Sugar Cleanse- Help!
Replies
-
tedboosalis7 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »Addiction isn't the same a enjoying hyperpalatable foods. You body needs glucose/glycogen to function. It doesn't however need it in excessive amounts.
You don't have to "quit" sugar. Just reduce the amount you consume.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
The PT and nutritionist is correct. Sugar is in fruit - my take on it is don't eat any added sugars from processed sources - substitute fruit for anything you would crave (like candy) and that will help you get through the "DTs" of sugar cravings.
Elimination is key - eliminate processed foods and get down to the whole foods level - then build back up - only through the process of elimination will you find which foods are really causing the issue.
No it's not key. Some people do well with elimination, others don't at all.
I guess I should bother on this one. Yes it is key. Eliminating foods is essential to troubleshooting the issue. That's how you figure out what's working and what's not. Or it's one way.
Obviously all you wanted to do is in this post was denigrate/nitpick because you don't like me. Sad stuff indeed.
It's not that I don't like you. It's that you keep posting things as matter of fact that just aren't.0 -
bridgelene wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »
The PT and nutritionist is correct. Sugar is in fruit - my take on it is don't eat any added sugars from processed sources - substitute fruit for anything you would crave (like candy) and that will help you get through the "DTs" of sugar cravings.
HAH, "DTs" of sugar cravings. Nice analogy
You caught that one - very cool!!!
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »SailorKnightWing wrote: »
That's because drug addicts are almost universally dependent on their drug of choice.stevencloser wrote: »SailorKnightWing wrote: »
"Perhaps the most extensively studied reward is that of food. Food is the quintessential reward in many rodent studies and has been used as a reinforcer in procedures such as operant (self-administration) tasks, runway tests, maze learning, gambling tasks, and place conditioning (Skinner, 1930; Ettenberg and Camp, 1986; Kandel et al, 2000; Kelley, 2004; Tzschentke, 2007; Zeeb et al, 2009). In rats that were trained to press a lever to receive intravenous self-administration of drugs, highly palatable foods such as sugar and saccharin were shown to reduce self-administration of cocaine and heroin (Carroll et al, 1989; Lenoir and Ahmed, 2008), and these natural reinforcers have been demonstrated to outcompete cocaine in choice self-administration in the majority of rats tested (Lenoir et al, 2007; Cantin et al, 2010). This would suggest that sweet foods have a higher reinforcing value than cocaine, even in animals with an extensive history of drug intake (Cantin et al., 2010). While this phenomenon could appear as a weakness in current models of cocaine addiction, a minority of rats prefer cocaine to sugar or saccharin (Cantin et al., 2010). It is possible that these animals may represent a “vulnerable” population, which is more relevant to the human condition. This notion is explored more in the Discussion (Section 6.1).SailorKnightWing wrote: »1000colours wrote: »According to quite a few studies, sugar can be just as addictive as cocain as they stimulate the same area of the brain. As someone who's also suffered from sugar addiction, you just have to get it out of the house and have to say no every single time. Just constantly have the willpower to say no. Of course you need a little bit of sugar in your diet so opt for fruit instead of refined sugars.
Hope you kick your addiction, good luck!
Which studies?
This one. It doesn't say exactly that, but things that aren't drugs CAN BE addictive. Which, again, is different than causing dependence.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3139704/
Well, if it doesn't say anything about sugar, what relevance does it have here?
I will need to read later on.
ETA: read it. The study says nothing about sugar and talks about parallels between drug addiction and other types of addictive behavior. The point being missed is that drug and alcohol addiction is physical first, behavioral second, and people die from it.
You guys are still confusing addiction as dependence. Addiction can be to ANYTHING (yes, even petting puppies) because it's a series of behaviors. Addiction often accompanies dependence, but not always. Are you saying gambling addiction isn't a thing? Because it is.
I have yet to see a drug addict who'd take a donut over a line.
Again:
http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/principles-drug-addiction-treatment-research-based-guide-third-edition/frequently-asked-questions/there-difference-between-physical-dependence
And the rats in the study weren't?
Apparently not. Or at least not enough to make cocaine more appealing than sugar.0 -
barbecuesauce wrote: »SailorKnightWing wrote: »1000colours wrote: »According to quite a few studies, sugar can be just as addictive as cocain as they stimulate the same area of the brain. As someone who's also suffered from sugar addiction, you just have to get it out of the house and have to say no every single time. Just constantly have the willpower to say no. Of course you need a little bit of sugar in your diet so opt for fruit instead of refined sugars.
Hope you kick your addiction, good luck!
Which studies?
This one. It doesn't say exactly that, but things that aren't drugs CAN BE addictive. Which, again, is different than causing dependence.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3139704/
Like petting puppies
Or cats.
Not cats, just puppies...cos puppies
Best post on the thread.0 -
SailorKnightWing wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »SailorKnightWing wrote: »
That's because drug addicts are almost universally dependent on their drug of choice.stevencloser wrote: »SailorKnightWing wrote: »
"Perhaps the most extensively studied reward is that of food. Food is the quintessential reward in many rodent studies and has been used as a reinforcer in procedures such as operant (self-administration) tasks, runway tests, maze learning, gambling tasks, and place conditioning (Skinner, 1930; Ettenberg and Camp, 1986; Kandel et al, 2000; Kelley, 2004; Tzschentke, 2007; Zeeb et al, 2009). In rats that were trained to press a lever to receive intravenous self-administration of drugs, highly palatable foods such as sugar and saccharin were shown to reduce self-administration of cocaine and heroin (Carroll et al, 1989; Lenoir and Ahmed, 2008), and these natural reinforcers have been demonstrated to outcompete cocaine in choice self-administration in the majority of rats tested (Lenoir et al, 2007; Cantin et al, 2010). This would suggest that sweet foods have a higher reinforcing value than cocaine, even in animals with an extensive history of drug intake (Cantin et al., 2010). While this phenomenon could appear as a weakness in current models of cocaine addiction, a minority of rats prefer cocaine to sugar or saccharin (Cantin et al., 2010). It is possible that these animals may represent a “vulnerable” population, which is more relevant to the human condition. This notion is explored more in the Discussion (Section 6.1).SailorKnightWing wrote: »1000colours wrote: »According to quite a few studies, sugar can be just as addictive as cocain as they stimulate the same area of the brain. As someone who's also suffered from sugar addiction, you just have to get it out of the house and have to say no every single time. Just constantly have the willpower to say no. Of course you need a little bit of sugar in your diet so opt for fruit instead of refined sugars.
Hope you kick your addiction, good luck!
Which studies?
This one. It doesn't say exactly that, but things that aren't drugs CAN BE addictive. Which, again, is different than causing dependence.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3139704/
Well, if it doesn't say anything about sugar, what relevance does it have here?
I will need to read later on.
ETA: read it. The study says nothing about sugar and talks about parallels between drug addiction and other types of addictive behavior. The point being missed is that drug and alcohol addiction is physical first, behavioral second, and people die from it.
You guys are still confusing addiction as dependence. Addiction can be to ANYTHING (yes, even petting puppies) because it's a series of behaviors. Addiction often accompanies dependence, but not always. Are you saying gambling addiction isn't a thing? Because it is.
I have yet to see a drug addict who'd take a donut over a line.
Again:
http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/principles-drug-addiction-treatment-research-based-guide-third-edition/frequently-asked-questions/there-difference-between-physical-dependence
And the rats in the study weren't?
Apparently not. Or at least not enough to make cocaine more appealing than sugar.
Sounds suspect to me.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »SailorKnightWing wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »SailorKnightWing wrote: »
That's because drug addicts are almost universally dependent on their drug of choice.stevencloser wrote: »SailorKnightWing wrote: »
"Perhaps the most extensively studied reward is that of food. Food is the quintessential reward in many rodent studies and has been used as a reinforcer in procedures such as operant (self-administration) tasks, runway tests, maze learning, gambling tasks, and place conditioning (Skinner, 1930; Ettenberg and Camp, 1986; Kandel et al, 2000; Kelley, 2004; Tzschentke, 2007; Zeeb et al, 2009). In rats that were trained to press a lever to receive intravenous self-administration of drugs, highly palatable foods such as sugar and saccharin were shown to reduce self-administration of cocaine and heroin (Carroll et al, 1989; Lenoir and Ahmed, 2008), and these natural reinforcers have been demonstrated to outcompete cocaine in choice self-administration in the majority of rats tested (Lenoir et al, 2007; Cantin et al, 2010). This would suggest that sweet foods have a higher reinforcing value than cocaine, even in animals with an extensive history of drug intake (Cantin et al., 2010). While this phenomenon could appear as a weakness in current models of cocaine addiction, a minority of rats prefer cocaine to sugar or saccharin (Cantin et al., 2010). It is possible that these animals may represent a “vulnerable” population, which is more relevant to the human condition. This notion is explored more in the Discussion (Section 6.1).SailorKnightWing wrote: »1000colours wrote: »According to quite a few studies, sugar can be just as addictive as cocain as they stimulate the same area of the brain. As someone who's also suffered from sugar addiction, you just have to get it out of the house and have to say no every single time. Just constantly have the willpower to say no. Of course you need a little bit of sugar in your diet so opt for fruit instead of refined sugars.
Hope you kick your addiction, good luck!
Which studies?
This one. It doesn't say exactly that, but things that aren't drugs CAN BE addictive. Which, again, is different than causing dependence.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3139704/
Well, if it doesn't say anything about sugar, what relevance does it have here?
I will need to read later on.
ETA: read it. The study says nothing about sugar and talks about parallels between drug addiction and other types of addictive behavior. The point being missed is that drug and alcohol addiction is physical first, behavioral second, and people die from it.
You guys are still confusing addiction as dependence. Addiction can be to ANYTHING (yes, even petting puppies) because it's a series of behaviors. Addiction often accompanies dependence, but not always. Are you saying gambling addiction isn't a thing? Because it is.
I have yet to see a drug addict who'd take a donut over a line.
Again:
http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/principles-drug-addiction-treatment-research-based-guide-third-edition/frequently-asked-questions/there-difference-between-physical-dependence
And the rats in the study weren't?
Apparently not. Or at least not enough to make cocaine more appealing than sugar.
Sounds suspect to me.
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »Addiction isn't the same a enjoying hyperpalatable foods. You body needs glucose/glycogen to function. It doesn't however need it in excessive amounts.
You don't have to "quit" sugar. Just reduce the amount you consume.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
The PT and nutritionist is correct. Sugar is in fruit - my take on it is don't eat any added sugars from processed sources - substitute fruit for anything you would crave (like candy) and that will help you get through the "DTs" of sugar cravings.
Elimination is key - eliminate processed foods and get down to the whole foods level - then build back up - only through the process of elimination will you find which foods are really causing the issue.
No it's not key. Some people do well with elimination, others don't at all.
I guess I should bother on this one. Yes it is key. Eliminating foods is essential to troubleshooting the issue. That's how you figure out what's working and what's not. Or it's one way.
Obviously all you wanted to do is in this post was denigrate/nitpick because you don't like me. Sad stuff indeed.
It's not that I don't like you. It's that you keep posting things as matter of fact that just aren't.
Absolutely it matters and you posted it because that's your M.O. It is a matter of fact and plenty of literature to support it.
We all do it all the time. If we didn't, we would all be eating ice cream all day long man.0 -
Add more healthy fat to your diet. It will help tremendously.0
-
SailorKnightWing wrote: »
"Perhaps the most extensively studied reward is that of food. Food is the quintessential reward in many rodent studies and has been used as a reinforcer in procedures such as operant (self-administration) tasks, runway tests, maze learning, gambling tasks, and place conditioning (Skinner, 1930; Ettenberg and Camp, 1986; Kandel et al, 2000; Kelley, 2004; Tzschentke, 2007; Zeeb et al, 2009). In rats that were trained to press a lever to receive intravenous self-administration of drugs, highly palatable foods such as sugar and saccharin were shown to reduce self-administration of cocaine and heroin (Carroll et al, 1989; Lenoir and Ahmed, 2008), and these natural reinforcers have been demonstrated to outcompete cocaine in choice self-administration in the majority of rats tested (Lenoir et al, 2007; Cantin et al, 2010). This would suggest that sweet foods have a higher reinforcing value than cocaine, even in animals with an extensive history of drug intake (Cantin et al., 2010). While this phenomenon could appear as a weakness in current models of cocaine addiction, a minority of rats prefer cocaine to sugar or saccharin (Cantin et al., 2010). It is possible that these animals may represent a “vulnerable” population, which is more relevant to the human condition. This notion is explored more in the Discussion (Section 6.1).SailorKnightWing wrote: »1000colours wrote: »According to quite a few studies, sugar can be just as addictive as cocain as they stimulate the same area of the brain. As someone who's also suffered from sugar addiction, you just have to get it out of the house and have to say no every single time. Just constantly have the willpower to say no. Of course you need a little bit of sugar in your diet so opt for fruit instead of refined sugars.
Hope you kick your addiction, good luck!
Which studies?
This one. It doesn't say exactly that, but things that aren't drugs CAN BE addictive. Which, again, is different than causing dependence.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3139704/
Well, if it doesn't say anything about sugar, what relevance does it have here?
I will need to read later on.
ETA: read it. The study says nothing about sugar and talks about parallels between drug addiction and other types of addictive behavior. The point being missed is that drug and alcohol addiction is physical first, behavioral second, and people die from it.
You guys are still confusing addiction as dependence. Addiction can be to ANYTHING (yes, even petting puppies) because it's a series of behaviors. Addiction often accompanies dependence, but not always. Are you saying gambling addiction isn't a thing? Because it is.
Gambling, sex, and food addictions do exist, but the are behavioral and not physical. I will say it again: drug and alcohol addictions are physical first, behavioral second.
I'm not confusing anything with anything.0 -
Please don't think I'm advocating that sugar dependence is a thing. It's not. You cannot become dependent on sugar the same way you can to cocaine or heroin. That's not how sugars of any type are processed in the body.
I'm merely trying to correct our vocabulary.0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »Addiction isn't the same a enjoying hyperpalatable foods. You body needs glucose/glycogen to function. It doesn't however need it in excessive amounts.
You don't have to "quit" sugar. Just reduce the amount you consume.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
The PT and nutritionist is correct. Sugar is in fruit - my take on it is don't eat any added sugars from processed sources - substitute fruit for anything you would crave (like candy) and that will help you get through the "DTs" of sugar cravings.
Elimination is key - eliminate processed foods and get down to the whole foods level - then build back up - only through the process of elimination will you find which foods are really causing the issue.
No it's not key. Some people do well with elimination, others don't at all.
I guess I should bother on this one. Yes it is key. Eliminating foods is essential to troubleshooting the issue. That's how you figure out what's working and what's not. Or it's one way.
Obviously all you wanted to do is in this post was denigrate/nitpick because you don't like me. Sad stuff indeed.
It's not that I don't like you. It's that you keep posting things as matter of fact that just aren't.
Absolutely it matters and you posted it because that's your M.O. It is a matter of fact and plenty of literature to support it.
We all do it all the time. If we didn't, we would all be eating ice cream all day long man.
In the last year the only things I have eliminated has been excess calories and being a lazy ar$e and I'm at maintenance after losing over 50 lbs
Yesterday I ate 2 icecreams, 2 packs of baked chips, chocolate and 2 biscuits ...within my programme and meeting my macros and micros...I over-ran my calorie limit by 57 calories ...meh no biggie, am averaging over the week0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »Addiction isn't the same a enjoying hyperpalatable foods. You body needs glucose/glycogen to function. It doesn't however need it in excessive amounts.
You don't have to "quit" sugar. Just reduce the amount you consume.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
The PT and nutritionist is correct. Sugar is in fruit - my take on it is don't eat any added sugars from processed sources - substitute fruit for anything you would crave (like candy) and that will help you get through the "DTs" of sugar cravings.
Elimination is key - eliminate processed foods and get down to the whole foods level - then build back up - only through the process of elimination will you find which foods are really causing the issue.
No it's not key. Some people do well with elimination, others don't at all.
I guess I should bother on this one. Yes it is key. Eliminating foods is essential to troubleshooting the issue. That's how you figure out what's working and what's not. Or it's one way.
Obviously all you wanted to do is in this post was denigrate/nitpick because you don't like me. Sad stuff indeed.
It's not that I don't like you. It's that you keep posting things as matter of fact that just aren't.
Absolutely it matters and you posted it because that's your M.O. It is a matter of fact and plenty of literature to support it.
We all do it all the time. If we didn't, we would all be eating ice cream all day long man.
Plenty of people on here will gladly tell you otherwise, how they didn't have the need to eliminate even one single thing to get themselves in line.0 -
SailorKnightWing wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »SailorKnightWing wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »SailorKnightWing wrote: »
That's because drug addicts are almost universally dependent on their drug of choice.stevencloser wrote: »SailorKnightWing wrote: »
"Perhaps the most extensively studied reward is that of food. Food is the quintessential reward in many rodent studies and has been used as a reinforcer in procedures such as operant (self-administration) tasks, runway tests, maze learning, gambling tasks, and place conditioning (Skinner, 1930; Ettenberg and Camp, 1986; Kandel et al, 2000; Kelley, 2004; Tzschentke, 2007; Zeeb et al, 2009). In rats that were trained to press a lever to receive intravenous self-administration of drugs, highly palatable foods such as sugar and saccharin were shown to reduce self-administration of cocaine and heroin (Carroll et al, 1989; Lenoir and Ahmed, 2008), and these natural reinforcers have been demonstrated to outcompete cocaine in choice self-administration in the majority of rats tested (Lenoir et al, 2007; Cantin et al, 2010). This would suggest that sweet foods have a higher reinforcing value than cocaine, even in animals with an extensive history of drug intake (Cantin et al., 2010). While this phenomenon could appear as a weakness in current models of cocaine addiction, a minority of rats prefer cocaine to sugar or saccharin (Cantin et al., 2010). It is possible that these animals may represent a “vulnerable” population, which is more relevant to the human condition. This notion is explored more in the Discussion (Section 6.1).SailorKnightWing wrote: »1000colours wrote: »According to quite a few studies, sugar can be just as addictive as cocain as they stimulate the same area of the brain. As someone who's also suffered from sugar addiction, you just have to get it out of the house and have to say no every single time. Just constantly have the willpower to say no. Of course you need a little bit of sugar in your diet so opt for fruit instead of refined sugars.
Hope you kick your addiction, good luck!
Which studies?
This one. It doesn't say exactly that, but things that aren't drugs CAN BE addictive. Which, again, is different than causing dependence.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3139704/
Well, if it doesn't say anything about sugar, what relevance does it have here?
I will need to read later on.
ETA: read it. The study says nothing about sugar and talks about parallels between drug addiction and other types of addictive behavior. The point being missed is that drug and alcohol addiction is physical first, behavioral second, and people die from it.
You guys are still confusing addiction as dependence. Addiction can be to ANYTHING (yes, even petting puppies) because it's a series of behaviors. Addiction often accompanies dependence, but not always. Are you saying gambling addiction isn't a thing? Because it is.
I have yet to see a drug addict who'd take a donut over a line.
Again:
http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/principles-drug-addiction-treatment-research-based-guide-third-edition/frequently-asked-questions/there-difference-between-physical-dependence
And the rats in the study weren't?
Apparently not. Or at least not enough to make cocaine more appealing than sugar.
Sounds suspect to me.
One study does not science make. If the results of a study seem suspect, you do more studies to see if the results were good.0 -
SailorKnightWing wrote: »Please don't think I'm advocating that sugar dependence is a thing. It's not. You cannot become dependent on sugar the same way you can to cocaine or heroin. That's not how sugars of any type are processed in the body.
I'm merely trying to correct our vocabulary.
Your previous posting sound like you are advocating sugar addiction, so thanks for clearing that up.
If you are addicted to drugs and alcohol, you are physically dependent on them.0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »
Seems as if there might be...
http://www.rehabs.com/addicted-to-sugar-theres-a-rehab-for-that/
Malibu Vista...a rehab for women and addictions...covers sugar addiction.
Idk...
Oh, California. Never change.
Anything to make a buck, heh?
I live in California, and it is indeed that way...though I don't advocate it.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
stevencloser wrote: »SailorKnightWing wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »SailorKnightWing wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »SailorKnightWing wrote: »
That's because drug addicts are almost universally dependent on their drug of choice.stevencloser wrote: »SailorKnightWing wrote: »
"Perhaps the most extensively studied reward is that of food. Food is the quintessential reward in many rodent studies and has been used as a reinforcer in procedures such as operant (self-administration) tasks, runway tests, maze learning, gambling tasks, and place conditioning (Skinner, 1930; Ettenberg and Camp, 1986; Kandel et al, 2000; Kelley, 2004; Tzschentke, 2007; Zeeb et al, 2009). In rats that were trained to press a lever to receive intravenous self-administration of drugs, highly palatable foods such as sugar and saccharin were shown to reduce self-administration of cocaine and heroin (Carroll et al, 1989; Lenoir and Ahmed, 2008), and these natural reinforcers have been demonstrated to outcompete cocaine in choice self-administration in the majority of rats tested (Lenoir et al, 2007; Cantin et al, 2010). This would suggest that sweet foods have a higher reinforcing value than cocaine, even in animals with an extensive history of drug intake (Cantin et al., 2010). While this phenomenon could appear as a weakness in current models of cocaine addiction, a minority of rats prefer cocaine to sugar or saccharin (Cantin et al., 2010). It is possible that these animals may represent a “vulnerable” population, which is more relevant to the human condition. This notion is explored more in the Discussion (Section 6.1).SailorKnightWing wrote: »1000colours wrote: »According to quite a few studies, sugar can be just as addictive as cocain as they stimulate the same area of the brain. As someone who's also suffered from sugar addiction, you just have to get it out of the house and have to say no every single time. Just constantly have the willpower to say no. Of course you need a little bit of sugar in your diet so opt for fruit instead of refined sugars.
Hope you kick your addiction, good luck!
Which studies?
This one. It doesn't say exactly that, but things that aren't drugs CAN BE addictive. Which, again, is different than causing dependence.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3139704/
Well, if it doesn't say anything about sugar, what relevance does it have here?
I will need to read later on.
ETA: read it. The study says nothing about sugar and talks about parallels between drug addiction and other types of addictive behavior. The point being missed is that drug and alcohol addiction is physical first, behavioral second, and people die from it.
You guys are still confusing addiction as dependence. Addiction can be to ANYTHING (yes, even petting puppies) because it's a series of behaviors. Addiction often accompanies dependence, but not always. Are you saying gambling addiction isn't a thing? Because it is.
I have yet to see a drug addict who'd take a donut over a line.
Again:
http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/principles-drug-addiction-treatment-research-based-guide-third-edition/frequently-asked-questions/there-difference-between-physical-dependence
And the rats in the study weren't?
Apparently not. Or at least not enough to make cocaine more appealing than sugar.
Sounds suspect to me.
One study does not science make. If the results of a study seem suspect, you do more studies to see if the results were good.
The results of the study seem suspect to you. And one study is a lot more science than you have provided.SailorKnightWing wrote: »Please don't think I'm advocating that sugar dependence is a thing. It's not. You cannot become dependent on sugar the same way you can to cocaine or heroin. That's not how sugars of any type are processed in the body.
I'm merely trying to correct our vocabulary.
Your previous posting sound like you are advocating sugar addiction, so thanks for clearing that up.
If you are addicted to drugs and alcohol, you are physically dependent on them.
I want people who believe they have a sugar addiction to understand that it is not the same as as being dependent on cocaine. But I also want people who say sugar addiction doesn't exist to understand that it does, just not by their mistaken definition.
It's like when people say muscle weighs more than fat. The "by volume" should be understood, but often isn't.0 -
SailorKnightWing wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »SailorKnightWing wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »SailorKnightWing wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »SailorKnightWing wrote: »
That's because drug addicts are almost universally dependent on their drug of choice.stevencloser wrote: »SailorKnightWing wrote: »
"Perhaps the most extensively studied reward is that of food. Food is the quintessential reward in many rodent studies and has been used as a reinforcer in procedures such as operant (self-administration) tasks, runway tests, maze learning, gambling tasks, and place conditioning (Skinner, 1930; Ettenberg and Camp, 1986; Kandel et al, 2000; Kelley, 2004; Tzschentke, 2007; Zeeb et al, 2009). In rats that were trained to press a lever to receive intravenous self-administration of drugs, highly palatable foods such as sugar and saccharin were shown to reduce self-administration of cocaine and heroin (Carroll et al, 1989; Lenoir and Ahmed, 2008), and these natural reinforcers have been demonstrated to outcompete cocaine in choice self-administration in the majority of rats tested (Lenoir et al, 2007; Cantin et al, 2010). This would suggest that sweet foods have a higher reinforcing value than cocaine, even in animals with an extensive history of drug intake (Cantin et al., 2010). While this phenomenon could appear as a weakness in current models of cocaine addiction, a minority of rats prefer cocaine to sugar or saccharin (Cantin et al., 2010). It is possible that these animals may represent a “vulnerable” population, which is more relevant to the human condition. This notion is explored more in the Discussion (Section 6.1).SailorKnightWing wrote: »1000colours wrote: »According to quite a few studies, sugar can be just as addictive as cocain as they stimulate the same area of the brain. As someone who's also suffered from sugar addiction, you just have to get it out of the house and have to say no every single time. Just constantly have the willpower to say no. Of course you need a little bit of sugar in your diet so opt for fruit instead of refined sugars.
Hope you kick your addiction, good luck!
Which studies?
This one. It doesn't say exactly that, but things that aren't drugs CAN BE addictive. Which, again, is different than causing dependence.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3139704/
Well, if it doesn't say anything about sugar, what relevance does it have here?
I will need to read later on.
ETA: read it. The study says nothing about sugar and talks about parallels between drug addiction and other types of addictive behavior. The point being missed is that drug and alcohol addiction is physical first, behavioral second, and people die from it.
You guys are still confusing addiction as dependence. Addiction can be to ANYTHING (yes, even petting puppies) because it's a series of behaviors. Addiction often accompanies dependence, but not always. Are you saying gambling addiction isn't a thing? Because it is.
I have yet to see a drug addict who'd take a donut over a line.
Again:
http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/principles-drug-addiction-treatment-research-based-guide-third-edition/frequently-asked-questions/there-difference-between-physical-dependence
And the rats in the study weren't?
Apparently not. Or at least not enough to make cocaine more appealing than sugar.
Sounds suspect to me.
One study does not science make. If the results of a study seem suspect, you do more studies to see if the results were good.
The results of the study seem suspect to you. And one study is a lot more science than you have provided.SailorKnightWing wrote: »Please don't think I'm advocating that sugar dependence is a thing. It's not. You cannot become dependent on sugar the same way you can to cocaine or heroin. That's not how sugars of any type are processed in the body.
I'm merely trying to correct our vocabulary.
Your previous posting sound like you are advocating sugar addiction, so thanks for clearing that up.
If you are addicted to drugs and alcohol, you are physically dependent on them.
I want people who believe they have a sugar addiction to understand that it is not the same as as being dependent on cocaine. But I also want people who say sugar addiction doesn't exist to understand that it does, just not by their mistaken definition.
It's like when people say muscle weighs more than fat. The "by volume" should be understood, but often isn't.
There's multiple things that look weird when reading through your link and looking at the different citations. Like in one, the rats that had to choose between a lever that gave them saccharin and a lever that did nothing at all, it took a week until they were statistically more likely to choose the saccharin lever, while the other group with a saccharin and a cocaine lever it took 2 days.
"Similarly, under the S+/C- condition, rats rapidly acquired a preference for lever S which became statistically reliable on day 7. More surprisingly, under the S+/C+ condition, rats immediately developed a strong and stable preference for lever S which became statistically significant on day 2."
Which makes me, obviously a non-scientist but still, presume, that it's more an issue with the cocaine than the saccharin.0 -
SailorKnightWing wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »SailorKnightWing wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »SailorKnightWing wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »SailorKnightWing wrote: »
That's because drug addicts are almost universally dependent on their drug of choice.stevencloser wrote: »SailorKnightWing wrote: »
"Perhaps the most extensively studied reward is that of food. Food is the quintessential reward in many rodent studies and has been used as a reinforcer in procedures such as operant (self-administration) tasks, runway tests, maze learning, gambling tasks, and place conditioning (Skinner, 1930; Ettenberg and Camp, 1986; Kandel et al, 2000; Kelley, 2004; Tzschentke, 2007; Zeeb et al, 2009). In rats that were trained to press a lever to receive intravenous self-administration of drugs, highly palatable foods such as sugar and saccharin were shown to reduce self-administration of cocaine and heroin (Carroll et al, 1989; Lenoir and Ahmed, 2008), and these natural reinforcers have been demonstrated to outcompete cocaine in choice self-administration in the majority of rats tested (Lenoir et al, 2007; Cantin et al, 2010). This would suggest that sweet foods have a higher reinforcing value than cocaine, even in animals with an extensive history of drug intake (Cantin et al., 2010). While this phenomenon could appear as a weakness in current models of cocaine addiction, a minority of rats prefer cocaine to sugar or saccharin (Cantin et al., 2010). It is possible that these animals may represent a “vulnerable” population, which is more relevant to the human condition. This notion is explored more in the Discussion (Section 6.1).SailorKnightWing wrote: »1000colours wrote: »According to quite a few studies, sugar can be just as addictive as cocain as they stimulate the same area of the brain. As someone who's also suffered from sugar addiction, you just have to get it out of the house and have to say no every single time. Just constantly have the willpower to say no. Of course you need a little bit of sugar in your diet so opt for fruit instead of refined sugars.
Hope you kick your addiction, good luck!
Which studies?
This one. It doesn't say exactly that, but things that aren't drugs CAN BE addictive. Which, again, is different than causing dependence.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3139704/
Well, if it doesn't say anything about sugar, what relevance does it have here?
I will need to read later on.
ETA: read it. The study says nothing about sugar and talks about parallels between drug addiction and other types of addictive behavior. The point being missed is that drug and alcohol addiction is physical first, behavioral second, and people die from it.
You guys are still confusing addiction as dependence. Addiction can be to ANYTHING (yes, even petting puppies) because it's a series of behaviors. Addiction often accompanies dependence, but not always. Are you saying gambling addiction isn't a thing? Because it is.
I have yet to see a drug addict who'd take a donut over a line.
Again:
http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/principles-drug-addiction-treatment-research-based-guide-third-edition/frequently-asked-questions/there-difference-between-physical-dependence
And the rats in the study weren't?
Apparently not. Or at least not enough to make cocaine more appealing than sugar.
Sounds suspect to me.
One study does not science make. If the results of a study seem suspect, you do more studies to see if the results were good.
The results of the study seem suspect to you. And one study is a lot more science than you have provided.SailorKnightWing wrote: »Please don't think I'm advocating that sugar dependence is a thing. It's not. You cannot become dependent on sugar the same way you can to cocaine or heroin. That's not how sugars of any type are processed in the body.
I'm merely trying to correct our vocabulary.
Your previous posting sound like you are advocating sugar addiction, so thanks for clearing that up.
If you are addicted to drugs and alcohol, you are physically dependent on them.
I want people who believe they have a sugar addiction to understand that it is not the same as as being dependent on cocaine. But I also want people who say sugar addiction doesn't exist to understand that it does, just not by their mistaken definition.
It's like when people say muscle weighs more than fat. The "by volume" should be understood, but often isn't.
Sugar addiction does not exist at all, but sugar compulsion does. That simply means you are compulsively eating food. You are too advocating sugar addiction.0 -
I started a "sugar-free and artificial sweetener free" diet this week, just to see how it would make me feel. I wondered if there was a way to remove the craving for sweets. I'm in great shape with no health problems, I just like to try different diets and see how it affects my body. I noticed that during all of my experiments (vegan, vegetarian, gluten-free, zone diet, etc) or whenever I restricted calories to lose weight, I got by with lots of artificial sweeteners or sweet foods / fruits.
I went on a low calorie diet a couple months ago to drop a weight class before training for a lifting competition, and I noticed that the things I looked forward to the most was my protein smoothie, my coffees with Splenda, and a diet coke in the evening. It became clear that these were my most intense cravings, and although I could maintain my weight loss and "feel fine" while including them, I wanted to see if there was a way to get rid of these cravings and do without them - not by just sucking it up and being aggravated while excluding them from my diet, but to actually stop craving them so I wouldn't want them.
I felt that, for me, any sweetener (real or artificial), caused me to crave more sweets, so I would try to cut them all out. I came up with the rules of no artificial sweeteners (including stevia) or refined sugars, limiting my daily sugar intake to under 25g - only from low sugar fruits (like strawberries) or milk with no added sugars. Whole grains, starches, beans and brown rice are ok (none of which I find addictive and give me plenty of sources of carbohydrates).
In this first week, I've noticed my mood has substantially improved. I actually did not have any huge cravings until this weekend, but I've probably been doing well because I've been relatively low sugar (~50g/day) for the last 8 weeks. I don't get "hangry" at all, which used to happen a lot. I have no "crash" in the middle of the day. The most amazing thing is that I only drink one 12oz coffee from Starbucks every day. I've tried to quit caffeine several times, with HUGE headaches and withdrawals, and could never have just one per day. It's always two 16oz dark roasts with Splenda (or dunkin donuts with cream and sugar) an 8oz coffee at night and maybe a diet coke. Nothing I ever tried would work, but as soon as I gave up Splenda and had to drink it back, I automatically went to one 12 oz in the morning. There was actually no effort required to stay away from more coffee - I just didn't want it, and for me that unbelievable. It makes me think I was more addicted to the Splenda or sugar than the caffeine.
My whole purpose of cutting caffeine and sugar isn't to lose weight or become fit - I can clearly do that without it. My goal is to think more clearly, act mindfully and have an even level of energy throughout the day. And to truly enjoy what I eat - to lose my craving for sweetened foods so I can fully appreciate a whole, natural diet. So while it's possible to just eat sweetened foods in moderation (easier said than done for many), I find it easier to completely abstain, at least according to the rules I gave myself above.
To the OP, good luck on your "sugar cleanse." That's got to be difficult as a vegetarian! Maybe this link will help: http://www.radiantrecovery.com/7steps.htm. I came across it while searching the Internet for motivation to start this sugar-free thing. I don't know anything about her book or method, but the seven steps she lays out to go sugar-free seem like a good way to ease into it.0 -
What an enlightening group of individuals.
Whether it is emotional or physical: I have a problem with sugar.
If you want to help, cool. If not, your opinion is not valuable to me.
Also, 99% of you need to learn how to read and spell.0 -
My whole purpose of cutting caffeine and sugar isn't to lose weight or become fit - I can clearly do that without it. My goal is to think more clearly, act mindfully and have an even level of energy throughout the day. And to truly enjoy what I eat - to lose my craving for sweetened foods so I can fully appreciate a whole, natural diet. So while it's possible to just eat sweetened foods in moderation (easier said than done for many), I find it easier to completely abstain, at least according to the rules I gave myself above.
To the OP, good luck on your "sugar cleanse." That's got to be difficult as a vegetarian! Maybe this link will help: http://www.radiantrecovery.com/7steps.htm. I came across it while searching the Internet for motivation to start this sugar-free thing. I don't know anything about her book or method, but the seven steps she lays out to go sugar-free seem like a good way to ease into it.
Exactly!! I am a healthy, extremely active park ranger living in VT. my BMI is normal. I am not some psycho trying to "trick" my body into looking like one of the olsen twins. I just dont want to be so dependent on added sugar.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
hyphenatot wrote: »What an enlightening group of individuals.
Whether it is emotional or physical: I have a problem with sugar.
If you want to help, cool. If not, your opinion is not valuable to me.
Also, 99% of you need to learn how to read and spell.
Weather you like there advice or not you should never loose your cool because two many of them are write.
0 -
-
This content has been removed.
-
0
-
hyphenatot wrote: »hyphenatot wrote: »What an enlightening group of individuals.
Whether it is emotional or physical: I have a problem with sugar.
If you want to help, cool. If not, your opinion is not valuable to me.
Also, 99% of you need to learn how to read and spell.
Weather you like there advice or not you should never loose your cool because two many of them are write.
0 -
Actually... I got it. Thanks.0
-
This content has been removed.
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions