Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
The Sugar Conspiracy
Replies
-
The brain is a helluva drug. Many of these posts remind me of the thing where the brain wants its reality to be the one so badly that it warps everything to make it so.
That, and psycho-somaticism is cool.
Agreed. In some ways, it's better to think back to days when you were a child, perhaps without preconceived notions, biases, and adult anxieties.
When I gave my oldest child food with added sugar for the first time in any real abundance, it was her first birthday, and we let her have a piece of birthday cake. She at first dabbed a finger and carefully tried it out. When it hit her tongue and mouth, 5 seconds later her eyes went WIDE open and she started to destroy that birthday cake.
With my next two kids, we did the same thing. We got out the video recorder expecting the same reaction, but neither kid had that reaction. Both of them ate some of the cake, but did it as if it were any other food.
Fast forward 14 years. My oldest has always been extremely addicted to sugar, the younger two can take it or leave it. My middle is addicted to mayo and butter and fats. My youngest isn't into either.
Lastly, going back to my own childhood, I remember when given candy, it would make me high, and I would run around the house/yard euphorically. Instant happiness and brain buzz.
So your kids find different things tasty. I'm unclear how this translates into addiction, especially because I think it's pretty well known that taste is a personal thing.7 -
pcoslady83 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »The heroine analogy is a bit much, but her point is to address the seemingly illogical idea that abstinence is more sustainable than moderation. In which case a comparison to addiction in general is more appropriate. Since the idea that sugar as a substance is addictive is very debatable, consider addictions which are not related to a substance. In those cases, moderation is very rarely prescribed.
But with eating addiction you (1) can't stop the behavior (we don't have to gamble, but we do have to eat), and (2) in at least many cases restriction itself makes the problem worse, if not actually causing it in the first place (which is why many recovered binge eaters and other ED sufferers (including overeaters) point to restrictive behavior/labeling foods bad and good as an issue. That's why -- even though I think for SOME people more restrictive approaches, like cutting out certain trigger foods or cutting down on carbs (I can't go along with the idea that cutting out all carbs and sugar, including veg, is healthy absent an actual health reason, like Crohn's, for doing so) is a helpful approach. It seems that for many others it's really counterproductive. I do find that the more I demonize foods (and this is something I've been prone to and work against) I have less control with them when I do eat them. Really consciously focusing on taking a logical approach to foods is one reason I think I've mostly managed to get rid of trigger foods. Again, not saying this works for everyone, but I would strongly caution you against the idea that if someone feels out of control about food or certain foods (as I have in the past), that the first and best answer should be "remove them, because a drunk shouldn't try to drink in moderation, right?"
Here are some links I think are worthwhile:
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/139/3/617.full (includes a discussion of the link between restriction and binging)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763414002140 (good discussion of the problems of "food addiction" and argument for "eating addiction")
http://www.refinery29.com/2015/01/80504/sugar-addiction-myths?utm_source=email&utm_medium=editorial&utm_content=everywhere&utm_campaign=150114-sugar-addiction-myths (nice article with interviews, and addresses this "sugar=heroin" nonsense that always comes up in these threads)
Good that you found something that works for you. Whatever is your experience is true for you. I am not questioning that. If moderation works for you, good for you (same for people who have problem feeling out of control with drinking).
Feeling out of control with food is quite different from alcoholism, IME.At the same time, whatever I experience is true to me. For me abstaining from sweets (candy, cakes, cookies, soda pop etc) works best and I do that.
Sure, not saying you shouldn't. I am saying that that approach shouldn't be assumed to be the One True One or necessary since we are pretending food is addictive. In some cases it can even be harmful. But can it be a strategy that works for some? I specifically said before that I thought it could.At the same time, I do eat a lot of vegetables and fruits as I am mostly vegetarian (I may eat fish or chicken one meal in a couple weeks). I eat very small quantities of whole grains because as the other poster said, I have a hard time feeling satiated and stay within my calorie needs when I eat grains and I feel hungry within two hours. I don't hate any food groups, but anything with added sugar is bad for me and I will abstain as moderation doesn't work for me.
Okay.
And if you decide moderation doesn't work for you, it won't, that is certainly true. But if you are happier not eating added sugar, that's fine too.
Well...you may think that feeling out of control with food is quite different from alcoholism. That doesn't mean it is true. Also we are talking sugar, and specifically added sugar in this topic not food in general. Neither I said abstaining is a panacea for all addiction. But for many, abstaining works well.
Moderation didn't stop working for me after I decided it will not work for me. On the contrary, I came to the conclusion that moderation doesn't work for me after many failed attempts at moderation.
Also, from r29 article:
"Food manufacturers add sugar to just about everything, but you might be surprised to learn how often it's added to savory items. "There’s more added sugar per calorie in most pasta sauces than in ice cream toppings," Dr. Katz points out. "You'll see many potato chips brands with high-fructose corn syrup sprayed on at the end." That's because sweetness is an appetite stimulant, urging you to eat more. Dr. Katz calls this "stealth sugar," because you don't consciously taste it, but it increases the amount you need to eat to feel satisfied."
So added sugar causes people to eat more. It is an appetite stimulant for vast majority of people. Though the article cleverly not mentions sugar in cakes, candies, it has the same effect on many people where they are stimulated to eat more of it. Then the article says practice mindfulness while eating added sugar. It doesn't explain how to practice mindfulness when sugar has interfered with your brain chemistry and driving a primal desire to eat more of it.
Yeah, I'm sure the 1 gram of added sugar per bag of chips is going to make all the difference.
Well..what do you think is the reason for these manufacturers to add sugar in their products?
Taste, texture, so the spices stick to the chips...
"the literal fraction of a gram of sugar per chip is going to make you go wild and hungry" is somewhere at the bottom of the list of possible reasons.4 -
I don't think sugar should be banned. I think more education is needed so people understand exactly how many calories they are eating, the calorie breakdown of nutrients they are consuming and how many calories they are or are not burning.2
-
The brain is a helluva drug. Many of these posts remind me of the thing where the brain wants its reality to be the one so badly that it warps everything to make it so.
That, and psycho-somaticism is cool.
Agreed. In some ways, it's better to think back to days when you were a child, perhaps without preconceived notions, biases, and adult anxieties.
When I gave my oldest child food with added sugar for the first time in any real abundance, it was her first birthday, and we let her have a piece of birthday cake. She at first dabbed a finger and carefully tried it out. When it hit her tongue and mouth, 5 seconds later her eyes went WIDE open and she started to destroy that birthday cake.
With my next two kids, we did the same thing. We got out the video recorder expecting the same reaction, but neither kid had that reaction. Both of them ate some of the cake, but did it as if it were any other food.
Fast forward 14 years. My oldest has always been extremely addicted to sugar, the younger two can take it or leave it. My middle is addicted to mayo and butter and fats. My youngest isn't into either.
Lastly, going back to my own childhood, I remember when given candy, it would make me high, and I would run around the house/yard euphorically. Instant happiness and brain buzz.
So your kids find different things tasty. I'm unclear how this translates into addiction, especially because I think it's pretty well known that taste is a personal thing.
I hear you, but without going into long detailed stories, my oldest has always been completely addicted to sugar. Like seeking it out in the middle of the night (3 AM, breaking into an unopened bag of nestle morsels), stealing East/Halloween candy from siblings (despite knowing that if caught she would get in big trouble), begging us for "dessert" after every dinner. Showing addictive signs all over the place.
She shows no signs of addiction to anything else, so I don't think this is simply a matter of an addictive personality, just a situation where this particular person is extremely sensitive to what sugar does to her brain. Chemically very different than others. I can also relate, as I would similar as a child (this is my fault, it's my genes), although she does seem worse than I was.
This isn't at all a case of "oh, I prefer the cupcake over the butter". This is a case of a person who follows all of the patterns of an addict, but solely around sugar.
My middle, who loves butter, mayo and other fats, would never beg for them alone. Would never sneak into the kitchen at 3 AM to have them. She just asks for them when we have meals.
0 -
pcoslady83 wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »
Sugar may not interfere with your brain chemistry, but you cannot speak for people for whom it does.Carlos_421 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »The heroine analogy is a bit much, but her point is to address the seemingly illogical idea that abstinence is more sustainable than moderation. In which case a comparison to addiction in general is more appropriate. Since the idea that sugar as a substance is addictive is very debatable, consider addictions which are not related to a substance. In those cases, moderation is very rarely prescribed.
But with eating addiction you (1) can't stop the behavior (we don't have to gamble, but we do have to eat), and (2) in at least many cases restriction itself makes the problem worse, if not actually causing it in the first place (which is why many recovered binge eaters and other ED sufferers (including overeaters) point to restrictive behavior/labeling foods bad and good as an issue. That's why -- even though I think for SOME people more restrictive approaches, like cutting out certain trigger foods or cutting down on carbs (I can't go along with the idea that cutting out all carbs and sugar, including veg, is healthy absent an actual health reason, like Crohn's, for doing so) is a helpful approach. It seems that for many others it's really counterproductive. I do find that the more I demonize foods (and this is something I've been prone to and work against) I have less control with them when I do eat them. Really consciously focusing on taking a logical approach to foods is one reason I think I've mostly managed to get rid of trigger foods. Again, not saying this works for everyone, but I would strongly caution you against the idea that if someone feels out of control about food or certain foods (as I have in the past), that the first and best answer should be "remove them, because a drunk shouldn't try to drink in moderation, right?"
Here are some links I think are worthwhile:
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/139/3/617.full (includes a discussion of the link between restriction and binging)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763414002140 (good discussion of the problems of "food addiction" and argument for "eating addiction")
http://www.refinery29.com/2015/01/80504/sugar-addiction-myths?utm_source=email&utm_medium=editorial&utm_content=everywhere&utm_campaign=150114-sugar-addiction-myths (nice article with interviews, and addresses this "sugar=heroin" nonsense that always comes up in these threads)
Good that you found something that works for you. Whatever is your experience is true for you. I am not questioning that. If moderation works for you, good for you (same for people who have problem feeling out of control with drinking).
Feeling out of control with food is quite different from alcoholism, IME.At the same time, whatever I experience is true to me. For me abstaining from sweets (candy, cakes, cookies, soda pop etc) works best and I do that.
Sure, not saying you shouldn't. I am saying that that approach shouldn't be assumed to be the One True One or necessary since we are pretending food is addictive. In some cases it can even be harmful. But can it be a strategy that works for some? I specifically said before that I thought it could.At the same time, I do eat a lot of vegetables and fruits as I am mostly vegetarian (I may eat fish or chicken one meal in a couple weeks). I eat very small quantities of whole grains because as the other poster said, I have a hard time feeling satiated and stay within my calorie needs when I eat grains and I feel hungry within two hours. I don't hate any food groups, but anything with added sugar is bad for me and I will abstain as moderation doesn't work for me.
It doesn't explain how to practice mindfulness when sugar has interfered with your brain chemistry and driving a primal desire to eat more of it.
Probably because sugar doesn't interfere with your brain chemistry or drive a primal desire to eat more of it. It just doesn't. It's not a mind altering or addictive substance. Any claims to the contrary are completely contradictory to all scientific evidence.
People eat sugar because it tastes good and they enjoy it. It's not warping their brain and driving them into fits to get their next hit of gummy bears.
I say this with all sensitivity - as someone who has had plenty of battles with eating disorders, I know how much eating issues suck - but why are you so convinced that something is wrong with your brain chemistry rather than that you have learned a disordered behavior? Why are you so sure it's the sugar's fault messing with your brain, rather than you like sugary, hyperpalatable foods, so you'd consume more and more of them, thus reinforcing the idea in your brain that sugary foods were meant to be overconsumed?
I can turn around an ask the same question. How are people so convinced that it is will power and not the brain chemistry? I am in no way reinforcing the idea in my brain that sugary foods were meant to be overconsumed. On the contrary, I am saying that there is absolutely no need for added sugar in our diet.
I am also saying that one person's experience is not an universal experience. If added sugar works for you, go for it. If moderation works for you, go for it. If abstaining works for you, go for it.
Because added sugar does not contain any chemicals that have the ability to mess with your brain chemistry?
Because you have sugar coursing through your veins from the moment you enter this world until you draw your last breath and you'd die if there wasn't?
Are those reasons enough to be convinced that no, cakes have not messed with your brain chemistry?8 -
I don't think sugar should be banned. I think more education is needed so people understand exactly how many calories they are eating, the calorie breakdown of nutrients they are consuming and how many calories they are or are not burning.
You are saying this despite knowing that a calorie is not just a calorie, right? The sugar industry wants us to think that 100 calories of sugar is identical to 100 calories of broccoli. But that just isn't accurate at all.
I also do not think it should be banned. But I think the industry needs to be watched closely. It's a bit sad that sugar can be as bad for a person as smoking, but since smoking causes a stinky smell, we take a lot of action on it, while we quietly let the children consume massive amounts of added sugar in processed foods, as they develop diabetes as teens and young adults.
Good luck trying to get kids to develop diabetes on a diet that is without added sugar and without processed carbs, where all they can eat is whole foods. Would never happen.0 -
I'm out. This is ridiculous now. A calorie is a calorie. It's a measure of energy, not nutrition.16
-
stevencloser wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »The heroine analogy is a bit much, but her point is to address the seemingly illogical idea that abstinence is more sustainable than moderation. In which case a comparison to addiction in general is more appropriate. Since the idea that sugar as a substance is addictive is very debatable, consider addictions which are not related to a substance. In those cases, moderation is very rarely prescribed.
But with eating addiction you (1) can't stop the behavior (we don't have to gamble, but we do have to eat), and (2) in at least many cases restriction itself makes the problem worse, if not actually causing it in the first place (which is why many recovered binge eaters and other ED sufferers (including overeaters) point to restrictive behavior/labeling foods bad and good as an issue. That's why -- even though I think for SOME people more restrictive approaches, like cutting out certain trigger foods or cutting down on carbs (I can't go along with the idea that cutting out all carbs and sugar, including veg, is healthy absent an actual health reason, like Crohn's, for doing so) is a helpful approach. It seems that for many others it's really counterproductive. I do find that the more I demonize foods (and this is something I've been prone to and work against) I have less control with them when I do eat them. Really consciously focusing on taking a logical approach to foods is one reason I think I've mostly managed to get rid of trigger foods. Again, not saying this works for everyone, but I would strongly caution you against the idea that if someone feels out of control about food or certain foods (as I have in the past), that the first and best answer should be "remove them, because a drunk shouldn't try to drink in moderation, right?"
Here are some links I think are worthwhile:
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/139/3/617.full (includes a discussion of the link between restriction and binging)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763414002140 (good discussion of the problems of "food addiction" and argument for "eating addiction")
http://www.refinery29.com/2015/01/80504/sugar-addiction-myths?utm_source=email&utm_medium=editorial&utm_content=everywhere&utm_campaign=150114-sugar-addiction-myths (nice article with interviews, and addresses this "sugar=heroin" nonsense that always comes up in these threads)
Good that you found something that works for you. Whatever is your experience is true for you. I am not questioning that. If moderation works for you, good for you (same for people who have problem feeling out of control with drinking).
Feeling out of control with food is quite different from alcoholism, IME.At the same time, whatever I experience is true to me. For me abstaining from sweets (candy, cakes, cookies, soda pop etc) works best and I do that.
Sure, not saying you shouldn't. I am saying that that approach shouldn't be assumed to be the One True One or necessary since we are pretending food is addictive. In some cases it can even be harmful. But can it be a strategy that works for some? I specifically said before that I thought it could.At the same time, I do eat a lot of vegetables and fruits as I am mostly vegetarian (I may eat fish or chicken one meal in a couple weeks). I eat very small quantities of whole grains because as the other poster said, I have a hard time feeling satiated and stay within my calorie needs when I eat grains and I feel hungry within two hours. I don't hate any food groups, but anything with added sugar is bad for me and I will abstain as moderation doesn't work for me.
Okay.
And if you decide moderation doesn't work for you, it won't, that is certainly true. But if you are happier not eating added sugar, that's fine too.
Well...you may think that feeling out of control with food is quite different from alcoholism. That doesn't mean it is true. Also we are talking sugar, and specifically added sugar in this topic not food in general. Neither I said abstaining is a panacea for all addiction. But for many, abstaining works well.
Moderation didn't stop working for me after I decided it will not work for me. On the contrary, I came to the conclusion that moderation doesn't work for me after many failed attempts at moderation.
Also, from r29 article:
"Food manufacturers add sugar to just about everything, but you might be surprised to learn how often it's added to savory items. "There’s more added sugar per calorie in most pasta sauces than in ice cream toppings," Dr. Katz points out. "You'll see many potato chips brands with high-fructose corn syrup sprayed on at the end." That's because sweetness is an appetite stimulant, urging you to eat more. Dr. Katz calls this "stealth sugar," because you don't consciously taste it, but it increases the amount you need to eat to feel satisfied."
So added sugar causes people to eat more. It is an appetite stimulant for vast majority of people. Though the article cleverly not mentions sugar in cakes, candies, it has the same effect on many people where they are stimulated to eat more of it. Then the article says practice mindfulness while eating added sugar. It doesn't explain how to practice mindfulness when sugar has interfered with your brain chemistry and driving a primal desire to eat more of it.
Yeah, I'm sure the 1 gram of added sugar per bag of chips is going to make all the difference.
Well..what do you think is the reason for these manufacturers to add sugar in their products?
Taste, texture, so the spices stick to the chips...
"the literal fraction of a gram of sugar per chip is going to make you go wild and hungry" is somewhere at the bottom of the list of possible reasons.
This couldn't be further from the truth. In fact, food companies actually add salt in addition to sugar, to hide the sweetness factor while the brain still gets the sugar reward. There is a reason that there is a TON of sugar in a jar of Prego sauce. They aren't winning you over with quality ingredients or authentic taste, so they are loading up on sugar and salt to make your brain happy.1 -
and sugar doesn't cause diabetes8
-
No, it's because salt also adds to flavour. It's not to hide the sweetness.4
-
The brain is a helluva drug. Many of these posts remind me of the thing where the brain wants its reality to be the one so badly that it warps everything to make it so.
That, and psycho-somaticism is cool.
Agreed. In some ways, it's better to think back to days when you were a child, perhaps without preconceived notions, biases, and adult anxieties.
When I gave my oldest child food with added sugar for the first time in any real abundance, it was her first birthday, and we let her have a piece of birthday cake. She at first dabbed a finger and carefully tried it out. When it hit her tongue and mouth, 5 seconds later her eyes went WIDE open and she started to destroy that birthday cake.
With my next two kids, we did the same thing. We got out the video recorder expecting the same reaction, but neither kid had that reaction. Both of them ate some of the cake, but did it as if it were any other food.
Fast forward 14 years. My oldest has always been extremely addicted to sugar, the younger two can take it or leave it. My middle is addicted to mayo and butter and fats. My youngest isn't into either.
Lastly, going back to my own childhood, I remember when given candy, it would make me high, and I would run around the house/yard euphorically. Instant happiness and brain buzz.
So your kids find different things tasty. I'm unclear how this translates into addiction, especially because I think it's pretty well known that taste is a personal thing.
I hear you, but without going into long detailed stories, my oldest has always been completely addicted to sugar. Like seeking it out in the middle of the night (3 AM, breaking into an unopened bag of nestle morsels), stealing East/Halloween candy from siblings (despite knowing that if caught she would get in big trouble), begging us for "dessert" after every dinner. Showing addictive signs all over the place.
She shows no signs of addiction to anything else, so I don't think this is simply a matter of an addictive personality, just a situation where this particular person is extremely sensitive to what sugar does to her brain. Chemically very different than others. I can also relate, as I would similar as a child (this is my fault, it's my genes), although she does seem worse than I was.
This isn't at all a case of "oh, I prefer the cupcake over the butter". This is a case of a person who follows all of the patterns of an addict, but solely around sugar.
My middle, who loves butter, mayo and other fats, would never beg for them alone. Would never sneak into the kitchen at 3 AM to have them. She just asks for them when we have meals.
You mean Nestle semi sweet chocolate morsels?
Which are over 50% fat?9 -
The people who seem to be against the idea that sugar can be a problem for people seem to be those for whom sugar has never been a problem. It didn't happen to me so I don't believe it, and that's where Lustig exaggerated: Sugar is not a problem for everybody, but it is a problem for many. Just because the nutrition powers of yesteryear had fat labelled as the nutritional problem child in the 80s, it does not mean that sugar has been mislabelled as a problem nutrient ( or as the scapegoat) today. It IS a problem for some.
Looking within myself did not help me lose weight. The minute I dropped sugar and reduced my carbs I lost weight. Easily and lots of it. You bet I was eating too many calories but I was eating too much because of sugar (and partially due to those carbs which are readily converted to sugar). I didn't have to do any soul searching or suddenly develop great will power in order to lose weight; all I had to do was cut sugar out of my diet and I was much less hungry, I lost my cravings, and the slight thermogenic poperties of a very LCHF diet helped a bit too.
I also love cheese and nuts and overeat those pretty regularly but that's not what made me fat either. Candy, soda, muffins, and unneeded carby plate fillers made me fat. I cut those and replaced them with other macro nutrients (at a slight caloric deficit) and lost weight. Simply cutting calories was not sustainable for more that a week or two for me. Cut sugar too? Suddenly it was easy to lose. It may not be true for all, but it was for me and it is true for many, especially those of us with IR issues (known and undiagnosed). I am not a special snowflake here.
Sure, many people are fine with eating sugar but many aren't. I was fine with sugar until I approached 40, when suddenly I was not. Stating sugar is a problem for all is wrong, and Lustig should stop it. Staing that sugar is NOT a problem for all is just as wrong - claiming it is a scapegoat is incorrect. A better statement might be that sugar is not a problem for some people, although it may become a problem for some of them later, and that it is indeed a problem for some people right now (somewhere between 1/3 to 1/2 it appears to me based on those affected with IR issues like NAFLD, T2D, PCOS, prediabetes, Alzheimer's, as well as some of those who find weight loss difficult without sugar reduction - not a tiny group).
... This thread should probably be moved to the debate section.
I agree completely. I have insulin resistance so sugar is definitely a big cause for weight gain. Those who it isn't a problem for are extremely lucky. I was cutting calories, working out and not losing any weight. Went to the Dr and they told me I was insulin resistant. Cut out sugars, processed, foods ect and tada!, the weight started coming off.
3 -
paulgads82 wrote: »I'm out. This is ridiculous now. A calorie is a calorie. It's a measure of energy, not nutrition.
Fine, although you are out, I will reply anyway.
Sorry, the phrase "a calorie is not a calorie" obviously doesn't mean what it says. It means that two foods of the same calorie amount can have a very different impact on the body. The phrase is just a phrase. But if you are going to focus on the grammar (of this well known phrase) and not the valid point, then the thread is better off without ya.2 -
pcoslady83 wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »
Sugar may not interfere with your brain chemistry, but you cannot speak for people for whom it does.Carlos_421 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »The heroine analogy is a bit much, but her point is to address the seemingly illogical idea that abstinence is more sustainable than moderation. In which case a comparison to addiction in general is more appropriate. Since the idea that sugar as a substance is addictive is very debatable, consider addictions which are not related to a substance. In those cases, moderation is very rarely prescribed.
But with eating addiction you (1) can't stop the behavior (we don't have to gamble, but we do have to eat), and (2) in at least many cases restriction itself makes the problem worse, if not actually causing it in the first place (which is why many recovered binge eaters and other ED sufferers (including overeaters) point to restrictive behavior/labeling foods bad and good as an issue. That's why -- even though I think for SOME people more restrictive approaches, like cutting out certain trigger foods or cutting down on carbs (I can't go along with the idea that cutting out all carbs and sugar, including veg, is healthy absent an actual health reason, like Crohn's, for doing so) is a helpful approach. It seems that for many others it's really counterproductive. I do find that the more I demonize foods (and this is something I've been prone to and work against) I have less control with them when I do eat them. Really consciously focusing on taking a logical approach to foods is one reason I think I've mostly managed to get rid of trigger foods. Again, not saying this works for everyone, but I would strongly caution you against the idea that if someone feels out of control about food or certain foods (as I have in the past), that the first and best answer should be "remove them, because a drunk shouldn't try to drink in moderation, right?"
Here are some links I think are worthwhile:
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/139/3/617.full (includes a discussion of the link between restriction and binging)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763414002140 (good discussion of the problems of "food addiction" and argument for "eating addiction")
http://www.refinery29.com/2015/01/80504/sugar-addiction-myths?utm_source=email&utm_medium=editorial&utm_content=everywhere&utm_campaign=150114-sugar-addiction-myths (nice article with interviews, and addresses this "sugar=heroin" nonsense that always comes up in these threads)
Good that you found something that works for you. Whatever is your experience is true for you. I am not questioning that. If moderation works for you, good for you (same for people who have problem feeling out of control with drinking).
Feeling out of control with food is quite different from alcoholism, IME.At the same time, whatever I experience is true to me. For me abstaining from sweets (candy, cakes, cookies, soda pop etc) works best and I do that.
Sure, not saying you shouldn't. I am saying that that approach shouldn't be assumed to be the One True One or necessary since we are pretending food is addictive. In some cases it can even be harmful. But can it be a strategy that works for some? I specifically said before that I thought it could.At the same time, I do eat a lot of vegetables and fruits as I am mostly vegetarian (I may eat fish or chicken one meal in a couple weeks). I eat very small quantities of whole grains because as the other poster said, I have a hard time feeling satiated and stay within my calorie needs when I eat grains and I feel hungry within two hours. I don't hate any food groups, but anything with added sugar is bad for me and I will abstain as moderation doesn't work for me.
It doesn't explain how to practice mindfulness when sugar has interfered with your brain chemistry and driving a primal desire to eat more of it.
Probably because sugar doesn't interfere with your brain chemistry or drive a primal desire to eat more of it. It just doesn't. It's not a mind altering or addictive substance. Any claims to the contrary are completely contradictory to all scientific evidence.
People eat sugar because it tastes good and they enjoy it. It's not warping their brain and driving them into fits to get their next hit of gummy bears.
I say this with all sensitivity - as someone who has had plenty of battles with eating disorders, I know how much eating issues suck - but why are you so convinced that something is wrong with your brain chemistry rather than that you have learned a disordered behavior? Why are you so sure it's the sugar's fault messing with your brain, rather than you like sugary, hyperpalatable foods, so you'd consume more and more of them, thus reinforcing the idea in your brain that sugary foods were meant to be overconsumed?
I can turn around an ask the same question. How are people so convinced that it is will power and not the brain chemistry? I am in no way reinforcing the idea in my brain that sugary foods were meant to be overconsumed. On the contrary, I am saying that there is absolutely no need for added sugar in our diet.
I am also saying that one person's experience is not an universal experience. If added sugar works for you, go for it. If moderation works for you, go for it. If abstaining works for you, go for it.
Sugar is addictive, and can be even more addictive than cocaine:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23719144
And we already know that some people can walk away from cocaine, and others cannot, due to that individuals brain chemistry. The answer is pretty simple. We already know sugar has no health qualities of any kind, and that when you consider it as a fuel source, it is almost entirely negative in how it is processed by the human body. We also know that for some people it can be extremely addictive. Willpower requirements for sugar can vary from one person to the next dramatically. For one person, it may seem like going without a cupcake. For another person, it can feel like going without air.
But a calorie is not a calorie, and sugar is the worst kind. And it's addictive. Not really sure why there is a debate on this. The willpower one is old (and biased). To make matters more confusing, even willpower itself is a brain chemistry thing (and different from one person to the next). What is important to know is that (A) sugar is bad, and (B) everyone reacts differently to it.
I grow weary of people comparing a highly addictive substance that gives you PHYSICAL DEPENDENCE and destroys lives to sugar, saying "it can be more addictive" because *kitten* rats prefer not starving over getting high.7 -
Sugar isn't listed as a risk factor (this is from Canadian diabetes association http://www.diabetes.ca/about-diabetes/risk-factors/are-you-at-risk )
What are the risk factors for type 2 diabetes?
Anyone over the age of 40 should be tested for diabetes every three years. Anyone who has one or more risk factors should be tested more frequently. Risk factors are:
Having a parent, brother, or sister with diabetes;
Being a member of a high-risk group (Aboriginal, Hispanic, South Asian, Asian, or African descent);
Having health complications that are associated with diabetes;
Having given birth to a baby that weighed more than four kilograms (nine pounds) at birth or having had gestational diabetes (diabetes during pregnancy);
Having been diagnosed with prediabetes (impaired glucose tolerance or impaired fasting glucose);
Having high blood pressure;
Having high cholesterol or other fats in the blood;
Being overweight, especially if that weight is mostly carried around the tummy;
Having been diagnosed with polycystic ovary syndrome;
Having been diagnosed with Acanthosis nigricans (darkened patches of skin);
Having been diagnosed with psychiatric disorders: schizophrenia, depression, bipolar disorder;
Having been diagnosed with obstructive sleep apnea;
Having been prescribed a glucocorticoid medication by a doctor.
Don't ignore these risk factors. If you think you might be at risk for developing diabetes, complete the Canadian Diabetes Risk Questionnaire (CANRISK).
The earlier you are diagnosed, the sooner you can take action to stay well – now and in the future. If you already have type 2 diabetes, your children, brothers and sisters are at risk. Urge them to be tested for diabetes.
- See more at: http://www.diabetes.ca/about-diabetes/risk-factors/are-you-at-risk#sthash.1VgglMHs.dpuf6 -
I grow weary of this debate.
For starters, I love the people who claim it's not sugar and that it's simply self control. Most of these people are either subconsciously justifying the inclusion of sugar in their own diet (much like how smokers will do the same),
Why would I need to justify it consciously or unconsciously? Are you seriously comparing people with sugar in their diet to smokers?4 -
stevencloser wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »The heroine analogy is a bit much, but her point is to address the seemingly illogical idea that abstinence is more sustainable than moderation. In which case a comparison to addiction in general is more appropriate. Since the idea that sugar as a substance is addictive is very debatable, consider addictions which are not related to a substance. In those cases, moderation is very rarely prescribed.
But with eating addiction you (1) can't stop the behavior (we don't have to gamble, but we do have to eat), and (2) in at least many cases restriction itself makes the problem worse, if not actually causing it in the first place (which is why many recovered binge eaters and other ED sufferers (including overeaters) point to restrictive behavior/labeling foods bad and good as an issue. That's why -- even though I think for SOME people more restrictive approaches, like cutting out certain trigger foods or cutting down on carbs (I can't go along with the idea that cutting out all carbs and sugar, including veg, is healthy absent an actual health reason, like Crohn's, for doing so) is a helpful approach. It seems that for many others it's really counterproductive. I do find that the more I demonize foods (and this is something I've been prone to and work against) I have less control with them when I do eat them. Really consciously focusing on taking a logical approach to foods is one reason I think I've mostly managed to get rid of trigger foods. Again, not saying this works for everyone, but I would strongly caution you against the idea that if someone feels out of control about food or certain foods (as I have in the past), that the first and best answer should be "remove them, because a drunk shouldn't try to drink in moderation, right?"
Here are some links I think are worthwhile:
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/139/3/617.full (includes a discussion of the link between restriction and binging)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763414002140 (good discussion of the problems of "food addiction" and argument for "eating addiction")
http://www.refinery29.com/2015/01/80504/sugar-addiction-myths?utm_source=email&utm_medium=editorial&utm_content=everywhere&utm_campaign=150114-sugar-addiction-myths (nice article with interviews, and addresses this "sugar=heroin" nonsense that always comes up in these threads)
Good that you found something that works for you. Whatever is your experience is true for you. I am not questioning that. If moderation works for you, good for you (same for people who have problem feeling out of control with drinking).
Feeling out of control with food is quite different from alcoholism, IME.At the same time, whatever I experience is true to me. For me abstaining from sweets (candy, cakes, cookies, soda pop etc) works best and I do that.
Sure, not saying you shouldn't. I am saying that that approach shouldn't be assumed to be the One True One or necessary since we are pretending food is addictive. In some cases it can even be harmful. But can it be a strategy that works for some? I specifically said before that I thought it could.At the same time, I do eat a lot of vegetables and fruits as I am mostly vegetarian (I may eat fish or chicken one meal in a couple weeks). I eat very small quantities of whole grains because as the other poster said, I have a hard time feeling satiated and stay within my calorie needs when I eat grains and I feel hungry within two hours. I don't hate any food groups, but anything with added sugar is bad for me and I will abstain as moderation doesn't work for me.
Okay.
And if you decide moderation doesn't work for you, it won't, that is certainly true. But if you are happier not eating added sugar, that's fine too.
Well...you may think that feeling out of control with food is quite different from alcoholism. That doesn't mean it is true. Also we are talking sugar, and specifically added sugar in this topic not food in general. Neither I said abstaining is a panacea for all addiction. But for many, abstaining works well.
Moderation didn't stop working for me after I decided it will not work for me. On the contrary, I came to the conclusion that moderation doesn't work for me after many failed attempts at moderation.
Also, from r29 article:
"Food manufacturers add sugar to just about everything, but you might be surprised to learn how often it's added to savory items. "There’s more added sugar per calorie in most pasta sauces than in ice cream toppings," Dr. Katz points out. "You'll see many potato chips brands with high-fructose corn syrup sprayed on at the end." That's because sweetness is an appetite stimulant, urging you to eat more. Dr. Katz calls this "stealth sugar," because you don't consciously taste it, but it increases the amount you need to eat to feel satisfied."
So added sugar causes people to eat more. It is an appetite stimulant for vast majority of people. Though the article cleverly not mentions sugar in cakes, candies, it has the same effect on many people where they are stimulated to eat more of it. Then the article says practice mindfulness while eating added sugar. It doesn't explain how to practice mindfulness when sugar has interfered with your brain chemistry and driving a primal desire to eat more of it.
Yeah, I'm sure the 1 gram of added sugar per bag of chips is going to make all the difference.
Well..what do you think is the reason for these manufacturers to add sugar in their products?
Taste, texture, so the spices stick to the chips...
"the literal fraction of a gram of sugar per chip is going to make you go wild and hungry" is somewhere at the bottom of the list of possible reasons.
This couldn't be further from the truth. In fact, food companies actually add salt in addition to sugar, to hide the sweetness factor while the brain still gets the sugar reward. There is a reason that there is a TON of sugar in a jar of Prego sauce. They aren't winning you over with quality ingredients or authentic taste, so they are loading up on sugar and salt to make your brain happy.
You are very wrong. First, there is a total of 6 grams of sugar in 100 grams of the big brand pasta sauce I get ( we don't have prego so I can't check). And did you know? Tomatoes contain their own goddamn sugar so most of the sugar in the sauce is already in there from the tomatoes.11 -
stevencloser wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »
Sugar may not interfere with your brain chemistry, but you cannot speak for people for whom it does.Carlos_421 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »The heroine analogy is a bit much, but her point is to address the seemingly illogical idea that abstinence is more sustainable than moderation. In which case a comparison to addiction in general is more appropriate. Since the idea that sugar as a substance is addictive is very debatable, consider addictions which are not related to a substance. In those cases, moderation is very rarely prescribed.
But with eating addiction you (1) can't stop the behavior (we don't have to gamble, but we do have to eat), and (2) in at least many cases restriction itself makes the problem worse, if not actually causing it in the first place (which is why many recovered binge eaters and other ED sufferers (including overeaters) point to restrictive behavior/labeling foods bad and good as an issue. That's why -- even though I think for SOME people more restrictive approaches, like cutting out certain trigger foods or cutting down on carbs (I can't go along with the idea that cutting out all carbs and sugar, including veg, is healthy absent an actual health reason, like Crohn's, for doing so) is a helpful approach. It seems that for many others it's really counterproductive. I do find that the more I demonize foods (and this is something I've been prone to and work against) I have less control with them when I do eat them. Really consciously focusing on taking a logical approach to foods is one reason I think I've mostly managed to get rid of trigger foods. Again, not saying this works for everyone, but I would strongly caution you against the idea that if someone feels out of control about food or certain foods (as I have in the past), that the first and best answer should be "remove them, because a drunk shouldn't try to drink in moderation, right?"
Here are some links I think are worthwhile:
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/139/3/617.full (includes a discussion of the link between restriction and binging)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763414002140 (good discussion of the problems of "food addiction" and argument for "eating addiction")
http://www.refinery29.com/2015/01/80504/sugar-addiction-myths?utm_source=email&utm_medium=editorial&utm_content=everywhere&utm_campaign=150114-sugar-addiction-myths (nice article with interviews, and addresses this "sugar=heroin" nonsense that always comes up in these threads)
Good that you found something that works for you. Whatever is your experience is true for you. I am not questioning that. If moderation works for you, good for you (same for people who have problem feeling out of control with drinking).
Feeling out of control with food is quite different from alcoholism, IME.At the same time, whatever I experience is true to me. For me abstaining from sweets (candy, cakes, cookies, soda pop etc) works best and I do that.
Sure, not saying you shouldn't. I am saying that that approach shouldn't be assumed to be the One True One or necessary since we are pretending food is addictive. In some cases it can even be harmful. But can it be a strategy that works for some? I specifically said before that I thought it could.At the same time, I do eat a lot of vegetables and fruits as I am mostly vegetarian (I may eat fish or chicken one meal in a couple weeks). I eat very small quantities of whole grains because as the other poster said, I have a hard time feeling satiated and stay within my calorie needs when I eat grains and I feel hungry within two hours. I don't hate any food groups, but anything with added sugar is bad for me and I will abstain as moderation doesn't work for me.
It doesn't explain how to practice mindfulness when sugar has interfered with your brain chemistry and driving a primal desire to eat more of it.
Probably because sugar doesn't interfere with your brain chemistry or drive a primal desire to eat more of it. It just doesn't. It's not a mind altering or addictive substance. Any claims to the contrary are completely contradictory to all scientific evidence.
People eat sugar because it tastes good and they enjoy it. It's not warping their brain and driving them into fits to get their next hit of gummy bears.
I say this with all sensitivity - as someone who has had plenty of battles with eating disorders, I know how much eating issues suck - but why are you so convinced that something is wrong with your brain chemistry rather than that you have learned a disordered behavior? Why are you so sure it's the sugar's fault messing with your brain, rather than you like sugary, hyperpalatable foods, so you'd consume more and more of them, thus reinforcing the idea in your brain that sugary foods were meant to be overconsumed?
I can turn around an ask the same question. How are people so convinced that it is will power and not the brain chemistry? I am in no way reinforcing the idea in my brain that sugary foods were meant to be overconsumed. On the contrary, I am saying that there is absolutely no need for added sugar in our diet.
I am also saying that one person's experience is not an universal experience. If added sugar works for you, go for it. If moderation works for you, go for it. If abstaining works for you, go for it.
Sugar is addictive, and can be even more addictive than cocaine:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23719144
And we already know that some people can walk away from cocaine, and others cannot, due to that individuals brain chemistry. The answer is pretty simple. We already know sugar has no health qualities of any kind, and that when you consider it as a fuel source, it is almost entirely negative in how it is processed by the human body. We also know that for some people it can be extremely addictive. Willpower requirements for sugar can vary from one person to the next dramatically. For one person, it may seem like going without a cupcake. For another person, it can feel like going without air.
But a calorie is not a calorie, and sugar is the worst kind. And it's addictive. Not really sure why there is a debate on this. The willpower one is old (and biased). To make matters more confusing, even willpower itself is a brain chemistry thing (and different from one person to the next). What is important to know is that (A) sugar is bad, and (B) everyone reacts differently to it.
I grow weary of people comparing a highly addictive substance that gives you PHYSICAL DEPENDENCE and destroys lives to sugar, saying "it can be more addictive" because *kitten* rats prefer not starving over getting high.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say. I mean, scientific studies have already shown the power of sugar in terms of brain chemistry reaction:
Overall, this research has revealed that sugar and sweet reward can not only substitute to addictive drugs, like cocaine, but can even be more rewarding and attractive. At the neurobiological level, the neural substrates of sugar and sweet reward appear to be more robust than those of cocaine (i.e., more resistant to functional failures), possibly reflecting past selective evolutionary pressures for seeking and taking foods high in sugar and calories.
This isn't people making excuses, it's people studying brain reactions.1 -
stevencloser wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »
Sugar may not interfere with your brain chemistry, but you cannot speak for people for whom it does.Carlos_421 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »The heroine analogy is a bit much, but her point is to address the seemingly illogical idea that abstinence is more sustainable than moderation. In which case a comparison to addiction in general is more appropriate. Since the idea that sugar as a substance is addictive is very debatable, consider addictions which are not related to a substance. In those cases, moderation is very rarely prescribed.
But with eating addiction you (1) can't stop the behavior (we don't have to gamble, but we do have to eat), and (2) in at least many cases restriction itself makes the problem worse, if not actually causing it in the first place (which is why many recovered binge eaters and other ED sufferers (including overeaters) point to restrictive behavior/labeling foods bad and good as an issue. That's why -- even though I think for SOME people more restrictive approaches, like cutting out certain trigger foods or cutting down on carbs (I can't go along with the idea that cutting out all carbs and sugar, including veg, is healthy absent an actual health reason, like Crohn's, for doing so) is a helpful approach. It seems that for many others it's really counterproductive. I do find that the more I demonize foods (and this is something I've been prone to and work against) I have less control with them when I do eat them. Really consciously focusing on taking a logical approach to foods is one reason I think I've mostly managed to get rid of trigger foods. Again, not saying this works for everyone, but I would strongly caution you against the idea that if someone feels out of control about food or certain foods (as I have in the past), that the first and best answer should be "remove them, because a drunk shouldn't try to drink in moderation, right?"
Here are some links I think are worthwhile:
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/139/3/617.full (includes a discussion of the link between restriction and binging)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763414002140 (good discussion of the problems of "food addiction" and argument for "eating addiction")
http://www.refinery29.com/2015/01/80504/sugar-addiction-myths?utm_source=email&utm_medium=editorial&utm_content=everywhere&utm_campaign=150114-sugar-addiction-myths (nice article with interviews, and addresses this "sugar=heroin" nonsense that always comes up in these threads)
Good that you found something that works for you. Whatever is your experience is true for you. I am not questioning that. If moderation works for you, good for you (same for people who have problem feeling out of control with drinking).
Feeling out of control with food is quite different from alcoholism, IME.At the same time, whatever I experience is true to me. For me abstaining from sweets (candy, cakes, cookies, soda pop etc) works best and I do that.
Sure, not saying you shouldn't. I am saying that that approach shouldn't be assumed to be the One True One or necessary since we are pretending food is addictive. In some cases it can even be harmful. But can it be a strategy that works for some? I specifically said before that I thought it could.At the same time, I do eat a lot of vegetables and fruits as I am mostly vegetarian (I may eat fish or chicken one meal in a couple weeks). I eat very small quantities of whole grains because as the other poster said, I have a hard time feeling satiated and stay within my calorie needs when I eat grains and I feel hungry within two hours. I don't hate any food groups, but anything with added sugar is bad for me and I will abstain as moderation doesn't work for me.
It doesn't explain how to practice mindfulness when sugar has interfered with your brain chemistry and driving a primal desire to eat more of it.
Probably because sugar doesn't interfere with your brain chemistry or drive a primal desire to eat more of it. It just doesn't. It's not a mind altering or addictive substance. Any claims to the contrary are completely contradictory to all scientific evidence.
People eat sugar because it tastes good and they enjoy it. It's not warping their brain and driving them into fits to get their next hit of gummy bears.
I say this with all sensitivity - as someone who has had plenty of battles with eating disorders, I know how much eating issues suck - but why are you so convinced that something is wrong with your brain chemistry rather than that you have learned a disordered behavior? Why are you so sure it's the sugar's fault messing with your brain, rather than you like sugary, hyperpalatable foods, so you'd consume more and more of them, thus reinforcing the idea in your brain that sugary foods were meant to be overconsumed?
I can turn around an ask the same question. How are people so convinced that it is will power and not the brain chemistry? I am in no way reinforcing the idea in my brain that sugary foods were meant to be overconsumed. On the contrary, I am saying that there is absolutely no need for added sugar in our diet.
I am also saying that one person's experience is not an universal experience. If added sugar works for you, go for it. If moderation works for you, go for it. If abstaining works for you, go for it.
Sugar is addictive, and can be even more addictive than cocaine:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23719144
And we already know that some people can walk away from cocaine, and others cannot, due to that individuals brain chemistry. The answer is pretty simple. We already know sugar has no health qualities of any kind, and that when you consider it as a fuel source, it is almost entirely negative in how it is processed by the human body. We also know that for some people it can be extremely addictive. Willpower requirements for sugar can vary from one person to the next dramatically. For one person, it may seem like going without a cupcake. For another person, it can feel like going without air.
But a calorie is not a calorie, and sugar is the worst kind. And it's addictive. Not really sure why there is a debate on this. The willpower one is old (and biased). To make matters more confusing, even willpower itself is a brain chemistry thing (and different from one person to the next). What is important to know is that (A) sugar is bad, and (B) everyone reacts differently to it.
I grow weary of people comparing a highly addictive substance that gives you PHYSICAL DEPENDENCE and destroys lives to sugar, saying "it can be more addictive" because *kitten* rats prefer not starving over getting high.
Comparing people's "symptoms" of not eating sugar to actual drug withdrawal is an insult. They are not even remotely the same thing8 -
paulgads82 wrote: »I'm out. This is ridiculous now. A calorie is a calorie. It's a measure of energy, not nutrition.
Fine, although you are out, I will reply anyway.
Sorry, the phrase "a calorie is not a calorie" obviously doesn't mean what it says. It means that two foods of the same calorie amount can have a very different impact on the body. The phrase is just a phrase. But if you are going to focus on the grammar (of this well known phrase) and not the valid point, then the thread is better off without ya.
A single food has no impact on your body at all. Your total diet does.9 -
stevencloser wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »
Sugar may not interfere with your brain chemistry, but you cannot speak for people for whom it does.Carlos_421 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »The heroine analogy is a bit much, but her point is to address the seemingly illogical idea that abstinence is more sustainable than moderation. In which case a comparison to addiction in general is more appropriate. Since the idea that sugar as a substance is addictive is very debatable, consider addictions which are not related to a substance. In those cases, moderation is very rarely prescribed.
But with eating addiction you (1) can't stop the behavior (we don't have to gamble, but we do have to eat), and (2) in at least many cases restriction itself makes the problem worse, if not actually causing it in the first place (which is why many recovered binge eaters and other ED sufferers (including overeaters) point to restrictive behavior/labeling foods bad and good as an issue. That's why -- even though I think for SOME people more restrictive approaches, like cutting out certain trigger foods or cutting down on carbs (I can't go along with the idea that cutting out all carbs and sugar, including veg, is healthy absent an actual health reason, like Crohn's, for doing so) is a helpful approach. It seems that for many others it's really counterproductive. I do find that the more I demonize foods (and this is something I've been prone to and work against) I have less control with them when I do eat them. Really consciously focusing on taking a logical approach to foods is one reason I think I've mostly managed to get rid of trigger foods. Again, not saying this works for everyone, but I would strongly caution you against the idea that if someone feels out of control about food or certain foods (as I have in the past), that the first and best answer should be "remove them, because a drunk shouldn't try to drink in moderation, right?"
Here are some links I think are worthwhile:
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/139/3/617.full (includes a discussion of the link between restriction and binging)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763414002140 (good discussion of the problems of "food addiction" and argument for "eating addiction")
http://www.refinery29.com/2015/01/80504/sugar-addiction-myths?utm_source=email&utm_medium=editorial&utm_content=everywhere&utm_campaign=150114-sugar-addiction-myths (nice article with interviews, and addresses this "sugar=heroin" nonsense that always comes up in these threads)
Good that you found something that works for you. Whatever is your experience is true for you. I am not questioning that. If moderation works for you, good for you (same for people who have problem feeling out of control with drinking).
Feeling out of control with food is quite different from alcoholism, IME.At the same time, whatever I experience is true to me. For me abstaining from sweets (candy, cakes, cookies, soda pop etc) works best and I do that.
Sure, not saying you shouldn't. I am saying that that approach shouldn't be assumed to be the One True One or necessary since we are pretending food is addictive. In some cases it can even be harmful. But can it be a strategy that works for some? I specifically said before that I thought it could.At the same time, I do eat a lot of vegetables and fruits as I am mostly vegetarian (I may eat fish or chicken one meal in a couple weeks). I eat very small quantities of whole grains because as the other poster said, I have a hard time feeling satiated and stay within my calorie needs when I eat grains and I feel hungry within two hours. I don't hate any food groups, but anything with added sugar is bad for me and I will abstain as moderation doesn't work for me.
It doesn't explain how to practice mindfulness when sugar has interfered with your brain chemistry and driving a primal desire to eat more of it.
Probably because sugar doesn't interfere with your brain chemistry or drive a primal desire to eat more of it. It just doesn't. It's not a mind altering or addictive substance. Any claims to the contrary are completely contradictory to all scientific evidence.
People eat sugar because it tastes good and they enjoy it. It's not warping their brain and driving them into fits to get their next hit of gummy bears.
I say this with all sensitivity - as someone who has had plenty of battles with eating disorders, I know how much eating issues suck - but why are you so convinced that something is wrong with your brain chemistry rather than that you have learned a disordered behavior? Why are you so sure it's the sugar's fault messing with your brain, rather than you like sugary, hyperpalatable foods, so you'd consume more and more of them, thus reinforcing the idea in your brain that sugary foods were meant to be overconsumed?
I can turn around an ask the same question. How are people so convinced that it is will power and not the brain chemistry? I am in no way reinforcing the idea in my brain that sugary foods were meant to be overconsumed. On the contrary, I am saying that there is absolutely no need for added sugar in our diet.
I am also saying that one person's experience is not an universal experience. If added sugar works for you, go for it. If moderation works for you, go for it. If abstaining works for you, go for it.
Because added sugar does not contain any chemicals that have the ability to mess with your brain chemistry?
Because you have sugar coursing through your veins from the moment you enter this world until you draw your last breath and you'd die if there wasn't?
Are those reasons enough to be convinced that no, cakes have not messed with your brain chemistry?
I don't even know where to start with that statement! We have glucose in our cells.0 -
singingflutelady wrote: »and sugar doesn't cause diabetes
Eating too much sugar can cause weight gain, which increases your risk of developing T2D.0 -
Wow this post has really turned bad. Eek0
-
paulgads82 wrote: »I'm out. This is ridiculous now. A calorie is a calorie. It's a measure of energy, not nutrition.
Wrong.3 -
I don't think sugar should be banned. I think more education is needed so people understand exactly how many calories they are eating, the calorie breakdown of nutrients they are consuming and how many calories they are or are not burning.
You are saying this despite knowing that a calorie is not just a calorie, right? The sugar industry wants us to think that 100 calories of sugar is identical to 100 calories of broccoli. But that just isn't accurate at all.
I also do not think it should be banned. But I think the industry needs to be watched closely. It's a bit sad that sugar can be as bad for a person as smoking, but since smoking causes a stinky smell, we take a lot of action on it, while we quietly let the children consume massive amounts of added sugar in processed foods, as they develop diabetes as teens and young adults.
Good luck trying to get kids to develop diabetes on a diet that is without added sugar and without processed carbs, where all they can eat is whole foods. Would never happen.
I read your Authority Nutrition link trying to say that a calorie is not a calorie. It conflates calories with macronutrients. A calorie is an intangible unit of energy measurement. It is incorrect to say "a calorie of sugar", "a calorie of fat", "a calorie of protein", etc. That's like saying "a degree of heat" or "a degree of cold". There simply is no such thing.5 -
paulgads82 wrote: »I'm out. This is ridiculous now. A calorie is a calorie. It's a measure of energy, not nutrition.
Wrong.
Yes he is right. 100 calories of energy is 100 calories of energy no matter the source.6 -
Here's my thoughts/experience: Compulsive overeating is a bad habit. We can form compulsive habits from anything that gives us a dopamine spike (shopping, gambling, etc.) Overeating food in general provides a dopamine spike, so it can be compulsive habit forming. Sugar-bearing foods for many/most people cause a stronger dopamine spike than many other foods, so they are more likely to result in a compulsive habit for people who are susceptible to it. For me, it is very easy to form compulsive habits around food, in particular for me high sugar foods (because of the increased dopamine spike over other foods), so I do eat them, but I'm careful with them. More careful than I am with a food that is lower in sugar.3
-
paulgads82 wrote: »I'm out. This is ridiculous now. A calorie is a calorie. It's a measure of energy, not nutrition.
Fine, although you are out, I will reply anyway.
Sorry, the phrase "a calorie is not a calorie" obviously doesn't mean what it says. It means that two foods of the same calorie amount can have a very different impact on the body. The phrase is just a phrase. But if you are going to focus on the grammar (of this well known phrase) and not the valid point, then the thread is better off without ya.
If you're going to use science to back up your arguments you need to use accurate terminology not phrases.3 -
pcoslady83 wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »
Sugar may not interfere with your brain chemistry, but you cannot speak for people for whom it does.Carlos_421 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »The heroine analogy is a bit much, but her point is to address the seemingly illogical idea that abstinence is more sustainable than moderation. In which case a comparison to addiction in general is more appropriate. Since the idea that sugar as a substance is addictive is very debatable, consider addictions which are not related to a substance. In those cases, moderation is very rarely prescribed.
But with eating addiction you (1) can't stop the behavior (we don't have to gamble, but we do have to eat), and (2) in at least many cases restriction itself makes the problem worse, if not actually causing it in the first place (which is why many recovered binge eaters and other ED sufferers (including overeaters) point to restrictive behavior/labeling foods bad and good as an issue. That's why -- even though I think for SOME people more restrictive approaches, like cutting out certain trigger foods or cutting down on carbs (I can't go along with the idea that cutting out all carbs and sugar, including veg, is healthy absent an actual health reason, like Crohn's, for doing so) is a helpful approach. It seems that for many others it's really counterproductive. I do find that the more I demonize foods (and this is something I've been prone to and work against) I have less control with them when I do eat them. Really consciously focusing on taking a logical approach to foods is one reason I think I've mostly managed to get rid of trigger foods. Again, not saying this works for everyone, but I would strongly caution you against the idea that if someone feels out of control about food or certain foods (as I have in the past), that the first and best answer should be "remove them, because a drunk shouldn't try to drink in moderation, right?"
Here are some links I think are worthwhile:
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/139/3/617.full (includes a discussion of the link between restriction and binging)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763414002140 (good discussion of the problems of "food addiction" and argument for "eating addiction")
http://www.refinery29.com/2015/01/80504/sugar-addiction-myths?utm_source=email&utm_medium=editorial&utm_content=everywhere&utm_campaign=150114-sugar-addiction-myths (nice article with interviews, and addresses this "sugar=heroin" nonsense that always comes up in these threads)
Good that you found something that works for you. Whatever is your experience is true for you. I am not questioning that. If moderation works for you, good for you (same for people who have problem feeling out of control with drinking).
Feeling out of control with food is quite different from alcoholism, IME.At the same time, whatever I experience is true to me. For me abstaining from sweets (candy, cakes, cookies, soda pop etc) works best and I do that.
Sure, not saying you shouldn't. I am saying that that approach shouldn't be assumed to be the One True One or necessary since we are pretending food is addictive. In some cases it can even be harmful. But can it be a strategy that works for some? I specifically said before that I thought it could.At the same time, I do eat a lot of vegetables and fruits as I am mostly vegetarian (I may eat fish or chicken one meal in a couple weeks). I eat very small quantities of whole grains because as the other poster said, I have a hard time feeling satiated and stay within my calorie needs when I eat grains and I feel hungry within two hours. I don't hate any food groups, but anything with added sugar is bad for me and I will abstain as moderation doesn't work for me.
It doesn't explain how to practice mindfulness when sugar has interfered with your brain chemistry and driving a primal desire to eat more of it.
Probably because sugar doesn't interfere with your brain chemistry or drive a primal desire to eat more of it. It just doesn't. It's not a mind altering or addictive substance. Any claims to the contrary are completely contradictory to all scientific evidence.
People eat sugar because it tastes good and they enjoy it. It's not warping their brain and driving them into fits to get their next hit of gummy bears.
I say this with all sensitivity - as someone who has had plenty of battles with eating disorders, I know how much eating issues suck - but why are you so convinced that something is wrong with your brain chemistry rather than that you have learned a disordered behavior? Why are you so sure it's the sugar's fault messing with your brain, rather than you like sugary, hyperpalatable foods, so you'd consume more and more of them, thus reinforcing the idea in your brain that sugary foods were meant to be overconsumed?
I can turn around an ask the same question. How are people so convinced that it is will power and not the brain chemistry? I am in no way reinforcing the idea in my brain that sugary foods were meant to be overconsumed. On the contrary, I am saying that there is absolutely no need for added sugar in our diet.
I am also saying that one person's experience is not an universal experience. If added sugar works for you, go for it. If moderation works for you, go for it. If abstaining works for you, go for it.
Do you believe sugar should be banned like the article in the OP suggests? Have you had a chance to read any of the response articles that were posted, yet?
I don't believe sugar should be banned. I do believe that added sugar is bad for vast majority of people and it is one of the important causes for the obesity epidemic and people should be educated about this.
That's not the position that health entities like the WHO take. They recommend that it be limited, of course, but not that it is bad for people in any amount.
If someone wants to cut out added sugar as a personal choice, that's fine -- I did it for a bit myself and returned to it for a month later. But if it were truly addictive you wouldn't be able to distinguish between added sugar and intrinsic sugar like this.3 -
I don't think sugar should be banned. I think more education is needed so people understand exactly how many calories they are eating, the calorie breakdown of nutrients they are consuming and how many calories they are or are not burning.
You are saying this despite knowing that a calorie is not just a calorie, right? The sugar industry wants us to think that 100 calories of sugar is identical to 100 calories of broccoli. But that just isn't accurate at all.
I also do not think it should be banned. But I think the industry needs to be watched closely. It's a bit sad that sugar can be as bad for a person as smoking, but since smoking causes a stinky smell, we take a lot of action on it, while we quietly let the children consume massive amounts of added sugar in processed foods, as they develop diabetes as teens and young adults.
Good luck trying to get kids to develop diabetes on a diet that is without added sugar and without processed carbs, where all they can eat is whole foods. Would never happen.
I think 100 calories of broccoli is the same amount of calories as 100 calories of sugar. My body will react differently to those 100 calories but still the same amount.3
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
- 426 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