sugar addiction

TheVirgoddess wrote: »

zillie77 wrote: »

Sugar has effects on the nucleus accumbens and the ventral tegmental areas of the brain, which are involved with addiction. There are increasing studies suggesting that sugar, and a sugar-fat combination has similar effects on the brain to opiates, like morphine, heroin, etc. in terms of dopamine binding, increased tolerance, withdrawal symptoms, etc.

People don't get as high or drunk on sugar as they do on other substances like cocaine or heroin, but it probably is addictive, like nicotine or anything else.

Okay, given that information.

Wouldn't someone who drank 5-6 sodas a day go through some withdraw symptoms after dropping down to half a soda a day?

Because that's exactly what I did, and I felt nothing (and I'm a former smoker, I know).

If sugar were addictive - we all eat it, so why isn't everyone addicted?

It is not true that everyone who has an addiction, or is dependent on a substance will go through withdrawal. I have seen severe alcoholics stop drinking abruptly and not go through any withdrawal symptoms, and I have seen folks with smaller habits go through severe withdrawal. When it comes to alcohol, for example, the withdrawal phenomenon is potentiated when someone goes through repeated withdrawal, and with age.

zillie77 wrote: »

Troutsy wrote: »

seamonster1203 wrote: »

Troutsy wrote: »

seamonster1203 wrote: »

If one bite of sugar/carbs sends you on a binge, then you are part of the 50% of humans who are carb sensitive. Your insulin response is different. I suggest you research the term insulin response.

I've never heard that 50% of humans are carb sensitive. Do you have a source for that? I'm genuinely curious.

Hh yea lots of emerging research. The sugar debate is in full rage right now among researchers. Just look around you cant miss it.

Did a search and couldn't find one peer reviewed article. Not even in the two nursing journals I'm subscribed to. I must be missing something. If you have a source I'd like to read it.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15987666

Article is ten years old and a study done on rats.

FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »

zillie77 wrote: »

Troutsy wrote: »

seamonster1203 wrote: »

Troutsy wrote: »

seamonster1203 wrote: »

If one bite of sugar/carbs sends you on a binge, then you are part of the 50% of humans who are carb sensitive. Your insulin response is different. I suggest you research the term insulin response.

I've never heard that 50% of humans are carb sensitive. Do you have a source for that? I'm genuinely curious.

Hh yea lots of emerging research. The sugar debate is in full rage right now among researchers. Just look around you cant miss it.

Did a search and couldn't find one peer reviewed article. Not even in the two nursing journals I'm subscribed to. I must be missing something. If you have a source I'd like to read it.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15987666

Another study that used lab rats… Not valuable.

not to mention it's ten years old

FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »

Troutsy wrote: »

FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »

zillie77 wrote: »

Troutsy wrote: »

seamonster1203 wrote: »

Troutsy wrote: »

seamonster1203 wrote: »

If one bite of sugar/carbs sends you on a binge, then you are part of the 50% of humans who are carb sensitive. Your insulin response is different. I suggest you research the term insulin response.

I've never heard that 50% of humans are carb sensitive. Do you have a source for that? I'm genuinely curious.

Hh yea lots of emerging research. The sugar debate is in full rage right now among researchers. Just look around you cant miss it.

Did a search and couldn't find one peer reviewed article. Not even in the two nursing journals I'm subscribed to. I must be missing something. If you have a source I'd like to read it.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15987666

Another study that used lab rats… Not valuable.

not to mention it's ten years old

Agreed! My nursing professors wouldn't accept any sources that were older than 5 years as well.

Mine as well

Neither the fact that an article is 10 years old or that it is done on rats diminishes it's validity one bit. Most of what we know about neuroscience and cognitive affective basis of behavior are based on animal model studies. When it comes to the dopaminergic reward pathway rat brains are quite similar.

I used to help do nucleus basalis and basal ganglia lesions on rats in undergrad... well.. longer ago than I would care to admit.

That being said two articles by the same three authors is showing that this is something that has been proposed and discussed. They have some data points that are hardly surprising and there is certainly room for disagreeing with their interpretation of those data points. The reward pathway is how we learn. It rewards things that are pleasurable and that have survival value such as mating or eating sugars... something that for most of human history was relatively hard to come by and provided an advantage both physically and cognitively.

Troutsy wrote: »

jenglish712 wrote: »

Neither the fact that an article is 10 years old or that it is done on rats diminishes it's validity one bit. Most of what we know about neuroscience and cognitive affective basis of behavior are based on animal model studies. When it comes to the dopaminergic reward pathway rat brains are quite similar.

I used to help do nucleus basalis and basal ganglia lesions on rats in undergrad... well.. longer ago than I would care to admit.

That being said two articles by the same three authors is showing that this is something that has been proposed and discussed. They have some data points that are hardly surprising and there is certainly room for disagreeing with their interpretation of those data points. The reward pathway is how we learn. It rewards things that are pleasurable and that have survival value such as mating or eating sugars... something that for most of human history was relatively hard to come by and provided an advantage both physically and cognitively.

If the study done on rats proved effective wouldn't we have seen human studies in the past ten years? I'm not saying sugar isn't a problem for some people but using the word addiction isn't correct. It isn't listed as a medical diagnosis or in the DSM. Being in the medical field for the past four years and after spending 4 years prior in nursing school I've learned that anything over 5 years old cannot be sited as current research.

I'm not saying sugar is and addiction, in fact I would argue it is not. In fact I had earlier in this monstrosity pointed out it was not in the DSM and would at best be a "behavioral addiction" in the ICD-11 whenever it rolls out.

You may have trouble finding up to date peer reviewed journal articles on the internet at large without paying for subscriptions. Journals are a business too. There could be a number of reasons why there is not human studies such as cost or that it may not be ethical to do some things to humans. When we did animal model research, we put their brains on slides at the end. Not getting that through an IRB with humans. But more likely in this situation there may not have been follow up research (animal or human) because there just wasn't interest and it was a research dead end. But most peer reviewed articles end up citing both current and older research. Data doesn't stop have an expiration date where it quits being valid, it just may be supplanted.

jenglish712 wrote: »

Troutsy wrote: »

jenglish712 wrote: »

Neither the fact that an article is 10 years old or that it is done on rats diminishes it's validity one bit. Most of what we know about neuroscience and cognitive affective basis of behavior are based on animal model studies. When it comes to the dopaminergic reward pathway rat brains are quite similar.

I used to help do nucleus basalis and basal ganglia lesions on rats in undergrad... well.. longer ago than I would care to admit.

That being said two articles by the same three authors is showing that this is something that has been proposed and discussed. They have some data points that are hardly surprising and there is certainly room for disagreeing with their interpretation of those data points. The reward pathway is how we learn. It rewards things that are pleasurable and that have survival value such as mating or eating sugars... something that for most of human history was relatively hard to come by and provided an advantage both physically and cognitively.

If the study done on rats proved effective wouldn't we have seen human studies in the past ten years? I'm not saying sugar isn't a problem for some people but using the word addiction isn't correct. It isn't listed as a medical diagnosis or in the DSM. Being in the medical field for the past four years and after spending 4 years prior in nursing school I've learned that anything over 5 years old cannot be sited as current research.

I'm not saying sugar is and addiction, in fact I would argue it is not. In fact I had earlier in this monstrosity pointed out it was not in the DSM and would at best be a "behavioral addiction" in the ICD-11 whenever it rolls out.

You may have trouble finding up to date peer reviewed journal articles on the internet at large without paying for subscriptions. Journals are a business too. There could be a number of reasons why there is not human studies such as cost or that it may not be ethical to do some things to humans. When we did animal model research, we put their brains on slides at the end. Not getting that through an IRB with humans. But more likely in this situation there may not have been follow up research (animal or human) because there just wasn't interest and it was a research dead end. But most peer reviewed articles end up citing both current and older research. Data doesn't stop have an expiration date where it quits being valid, it just may be supplanted.

I missed your earlier post about the DSM- sorry about that, I did bold part of what you said because I had issues finding articles and I am subscribed to two online journals and couldn't find any current research. We may have to agree to disagree about siting older research .

So what happens after you stop eating sugar for 30 or however many days

[/quote]

I missed your earlier post about the DSM- sorry about that, I did bold part of what you said because I had issues finding articles and I am subscribed to two online journals and couldn't find any current research. We may have to agree to disagree about siting older research .
[/quote]

My guess would be there wouldn't be much even if we did a thorough literature review. This would be a particularly difficult one to do because it could be published in psychology, neuro, nutrition, medical, etc. So I would have to search a couple hundred journals to be sure. And I really am not that intrigued.

Even most published meta-analysis end up using data that is over five years old. In a perfect world more current research is preferred, but if none has been done since then, it does not mean that data is now meaningless and we know nothing.

I did find at least an interesting abstract from D Benton in Clinical Nutrition, 2010 :

Summary
Background & aims
To consider the hypothesis that addiction to food, or more specifically sucrose, plays a role in obesity and eating disorders.

Methods
By considering the relevant literature a series of predictions were examined, derived from the hypothesis that addiction to sucrose consumption can develop. Fasting should increase food cravings, predominantly for sweet items; cravings should occur after an overnight fast; the obese should find sweetness particularly attractive; a high-sugar consumption should predispose to obesity. More specifically predictions based on the hypothesis that addiction to sugar is central to bingeing disorders were developed. Dieting should predate the development of bingeing; dietary style rather than psychological, social and economic factors should be predispose to eating disorders; sweet items should be preferentially consumed while bingeing; opioid antagonists should cause withdrawal symptoms; bingeing should develop at a younger age when there is a greater preference for sweetness.

Results
The above predications have in common that on no occasion was the behaviour predicted by an animal model of sucrose addiction supported by human studies.

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.

jenglish712 wrote: »

How odd that at this point this has turned into two posters against it being an addiction arguing why those studies don't prove anything.

I wasn't arguing that the studies didn't prove anything... I was stating that it wasn't current research.

jenglish712 wrote: »

Seriously?

MrM27 wrote: »

kyta32 wrote: »

ndj1979 wrote: »

OP - unless you are rummaging through a dumpster to get your sugar fix or eating spoons of sugar out of a bowl, you are not addicted to sugar. Do you have some self control issues with certain foods, perhaps...
-
My suggestion - create a calorie deficit, try to eat the foods that you like (yes, I mean some ice cream, cookies, etc), get a food scale and weigh log measure everything that you eat. Foods are not "good" or "bad" they are just food that your body uses for energy (or for tissue repair, muscle growth, to maintain bones, to prevent cancer or disease, or to protect vision, the cardiovascular system, the nervous system, the brain....) Try to make better choices (based on what?) and maintain your calorie deficit.

you can lose 50 pounds and eat sugar...

Italics in above mine.

As someone who has gone through the garbage can to eat sugary treats, yes - sugar activates reward pathways similar to how drugs do. Individual responses to addictive substances vary, however. Some people are more likely to become alcoholic, some are more vulnerable to opiate addiction, and sugar addiction varies from person to person. None deserve judgement. Blame does not help anyone manage their weight.

As the OP is asking for help overcoming sugar addiction, not to be advised on the state of her willpower, this is my perspective:

• Make sure you are hitting your macro and micronutrient goals. Dairy cravings have destroyed several of my diets - pica is a thing, eating smart works better than willpower
• Especially be sure you are getting enough protein. Try for .8g per kg of body weight. MFP recommendations may be too low. Protein will help you feel more satisfied, and may help you to feel fuller longer.
• Don't set yourself up for failure. I eat before I take my kids to the food court. It's easier to say no to ice cream if I'm already full.
• Don't try for too high a deficit and eat back some of your exercise calories
• Make sure to get enough sleep
• Consiously try to change bad habits and eliminate mindless munching. Or, replace go-to snacks with something lower calorie (i.e. celery and carrot sticks instead of a bag of M&Ms)
• Exercise. When the cravings hit, take a walk instead of eating. Intense exercise can help lower hunger. It may also retrain taste to prefer lower-calorie foods.
• Some people mistake hunger for thirst. Try having a glass of water before indulging.
• Eating meals at regular times may help with cravings
• Cravings can be hormonal. Sometimes you just have to ride it out for a few days, and then things get better.
• Chose to include sweets, but just one at the end of the day. Have them come packaged in in single servings (i.e. one pudding cup, not a bag of cookies).
• If it

is emotional, wait it out. It may be healthier to feel the bad feelings, and talk/write yourself through them, than to eat them away.

Try one change, give it a while (21 days for a new habit) to see if it works, then try another. Eventually you will find out what works for you. Good luck

Oh, well played. In sure that happened.

jenglish712 wrote: »

Troutsy wrote: »

jenglish712 wrote: »

Neither the fact that an article is 10 years old or that it is done on rats diminishes it's validity one bit. Most of what we know about neuroscience and cognitive affective basis of behavior are based on animal model studies. When it comes to the dopaminergic reward pathway rat brains are quite similar.

I used to help do nucleus basalis and basal ganglia lesions on rats in undergrad... well.. longer ago than I would care to admit.

That being said two articles by the same three authors is showing that this is something that has been proposed and discussed. They have some data points that are hardly surprising and there is certainly room for disagreeing with their interpretation of those data points. The reward pathway is how we learn. It rewards things that are pleasurable and that have survival value such as mating or eating sugars... something that for most of human history was relatively hard to come by and provided an advantage both physically and cognitively.

If the study done on rats proved effective wouldn't we have seen human studies in the past ten years? I'm not saying sugar isn't a problem for some people but using the word addiction isn't correct. It isn't listed as a medical diagnosis or in the DSM. Being in the medical field for the past four years and after spending 4 years prior in nursing school I've learned that anything over 5 years old cannot be sited as current research.

I'm not saying sugar is and addiction, in fact I would argue it is not. In fact I had earlier in this monstrosity pointed out it was not in the DSM and would at best be a "behavioral addiction" in the ICD-11 whenever it rolls out.

You may have trouble finding up to date peer reviewed journal articles on the internet at large without paying for subscriptions. Journals are a business too. There could be a number of reasons why there is not human studies such as cost or that it may not be ethical to do some things to humans. When we did animal model research, we put their brains on slides at the end. Not getting that through an IRB with humans. But more likely in this situation there may not have been follow up research (animal or human) because there just wasn't interest and it was a research dead end. But most peer reviewed articles end up citing both current and older research. Data doesn't stop have an expiration date where it quits being valid, it just may be supplanted.

As a fellow researcher, I can relate to your IRB pains.

_SKIM_ wrote: »

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763414002140?via=ihub

Thanks for the link- I have some reading to do

jenglish712 wrote: »

Troutsy wrote: »

jenglish712 wrote: »

How odd that at this point this has turned into two posters against it being an addiction arguing why those studies don't prove anything.

I wasn't arguing that the studies didn't prove anything... I was stating that it wasn't current research.

jenglish712 wrote: »

Seriously?

That was a joke that we were relatively splitting hairs on a discussion we overall agreed upon and the general banality of things that end up being disputed on an internet discussion. Perhaps if I would have put those two together in one post it would have made more sense. I was making fun of the situation.

I guess reading it as two different posts I didn't get the joke- my bad. It's been a very long week.

Troutsy wrote: »

jenglish712 wrote: »

Troutsy wrote: »

jenglish712 wrote: »

How odd that at this point this has turned into two posters against it being an addiction arguing why those studies don't prove anything.

I wasn't arguing that the studies didn't prove anything... I was stating that it wasn't current research.

jenglish712 wrote: »

Seriously?

That was a joke that we were relatively splitting hairs on a discussion we overall agreed upon and the general banality of things that end up being disputed on an internet discussion. Perhaps if I would have put those two together in one post it would have made more sense. I was making fun of the situation.

I guess reading it as two different posts I didn't get the joke- my bad. It's been a very long week.

It's not your fault, my humor is a bit dry and I don't use many emojis... I'm old.