FRUCTOSE CONVERTS TO FAT

12467…11

Replies

  • kgeyser
    kgeyser Posts: 22,505 Member
    Oh Joanne, do you think we can't google? Here's another snip from the article that you conveniently left out:
    Experts still have a long way to go to connect the dots between fructose and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and cancer. Higher intakes of fructose are associated with these conditions, but clinical trials have yet to show that it causes them.

    And here's a link to the article in its entirety, since I have a little thing called ethics:

    http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/is-fructose-bad-for-you-201104262425

    b3dd9eb3-bd33-4e2e-8a33-69ce0007c28f_zpsff9f2f44.jpg

    :blushing:
  • AnotherXFitGuy
    AnotherXFitGuy Posts: 58 Member
    I'm worried by this ignorant, knee-jerk dismissal of the problems associated specifically with fructose, as opposed to sugar generally that I'm seeing in this thread.

    Fructose is biochemically a VERY different thing than glucose. As was pointed out in the OP, it cannot be metabolized by the body without first being broken down by the liver, in a process very similar to alcohol.

    THIS IS NOT A "SUGAR BAD" ARGUMENT. This is about the problems that come from a higher proportion of total sugar intake coming from fructose. The metabolism of fructose releases the already mentioned triglycerides, yes, but the more worrying thing is the production of glycation end products (google them if you've never had any biochem). GEP's cause vascular inflammation, and a resultant increase in cholesterol.

    Please stop dumbing this down into "STOP PICKING ON SUGAR". I'm not picking on sugar. I'm picking on the increased amount of FRUCTOSE we're consuming.

    I'm not anti-sugar, and I'm tired of any concerns about the verified medical issues associated with fructose specifically being written off ignorantly.

    You might as well give up. People on this site put down anyone who isn't "Caloric Deficit Only". They complain that groups of people are elitist but show themselves to be elitists. The world is fatter now because of inactivity and calorie consumption...fact. Whether you eat wheat, sugar, cane sugar, Paleo, Atkins or Weight Watchers, the problem is still there.

    If you've lost 20 or more pounds, you obviously ate too much and became overweight. And, just because you are leaner now doesn't mean you are an expert. It also doesn't mean that what worked for you will work form someone with less willpower. Instead of demonizing an article, how bout keeping the lips sealed and letting others decide for themselves.
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    I'm worried by this ignorant, knee-jerk dismissal of the problems associated specifically with fructose, as opposed to sugar generally that I'm seeing in this thread.

    Fructose is biochemically a VERY different thing than glucose. As was pointed out in the OP, it cannot be metabolized by the body without first being broken down by the liver, in a process very similar to alcohol.

    THIS IS NOT A "SUGAR BAD" ARGUMENT. This is about the problems that come from a higher proportion of total sugar intake coming from fructose. The metabolism of fructose releases the already mentioned triglycerides, yes, but the more worrying thing is the production of glycation end products (google them if you've never had any biochem). GEP's cause vascular inflammation, and a resultant increase in cholesterol.

    Please stop dumbing this down into "STOP PICKING ON SUGAR". I'm not picking on sugar. I'm picking on the increased amount of FRUCTOSE we're consuming.

    I'm not anti-sugar, and I'm tired of any concerns about the verified medical issues associated with fructose specifically being written off ignorantly.

    You might as well give up. People on this site put down anyone who isn't "Caloric Deficit Only". They complain that groups of people are elitist but show themselves to be elitists. The world is fatter now because of inactivity and calorie consumption...fact. Whether you eat wheat, sugar, cane sugar, Paleo, Atkins or Weight Watchers, the problem is still there.

    If you've lost 20 or more pounds, you obviously ate too much and became overweight. And, just because you are leaner now doesn't mean you are an expert. It also doesn't mean that what worked for you will work form someone with less willpower. Instead of demonizing an article, how bout keeping the lips sealed and letting others decide for themselves.
    What kind of argument is that? "If you have nothing nice to say, say nothing" ?
    Sorry, but if someone says something blatantly wrong on a board where lots of people go to find information on how to lose weight, wrong things have to be corrected.
    And for weight loss, that means calories in vs. calories out. You can't get around that. So if someone comes and says "never eat this or that cause it'll make you fat", that's a lie and nothing more.
  • lemonsnowdrop
    lemonsnowdrop Posts: 1,298 Member
    I'm worried by this ignorant, knee-jerk dismissal of the problems associated specifically with fructose, as opposed to sugar generally that I'm seeing in this thread.

    Fructose is biochemically a VERY different thing than glucose. As was pointed out in the OP, it cannot be metabolized by the body without first being broken down by the liver, in a process very similar to alcohol.

    THIS IS NOT A "SUGAR BAD" ARGUMENT. This is about the problems that come from a higher proportion of total sugar intake coming from fructose. The metabolism of fructose releases the already mentioned triglycerides, yes, but the more worrying thing is the production of glycation end products (google them if you've never had any biochem). GEP's cause vascular inflammation, and a resultant increase in cholesterol.

    Please stop dumbing this down into "STOP PICKING ON SUGAR". I'm not picking on sugar. I'm picking on the increased amount of FRUCTOSE we're consuming.

    I'm not anti-sugar, and I'm tired of any concerns about the verified medical issues associated with fructose specifically being written off ignorantly.

    You might as well give up. People on this site put down anyone who isn't "Caloric Deficit Only". They complain that groups of people are elitist but show themselves to be elitists. The world is fatter now because of inactivity and calorie consumption...fact. Whether you eat wheat, sugar, cane sugar, Paleo, Atkins or Weight Watchers, the problem is still there.

    If you've lost 20 or more pounds, you obviously ate too much and became overweight. And, just because you are leaner now doesn't mean you are an expert. It also doesn't mean that what worked for you will work form someone with less willpower. Instead of demonizing an article, how bout keeping the lips sealed and letting others decide for themselves.

    Please, give me a way to lose/maintain weight without staying under a certain amount of net calories. I'll listen.
  • kgeyser
    kgeyser Posts: 22,505 Member
    I'm worried by this ignorant, knee-jerk dismissal of the problems associated specifically with fructose, as opposed to sugar generally that I'm seeing in this thread.

    Fructose is biochemically a VERY different thing than glucose. As was pointed out in the OP, it cannot be metabolized by the body without first being broken down by the liver, in a process very similar to alcohol.

    THIS IS NOT A "SUGAR BAD" ARGUMENT. This is about the problems that come from a higher proportion of total sugar intake coming from fructose. The metabolism of fructose releases the already mentioned triglycerides, yes, but the more worrying thing is the production of glycation end products (google them if you've never had any biochem). GEP's cause vascular inflammation, and a resultant increase in cholesterol.

    Please stop dumbing this down into "STOP PICKING ON SUGAR". I'm not picking on sugar. I'm picking on the increased amount of FRUCTOSE we're consuming.

    I'm not anti-sugar, and I'm tired of any concerns about the verified medical issues associated with fructose specifically being written off ignorantly.

    You might as well give up. People on this site put down anyone who isn't "Caloric Deficit Only". They complain that groups of people are elitist but show themselves to be elitists. The world is fatter now because of inactivity and calorie consumption...fact. Whether you eat wheat, sugar, cane sugar, Paleo, Atkins or Weight Watchers, the problem is still there.

    If you've lost 20 or more pounds, you obviously ate too much and became overweight. And, just because you are leaner now doesn't mean you are an expert. It also doesn't mean that what worked for you will work form someone with less willpower. Instead of demonizing an article, how bout keeping the lips sealed and letting others decide for themselves.

    Once again, from the article:
    Experts still have a long way to go to connect the dots between fructose and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and cancer. Higher intakes of fructose are associated with these conditions, but clinical trials have yet to show that it causes them.

    No ignorance or demonizing, simply including an important portion of the article that Joanne omitted because it didn't fit her agenda. I'm also the person who provided a link to the full article, so if anything I'm more supportive of people reading and deciding for themselves. The OP is the one just expecting you to blindly agree with something because she said the word "Harvard" and included cherry-picked portions of an article with a fear-mongering image pulled off the web.
  • _Resolve_
    _Resolve_ Posts: 735 Member
    I'm worried by this ignorant, knee-jerk dismissal of the problems associated specifically with fructose, as opposed to sugar generally that I'm seeing in this thread.

    Fructose is biochemically a VERY different thing than glucose. As was pointed out in the OP, it cannot be metabolized by the body without first being broken down by the liver, in a process very similar to alcohol.

    THIS IS NOT A "SUGAR BAD" ARGUMENT. This is about the problems that come from a higher proportion of total sugar intake coming from fructose. The metabolism of fructose releases the already mentioned triglycerides, yes, but the more worrying thing is the production of glycation end products (google them if you've never had any biochem). GEP's cause vascular inflammation, and a resultant increase in cholesterol.

    Please stop dumbing this down into "STOP PICKING ON SUGAR". I'm not picking on sugar. I'm picking on the increased amount of FRUCTOSE we're consuming.

    I'm not anti-sugar, and I'm tired of any concerns about the verified medical issues associated with fructose specifically being written off ignorantly.


    then this is REALLY going to blow your mind. In Nov 2012 I had an A1C of 9.7% and was 375lbs, now 15 months later I am 214 lbs with a NORMAL A1C, off my diabetes medication completely and eat at least 3 pieces of fruit daily. When I was extremely sick I hardly ate any fruit. So is Sugar the problem? NO people over eating is the problem. Accountability is the problem and making excuses like the big bad sugar monster is the problem.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • TheBrolympus
    TheBrolympus Posts: 586 Member
    Y'all should check out the apple diet. :)
  • 3dogsrunning
    3dogsrunning Posts: 27,167 Member
    I'm worried by this ignorant, knee-jerk dismissal of the problems associated specifically with fructose, as opposed to sugar generally that I'm seeing in this thread.

    Fructose is biochemically a VERY different thing than glucose. As was pointed out in the OP, it cannot be metabolized by the body without first being broken down by the liver, in a process very similar to alcohol.

    THIS IS NOT A "SUGAR BAD" ARGUMENT. This is about the problems that come from a higher proportion of total sugar intake coming from fructose. The metabolism of fructose releases the already mentioned triglycerides, yes, but the more worrying thing is the production of glycation end products (google them if you've never had any biochem). GEP's cause vascular inflammation, and a resultant increase in cholesterol.

    Please stop dumbing this down into "STOP PICKING ON SUGAR". I'm not picking on sugar. I'm picking on the increased amount of FRUCTOSE we're consuming.

    I'm not anti-sugar, and I'm tired of any concerns about the verified medical issues associated with fructose specifically being written off ignorantly.

    You might as well give up. People on this site put down anyone who isn't "Caloric Deficit Only". They complain that groups of people are elitist but show themselves to be elitists. The world is fatter now because of inactivity and calorie consumption...fact. Whether you eat wheat, sugar, cane sugar, Paleo, Atkins or Weight Watchers, the problem is still there.

    If you've lost 20 or more pounds, you obviously ate too much and became overweight. And, just because you are leaner now doesn't mean you are an expert. It also doesn't mean that what worked for you will work form someone with less willpower. Instead of demonizing an article, how bout keeping the lips sealed and letting others decide for themselves.

    That would be fine had the OP posted the entire article instead of picking points from it that supported her arguments and conveniently left out the points that didn't (as well as forgetting to include the link to the article so that we could actually read the WHOLE thing ourselves).
    I do not think one person here demonized the article. A lot posted further information that was posted within the article that did not agree with what the OP was claiming the article said.
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,136 Member
    I'm worried by this ignorant, knee-jerk dismissal of the problems associated specifically with fructose, as opposed to sugar generally that I'm seeing in this thread.

    Fructose is biochemically a VERY different thing than glucose. As was pointed out in the OP, it cannot be metabolized by the body without first being broken down by the liver, in a process very similar to alcohol.

    THIS IS NOT A "SUGAR BAD" ARGUMENT. This is about the problems that come from a higher proportion of total sugar intake coming from fructose. The metabolism of fructose releases the already mentioned triglycerides, yes, but the more worrying thing is the production of glycation end products (google them if you've never had any biochem). GEP's cause vascular inflammation, and a resultant increase in cholesterol.

    Please stop dumbing this down into "STOP PICKING ON SUGAR". I'm not picking on sugar. I'm picking on the increased amount of FRUCTOSE we're consuming.

    I'm not anti-sugar, and I'm tired of any concerns about the verified medical issues associated with fructose specifically being written off ignorantly.

    You might as well give up. People on this site put down anyone who isn't "Caloric Deficit Only". They complain that groups of people are elitist but show themselves to be elitists. The world is fatter now because of inactivity and calorie consumption...fact. Whether you eat wheat, sugar, cane sugar, Paleo, Atkins or Weight Watchers, the problem is still there.

    If you've lost 20 or more pounds, you obviously ate too much and became overweight. And, just because you are leaner now doesn't mean you are an expert. It also doesn't mean that what worked for you will work form someone with less willpower. Instead of demonizing an article, how bout keeping the lips sealed and letting others decide for themselves.

    right, so if the OP cherry picks an article and posts it as fact that sugar is "bad" then all of us that disagree should just sit back and say nothing and let all the novices assume that this is accurate....

    totally legit reasoning...
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,136 Member
    on a side note, these threads inevitably always turn into an argument about sugar addiction ...

    if you carry around sugar packets in your pocket so that you can constantly get your "sugar high" then you might have an argument, but I fail to see anyone ever admit to doing that....

    or, if you just sit in your house and eat bowls of raw sugar you may have an argument as well, but I have personally never heard of anyone doing this..
  • BigT555
    BigT555 Posts: 2,067 Member
    on a side note, these threads inevitably always turn into an argument about sugar addiction ...

    if you carry around sugar packets in your pocket so that you can constantly get your "sugar high" then you might have an argument, but I fail to see anyone ever admit to doing that....

    or, if you just sit in your house and eat bowls of raw sugar you may have an argument as well, but I have personally never heard of anyone doing this..
    your views on addiction are twisted my friend. it is a looser definition than you think
  • FrankieTrailBlazer
    FrankieTrailBlazer Posts: 124 Member
    I wouldnt make the mistake of making life decisions based on anything out of Lustig's mouth

    QUOTE
    I’m back to talking about Robert Lustig again with this video. Lustig is, as I said, a master at speaking with certitude about issues he apparently doesn’t understand.

    Here he is on Tom Ashbrook’s NPR show talking about – what else? – sugar.

    LUSTIG: "It causes all of the peripheral metabolic diseases that we know about: heart disease, type-2 diabetes, probably cancer and dementia as well, hypertension. This is now costing the United States $147 billion a year. The bottom line is we wouldn’t need health care reform if we had obesity reform and we could do obesity reform with sugar reform alone."

    Yes, sugar causes all this. Nothing else does. He can say this categorically, with no qualifications. The implication of this wild-eyed claim is that other factors in nutrition and lifestyle are innocent. Meat and fat don’t cause cancer or heart disease or diabetes, no matter what the epidemiology says, to say nothing of smoking. Sugar alone taxes the medical system. Usually scientists tend to avoid absolute and overly broad statements because they don’t want to be taken for fools. Lustig isn’t worried about that.
    UNQUOTE

    Thats part og the transcript from this link:
    25 Cholesterol Confusion 8 A Large and Fluffy Distraction
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wmidN8rYkU&list=PLv3QDzdxan_JkGX47Rpboyh2oYyAFZDBA&index=26
  • 3dogsrunning
    3dogsrunning Posts: 27,167 Member
    on a side note, these threads inevitably always turn into an argument about sugar addiction ...

    if you carry around sugar packets in your pocket so that you can constantly get your "sugar high" then you might have an argument, but I fail to see anyone ever admit to doing that....

    or, if you just sit in your house and eat bowls of raw sugar you may have an argument as well, but I have personally never heard of anyone doing this..
    your views on addiction are twisted my friend. it is a looser definition than you think

    I agree that addiction can be looser, but can we get a clearer definition on being "addicted" to sugar. There are people who say that they are helpless against their urges towards sugar and comparasions made to cocaine which is why I think you get these type of analogies thrown out there.
  • AnotherXFitGuy
    AnotherXFitGuy Posts: 58 Member
    on a side note, these threads inevitably always turn into an argument about sugar addiction ...

    if you carry around sugar packets in your pocket so that you can constantly get your "sugar high" then you might have an argument, but I fail to see anyone ever admit to doing that....

    or, if you just sit in your house and eat bowls of raw sugar you may have an argument as well, but I have personally never heard of anyone doing this..

    Believe it or not, there are people who do eat that amount of sugar in a day. Not sugar packets but considering the amount of sugar, it might was well be.

    My problem is not disagreeing with an article, it's the way people do it. You can respond without being a jerk (Not meaning you specifically).

    There are many ways to be healthier and the OP just posted information...unless I read it wrong. And because others disagree, they get nasty. It's just information.

    The OP's post did state, "This is a good explanation of how sugar converts to fat in the body when eaten in excess".
  • BigT555
    BigT555 Posts: 2,067 Member
    on a side note, these threads inevitably always turn into an argument about sugar addiction ...

    if you carry around sugar packets in your pocket so that you can constantly get your "sugar high" then you might have an argument, but I fail to see anyone ever admit to doing that....

    or, if you just sit in your house and eat bowls of raw sugar you may have an argument as well, but I have personally never heard of anyone doing this..
    your views on addiction are twisted my friend. it is a looser definition than you think

    I agree that addiction can be looser, but can we get a clearer definition on being "addicted" to sugar. There are people who say that they are helpless against their urges towards sugar and comparasions made to cocaine which is why I think you get these type of analogies thrown out there.
    from websters;
    -compulsive need for and use of a habit-forming substance (as heroin, nicotine, or alcohol) characterized by tolerance and by well-defined physiological symptoms upon withdrawal; broadly : persistent compulsive use of a substance known by the user to be harmful

    if you can apply this to it, then its addiction. i think its fair to say that some people go into withdrawal without sugar(getting cranky, less energy, some even get headaches) as well as people eating copious amounts despite knowing that its not healthy
  • martinel2099
    martinel2099 Posts: 899 Member
    I have a giant 5lb bag of sour gummy worms in my desk drawer right now (my gf surprised me with it on my bday because i love these) and I still only eat 6-12 of them at most per day, and I'm still losing weight. I totally love these, but self control keeps them in my desk drawer and when I do partake I keep it reasonable.

    Sugar isn't the problem, your self control is.

    Trolli Sour worms are 120 cal for 12 by the way, so not too bad if you don't over do it.
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,136 Member
    on a side note, these threads inevitably always turn into an argument about sugar addiction ...

    if you carry around sugar packets in your pocket so that you can constantly get your "sugar high" then you might have an argument, but I fail to see anyone ever admit to doing that....

    or, if you just sit in your house and eat bowls of raw sugar you may have an argument as well, but I have personally never heard of anyone doing this..
    your views on addiction are twisted my friend. it is a looser definition than you think

    well as someone who personally spent a year in rehab in my early twenties and have had friends who are addicted to pain killers..I think have a pretty good perception on real addiction....just saying..
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,136 Member
    on a side note, these threads inevitably always turn into an argument about sugar addiction ...

    if you carry around sugar packets in your pocket so that you can constantly get your "sugar high" then you might have an argument, but I fail to see anyone ever admit to doing that....

    or, if you just sit in your house and eat bowls of raw sugar you may have an argument as well, but I have personally never heard of anyone doing this..

    Believe it or not, there are people who do eat that amount of sugar in a day. Not sugar packets but considering the amount of sugar, it might was well be.

    My problem is not disagreeing with an article, it's the way people do it. You can respond without being a jerk (Not meaning you specifically).

    There are many ways to be healthier and the OP just posted information...unless I read it wrong. And because others disagree, they get nasty. It's just information.

    The OP's post did state, "This is a good explanation of how sugar converts to fat in the body when eaten in excess".

    well the OP has a track record of "sugar fear mongering" and then never coming back to defend her posts...what most are objecting to and being snarky about is that she always posts these articles or snipets that contain half truths and then never comes back to defend what she is saying...the concern is that newbies to MFP will read this and take it as fact, when it is not..

    just go search her posting history and you will see...
  • 3dogsrunning
    3dogsrunning Posts: 27,167 Member
    on a side note, these threads inevitably always turn into an argument about sugar addiction ...

    if you carry around sugar packets in your pocket so that you can constantly get your "sugar high" then you might have an argument, but I fail to see anyone ever admit to doing that....

    or, if you just sit in your house and eat bowls of raw sugar you may have an argument as well, but I have personally never heard of anyone doing this..
    your views on addiction are twisted my friend. it is a looser definition than you think

    I agree that addiction can be looser, but can we get a clearer definition on being "addicted" to sugar. There are people who say that they are helpless against their urges towards sugar and comparasions made to cocaine which is why I think you get these type of analogies thrown out there.
    from websters;
    -compulsive need for and use of a habit-forming substance (as heroin, nicotine, or alcohol) characterized by tolerance and by well-defined physiological symptoms upon withdrawal; broadly : persistent compulsive use of a substance known by the user to be harmful

    if you can apply this to it, then its addiction. i think its fair to say that some people go into withdrawal without sugar(getting cranky, less energy, some even get headaches) as well as people eating copious amounts despite knowing that its not healthy

    I have yet to see anyone suffer withdrawls from sugar similar to any of the ones listed above. And again, I have yet to see someone go to the extremes some people do for the above mentioned. I see addiction and withdrawls first hand on a regular basis. I'm not saying there aren't extreme cases involving food and sugar, but the majority of people claiming to have a "sugar" addiction does not fit with your above description.
  • AnotherXFitGuy
    AnotherXFitGuy Posts: 58 Member
    on a side note, these threads inevitably always turn into an argument about sugar addiction ...

    if you carry around sugar packets in your pocket so that you can constantly get your "sugar high" then you might have an argument, but I fail to see anyone ever admit to doing that....

    or, if you just sit in your house and eat bowls of raw sugar you may have an argument as well, but I have personally never heard of anyone doing this..

    Believe it or not, there are people who do eat that amount of sugar in a day. Not sugar packets but considering the amount of sugar, it might was well be.

    My problem is not disagreeing with an article, it's the way people do it. You can respond without being a jerk (Not meaning you specifically).

    There are many ways to be healthier and the OP just posted information...unless I read it wrong. And because others disagree, they get nasty. It's just information.

    The OP's post did state, "This is a good explanation of how sugar converts to fat in the body when eaten in excess".

    well the OP has a track record of "sugar fear mongering" and then never coming back to defend her posts...what most are objecting to and being snarky about is that she always posts these articles or snipets that contain half truths and then never comes back to defend what she is saying...the concern is that newbies to MFP will read this and take it as fact, when it is not..

    just go search her posting history and you will see...

    Gotcha. I don't believe in scare tactics either. I'll do a bit more research in the future.
  • BigT555
    BigT555 Posts: 2,067 Member
    on a side note, these threads inevitably always turn into an argument about sugar addiction ...

    if you carry around sugar packets in your pocket so that you can constantly get your "sugar high" then you might have an argument, but I fail to see anyone ever admit to doing that....

    or, if you just sit in your house and eat bowls of raw sugar you may have an argument as well, but I have personally never heard of anyone doing this..
    your views on addiction are twisted my friend. it is a looser definition than you think

    well as someone who personally spent a year in rehab in my early twenties and have had friends who are addicted to pain killers..I think have a pretty good perception on real addiction....just saying..
    then your own personal experiences have made you believe that addiction needs to be defined by extremes. doesnt mean that addictions of lesser degrees arent real addictions
  • BigT555
    BigT555 Posts: 2,067 Member
    on a side note, these threads inevitably always turn into an argument about sugar addiction ...

    if you carry around sugar packets in your pocket so that you can constantly get your "sugar high" then you might have an argument, but I fail to see anyone ever admit to doing that....

    or, if you just sit in your house and eat bowls of raw sugar you may have an argument as well, but I have personally never heard of anyone doing this..
    your views on addiction are twisted my friend. it is a looser definition than you think

    I agree that addiction can be looser, but can we get a clearer definition on being "addicted" to sugar. There are people who say that they are helpless against their urges towards sugar and comparasions made to cocaine which is why I think you get these type of analogies thrown out there.
    from websters;
    -compulsive need for and use of a habit-forming substance (as heroin, nicotine, or alcohol) characterized by tolerance and by well-defined physiological symptoms upon withdrawal; broadly : persistent compulsive use of a substance known by the user to be harmful

    if you can apply this to it, then its addiction. i think its fair to say that some people go into withdrawal without sugar(getting cranky, less energy, some even get headaches) as well as people eating copious amounts despite knowing that its not healthy

    I have yet to see anyone suffer withdrawls from sugar similar to any of the ones listed above. And again, I have yet to see someone go to the extremes some people do for the above mentioned. I see addiction and withdrawls first hand on a regular basis. I'm not saying there aren't extreme cases involving food and sugar, but the majority of people claiming to have a "sugar" addiction does not fit with your above description.
    people definitely get cranky (not everyone, but some) without a sugar fix. i agree that most people who claim to have an sugar addiction actually dont and its just a lack of willpower issue, but see the below study that i posted earlier
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763407000589
  • kgeyser
    kgeyser Posts: 22,505 Member
    on a side note, these threads inevitably always turn into an argument about sugar addiction ...

    if you carry around sugar packets in your pocket so that you can constantly get your "sugar high" then you might have an argument, but I fail to see anyone ever admit to doing that....

    or, if you just sit in your house and eat bowls of raw sugar you may have an argument as well, but I have personally never heard of anyone doing this..

    Believe it or not, there are people who do eat that amount of sugar in a day. Not sugar packets but considering the amount of sugar, it might was well be.

    My problem is not disagreeing with an article, it's the way people do it. You can respond without being a jerk (Not meaning you specifically).

    There are many ways to be healthier and the OP just posted information...unless I read it wrong. And because others disagree, they get nasty. It's just information.

    The OP's post did state, "This is a good explanation of how sugar converts to fat in the body when eaten in excess".

    This is the OP's MO. She posts some fear-mongering post about sugar. She cherry-picks portions of an article to support her position, then declares this is proof that she's right. If she does come back, she never responds to anyone questioning her statements, just the people who support her position and tell her how right she is.

    The OP preys on desperate people. She makes posts like this to make her followers believe they are victims of their weight gain, that it happened to them because of sugar, or sweets, or whatever she is ranting about. Since the followers are not encouraged to take charge of their own weight loss by practicing moderation and counting calories, they fail. And each time they fail, Joanne comes up with a new reason why some food is responsible for their failure. It's how she keeps her group going. She repeatedly posts misinformation like this. It's actually pretty sad that someone would do this to other people, which is why we make a point of disputing the things she says.
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    everything converts to fat.
    don't overcomplicate everything, thats not what this site is about. sure some foods are worse than others when not aten in moderation but this is about calories in vs. out

    Is it? It's Myfitnesspal, not myweightlosspal. Fitness is about more than weight. This is a great post.
  • jofjltncb6
    jofjltncb6 Posts: 34,415 Member
    on a side note, these threads inevitably always turn into an argument about sugar addiction ...

    if you carry around sugar packets in your pocket so that you can constantly get your "sugar high" then you might have an argument, but I fail to see anyone ever admit to doing that....

    or, if you just sit in your house and eat bowls of raw sugar you may have an argument as well, but I have personally never heard of anyone doing this..

    Believe it or not, there are people who do eat that amount of sugar in a day. Not sugar packets but considering the amount of sugar, it might was well be.

    My problem is not disagreeing with an article, it's the way people do it. You can respond without being a jerk (Not meaning you specifically).

    There are many ways to be healthier and the OP just posted information...unless I read it wrong. And because others disagree, they get nasty. It's just information.

    The OP's post did state, "This is a good explanation of how sugar converts to fat in the body when eaten in excess".

    well the OP has a track record of "sugar fear mongering" and then never coming back to defend her posts...what most are objecting to and being snarky about is that she always posts these articles or snipets that contain half truths and then never comes back to defend what she is saying...the concern is that newbies to MFP will read this and take it as fact, when it is not..

    just go search her posting history and you will see...

    ^this
    This is the OP's MO. She posts some fear-mongering post about sugar. She cherry-picks portions of an article to support her position, then declares this is proof that she's right. If she does come back, she never responds to anyone questioning her statements, just the people who support her position and tell her how right she is.

    The OP preys on desperate people. She makes posts like this to make her followers believe they are victims of their weight gain, that it happened to them because of sugar, or sweets, or whatever she is ranting about. Since the followers are not encouraged to take charge of their own weight loss by practicing moderation and counting calories, they fail. And each time they fail, Joanne comes up with a new reason why some food is responsible for their failure. It's how she keeps her group going. She repeatedly posts misinformation like this. It's actually pretty sad that someone would do this to other people, which is why we make a point of disputing the things she says.

    and ^this
  • BigT555
    BigT555 Posts: 2,067 Member
    everything converts to fat.
    don't overcomplicate everything, thats not what this site is about. sure some foods are worse than others when not aten in moderation but this is about calories in vs. out

    Is it? It's Myfitnesspal, not myweightlosspal. Fitness is about more than weight. This is a great post.
    its actually a garbage post that left out many important parts of the article. i agree fitness is more than weight loss, but kept to moderation anything is fine.

    and yes this site is about calories in vs. out. make a post about how excluding a single food is a good idea and see what happens
  • SunofaBeach14
    SunofaBeach14 Posts: 4,899 Member
    on a side note, these threads inevitably always turn into an argument about sugar addiction ...

    if you carry around sugar packets in your pocket so that you can constantly get your "sugar high" then you might have an argument, but I fail to see anyone ever admit to doing that....

    or, if you just sit in your house and eat bowls of raw sugar you may have an argument as well, but I have personally never heard of anyone doing this..

    Believe it or not, there are people who do eat that amount of sugar in a day. Not sugar packets but considering the amount of sugar, it might was well be.

    My problem is not disagreeing with an article, it's the way people do it. You can respond without being a jerk (Not meaning you specifically).

    There are many ways to be healthier and the OP just posted information...unless I read it wrong. And because others disagree, they get nasty. It's just information.

    The OP's post did state, "This is a good explanation of how sugar converts to fat in the body when eaten in excess".

    This is the OP's MO. She posts some fear-mongering post about sugar. She cherry-picks portions of an article to support her position, then declares this is proof that she's right. If she does come back, she never responds to anyone questioning her statements, just the people who support her position and tell her how right she is.

    The OP preys on desperate people. She makes posts like this to make her followers believe they are victims of their weight gain, that it happened to them because of sugar, or sweets, or whatever she is ranting about. Since the followers are not encouraged to take charge of their own weight loss by practicing moderation and counting calories, they fail. And each time they fail, Joanne comes up with a new reason why some food is responsible for their failure. It's how she keeps her group going. She repeatedly posts misinformation like this. It's actually pretty sad that someone would do this to other people, which is why we make a point of disputing the things she says.

    ^ Agreed. There's a difference between posting information and fear mongering
  • FrankieTrailBlazer
    FrankieTrailBlazer Posts: 124 Member
    The OP is probably a hack planted by Atkins Foundation to support its cranks including that fraud Lustig, lol....
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,136 Member
    on a side note, these threads inevitably always turn into an argument about sugar addiction ...

    if you carry around sugar packets in your pocket so that you can constantly get your "sugar high" then you might have an argument, but I fail to see anyone ever admit to doing that....

    or, if you just sit in your house and eat bowls of raw sugar you may have an argument as well, but I have personally never heard of anyone doing this..
    your views on addiction are twisted my friend. it is a looser definition than you think

    well as someone who personally spent a year in rehab in my early twenties and have had friends who are addicted to pain killers..I think have a pretty good perception on real addiction....just saying..
    then your own personal experiences have made you believe that addiction needs to be defined by extremes. doesnt mean that addictions of lesser degrees arent real addictions

    my personal opinion is that by labeling every single thing that people have a problem with an "addiction" is a smack in the face to people who have real problems and real addictions..

    compare a so called "sugar addict" to a hard core oxycodone addict, and you will see what I mean ..

    I know someone that prior rehab would lie to his wife so he can go down the street, meet his dealer, get high, and then come back home and act like everything is fine...

    ever see anyone do that for a sugar fix?

Categories