their needs very seriously to the point where I clean down my kitchen and I write down all the ingredients AND their manufacturer before bringing over homemade goods and I'm okay if they still pass.

First, I'm not a fan of your use of the term "idiot".

Second, how do you feel about the term Gambling Addiction? Nothing is injected or ingested or inhaled yet it has been reclassified as an addiction rather than an impulse control disorder. 'According to Dr. Charles O’Brien, chair of the Substance-Related Disorders Work Group for DSM-5, brain imaging studies and neurochemical tests have made a “strong case that [gambling] activates the reward system in much the same way that a drug does.” Pathological gamblers report cravings and highs in response to their stimulus of choice; it also runs in families, often alongside other addictions. Neuroscience and genetics research has played a key role in these determinations.'

I don't think food addiction is that much of a stretch. Besides, even if "food addiction" is actually an "impulse control disorder" can we not acknowledge that for some people, sugary treats can be incredibly difficult to resist?

I don't understand why people who feel as though they have food or sugar addictions continually have sand kicked in their faces here at MFP. Do people believe them to be weak willed losers who should be put in their place?

I don't understand why people who feel as though they have food or sugar addictions continually have sand kicked in their faces here at MFP. Do people believe them to be weak willed losers who should be put in their place?

As-evidenced by some extremely belittling and unhelpful posts, yes, it seems many people do believe that.

I don't understand why people who feel as though they have food or sugar addictions continually have sand kicked in their faces here at MFP. Do people believe them to be weak willed losers who should be put in their place?

Yes, they do. Get used to it. There are people here who have never experienced lack of self-control in eating and have zero empathy towards anyone who claims to have.

Steve

I have sympathy for people who struggle with eating disorders, and I have actually worked with drug addicts and have *loads* of sympathy for them, even so much as to work tirelessly to change our nation's drug policies.

That doesn't change the *irritation* felt when people confuse eating disorders with addictions. So irritating.

I'm still interested in learning about any studies that show sugar itself is harmful to healthy individuals, in a healthy weight range, who partake in regular exercise, in a balanced (read: reasonable) calorie-controlled diet (which just happens to be the parameters of my own personal situation). Some seem convinced that even in this environment it *causes* diabetes, insulin resistance, cancer, etc...but the research just doesn't seem to support their conclusions...and when pressed, they cite research which either ignores the conditions above or fails to reach the conclusion they purport that it does.