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
Options
Replies
-
You probably misread that (seems to be happening a lot). I never said that abstinence is required, but I did say that the value of your advice is diminished due to the fact that you are unfamiliar with the problem. While you point out certain similarities your experience differs greatly from those I've heard.I have misunderstood you, then. I have been focused on a post of yours (I can find it if you like) where I thought you WERE saying that the correct response should be abstinence, and those who didn't identify as addicted and who thus recommended other things that worked for them rather than abstinence were failing to get it.
Actually, I never called it an addiction, though I do feel the comparison is useful. (Sorry, I know that hits a lot of you in the feels, but there are a lot of shared characteristics) I only expressed that it is pointless to argue as the course of action is the same regardless of label.If you were not saying abstinence is required and the best solution in all such cases, I'm not sure what we are even disagreeing about. (Well, except that it's not really an addiction. It's an eating disorder of sorts or simply normal human reaction to the current environment.)
@lemurcat12, are you, by chance INTJ?2 -
mskessler89 wrote: »lots of people here think sugar isn't bad for you? Weird.
I know, I know: everything in moderation...even moderation. But moderation for sugar is a VERY small amount...I'm not a nutritionist but do our bodies really need the amount of sugar we constantly eat? I doubt it.
I get about 30-40 grams of sugar a day while AVOIDING it. If I were to have a glass of orange juice on any given day I would almost DOUBLE my average daily intake. Think about that and tell me that the overindulgence of sugar is not an issue with out society.
So yes, I think sugar should be a "villain" at least temporarily because that's the only way A LOT people will learn to pay attention to it and control their intake.
The thing is, if most people would concentrate on getting adequate protein and fat while staying at a reasonable calorie goal, sugar would be naturally restricted to a healthy level. Instead, people are overeating on everything, and often when they begin restricting to lose weight they do so without any understanding at all of optimum nutrition. They just think sugar is the devil.
So much this.2 -
You probably misread that (seems to be happening a lot). I never said that abstinence is required, but I did say that the value of your advice is diminished due to the fact that you are unfamiliar with the problem. While you point out certain similarities your experience differs greatly from those I've heard.I have misunderstood you, then. I have been focused on a post of yours (I can find it if you like) where I thought you WERE saying that the correct response should be abstinence, and those who didn't identify as addicted and who thus recommended other things that worked for them rather than abstinence were failing to get it.
Actually, I never called it an addiction, though I do feel the comparison is useful. (Sorry, I know that hits a lot of you in the feels, but there are a lot of shared characteristics) I only expressed that it is pointless to argue as the course of action is the same regardless of label.If you were not saying abstinence is required and the best solution in all such cases, I'm not sure what we are even disagreeing about. (Well, except that it's not really an addiction. It's an eating disorder of sorts or simply normal human reaction to the current environment.)
@lemurcat12, are you, by chance INTJ?
Nope, either INTP or ENTP depending on my mood.
I disagree that I am unfamiliar with the problem, sorry. Most "I'm addicted" posts sound just like what I'm familiar with, except for the weird liking for the term addicted. No, sugar isn't my main thing, but as WinoGelato noted, so? None of the research points to sugar being a specific issue. (And I am certain it will be proven not to be.)3 -
Sugary foods are pretty calorie dense. Its super easy to "over eat" when you make bad choices.1
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
Of course sugar is bad for you in large amounts!
http://www.who.int/elena/titles/ssbs_childhood_obesity/en/2 -
That doesn't make it initrinsically bad. It means it can lead to obesity as people don't seem to understand how high calorie it is. Look, I eat sugar in large amounts, I am losing weight. The sugar part isn't the prerequisite for weight gain if you understand sugar, it's the ignorance that's the problem. Sugar has become the focus in and of itself as if it contains some form of negative health properties, it doesn't. The article above pretty much states this.7
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
Of course sugar is bad for you in large amounts!
http://www.who.int/elena/titles/ssbs_childhood_obesity/en/
Yes of course it can be. But dosage and context are important.
A spoonful of sugar on my porridge to improve the flavour is inconsequential, glugging 3 litres of sweetened fizzy drinks every day is going to make one hell of a difference to your calorie balance.
When I'm doing a big cycle event and eating 3000 cals of sugary carbs for energy the context and appropriate dosage would be totally different to eating the same amount sat at work in front of a PC.
What this thread started out about was the absolute focus on sugar as THE problem. Rather than part, only for some people, of the problem of food overconsumption when paired with falling activity levels.
I can't think of one single foodstuff for sale in my local supermarket that couldn't be PART of an overall healthy diet even if it has little nutritional value on its own. Like granulated sugar, or gummy bears, or lettuce or water......
The dumbing down of a complex subject to a soundbite ("Sugar iz da Debil") is part of the problem rather than the solution IMHO.
9 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
Of course sugar is bad for you in large amounts!
http://www.who.int/elena/titles/ssbs_childhood_obesity/en/
Of course water is bad for you in large amounts!
Does that mean you should minimize your water intake?11 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
You probably misread that (seems to be happening a lot). I never said that abstinence is required, but I did say that the value of your advice is diminished due to the fact that you are unfamiliar with the problem. While you point out certain similarities your experience differs greatly from those I've heard.I have misunderstood you, then. I have been focused on a post of yours (I can find it if you like) where I thought you WERE saying that the correct response should be abstinence, and those who didn't identify as addicted and who thus recommended other things that worked for them rather than abstinence were failing to get it.
Actually, I never called it an addiction, though I do feel the comparison is useful. (Sorry, I know that hits a lot of you in the feels, but there are a lot of shared characteristics) I only expressed that it is pointless to argue as the course of action is the same regardless of label.If you were not saying abstinence is required and the best solution in all such cases, I'm not sure what we are even disagreeing about. (Well, except that it's not really an addiction. It's an eating disorder of sorts or simply normal human reaction to the current environment.)
@lemurcat12, are you, by chance INTJ?
Nope, either INTP or ENTP depending on my mood.
I disagree that I am unfamiliar with the problem, sorry. Most "I'm addicted" posts sound just like what I'm familiar with, except for the weird liking for the term addicted. No, sugar isn't my main thing, but as WinoGelato noted, so? None of the research points to sugar being a specific issue. (And I am certain it will be proven not to be.)
Not surprised. INTP here too.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
You probably misread that (seems to be happening a lot). I never said that abstinence is required, but I did say that the value of your advice is diminished due to the fact that you are unfamiliar with the problem. While you point out certain similarities your experience differs greatly from those I've heard.I have misunderstood you, then. I have been focused on a post of yours (I can find it if you like) where I thought you WERE saying that the correct response should be abstinence, and those who didn't identify as addicted and who thus recommended other things that worked for them rather than abstinence were failing to get it.
Actually, I never called it an addiction, though I do feel the comparison is useful. (Sorry, I know that hits a lot of you in the feels, but there are a lot of shared characteristics) I only expressed that it is pointless to argue as the course of action is the same regardless of label.If you were not saying abstinence is required and the best solution in all such cases, I'm not sure what we are even disagreeing about. (Well, except that it's not really an addiction. It's an eating disorder of sorts or simply normal human reaction to the current environment.)
@lemurcat12, are you, by chance INTJ?
Nope, either INTP or ENTP depending on my mood.
I disagree that I am unfamiliar with the problem, sorry. Most "I'm addicted" posts sound just like what I'm familiar with, except for the weird liking for the term addicted. No, sugar isn't my main thing, but as WinoGelato noted, so? None of the research points to sugar being a specific issue. (And I am certain it will be proven not to be.)
Not surprised. INTP here too.
LOL maybe we should have a Myers-Briggs thread so we can all understand each other's personality types and how to better communicate?
ENTJ0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
Of course sugar is bad for you in large amounts!
http://www.who.int/elena/titles/ssbs_childhood_obesity/en/
Um, I'm really curious why you think this is responsive to my comment. Did you actually misread my post so badly that you thought I had said that sugar is not bad for you in excessive amounts (in particular due to its effect on calories consumed or crowding out other nutrients).
I specifically said that of course it's recommended that sugar consumption be limited (and before I said the average American consumes too much) but that this does NOT mean, as some were claiming, that the consumption of ANY sugar is a problem.
I find it quite rude that you would try to suggest that I said the opposite of what I really did say. Why would someone do that? Isn't it possible to argue with people's real positions?3 -
WinoGelato wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
You probably misread that (seems to be happening a lot). I never said that abstinence is required, but I did say that the value of your advice is diminished due to the fact that you are unfamiliar with the problem. While you point out certain similarities your experience differs greatly from those I've heard.I have misunderstood you, then. I have been focused on a post of yours (I can find it if you like) where I thought you WERE saying that the correct response should be abstinence, and those who didn't identify as addicted and who thus recommended other things that worked for them rather than abstinence were failing to get it.
Actually, I never called it an addiction, though I do feel the comparison is useful. (Sorry, I know that hits a lot of you in the feels, but there are a lot of shared characteristics) I only expressed that it is pointless to argue as the course of action is the same regardless of label.If you were not saying abstinence is required and the best solution in all such cases, I'm not sure what we are even disagreeing about. (Well, except that it's not really an addiction. It's an eating disorder of sorts or simply normal human reaction to the current environment.)
@lemurcat12, are you, by chance INTJ?
Nope, either INTP or ENTP depending on my mood.
I disagree that I am unfamiliar with the problem, sorry. Most "I'm addicted" posts sound just like what I'm familiar with, except for the weird liking for the term addicted. No, sugar isn't my main thing, but as WinoGelato noted, so? None of the research points to sugar being a specific issue. (And I am certain it will be proven not to be.)
Not surprised. INTP here too.
LOL maybe we should have a Myers-Briggs thread so we can all understand each other's personality types and how to better communicate?
ENTJ
Heh.0 -
The real sugar conspiracy is the amount of people with medical conditions that seem to think what applies to them applies to healthy people too.17
-
stevencloser wrote: »The real sugar conspiracy is the amount of people with medical conditions that seem to think what applies to them applies to healthy people too.
Yep!!0 -
queenliz99 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »The real sugar conspiracy is the amount of people with medical conditions that seem to think what applies to them applies to healthy people too.
Yep!!
Double yep!!0 -
Yuppers!0
-
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 like your reasonable approach to this conversation. I think that the science about insulin is we established, what makes the anti sugar thing questionable is I haven't heard why 30% of people can eat sugar and have little direct effect.
1 -
walker1world wrote: »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 like your reasonable approach to this conversation. I think that the science about insulin is we established, what makes the anti sugar thing questionable is I haven't heard why 30% of people can eat sugar and have little direct effect.
Thanks.
I've basically bowed out of this thread because it went the usual route. There seems to be a fair bit of thinking that what works for one person will work for another and that isn't always true. A physical truth for one person is not true for another. For example, wheat products make me very ill but I don't think everyone needs to go gluten free; and milk hurts my stomach but I don't think everyone should give up milk. I firmly believe that my physical reaction to sugar is unusual when compared to many but not everyone should avoid eating sugar - avoiding sugar doesn't help everyone - although I don't think sugar has much of a positive impact on most of those people's diets either (barring those who use it as an exercise supplement).
It just won't be accepted by some that my experience is different than theirs. Not worse or harder, or better or easier. Just different. That's where I think Lustig is wrong. His statements are too sweeping. Sugar is not a problem for all, just some of us.... Sort of (in a very exaggerated way) like a substance addiction, and that seems to be where addiction is brought into conversations as a clike this.
I call my "relationship" with sugar "addiction-like" because it is not an addiction but it is more than just a will power issue. There is some physical component to it - for me. I know it isn't the same as a drug addiction but there is something that isn't normal... Using the word addiction is a good metaphor - figurative language and not literal (in my mind); it lets one know that there is something more to it than just wanting more and making bad food choices.
Like addictions, sugar is not an issue for all. Not everyone will be addicted to alcohol or gambling but it is a problem for some. The consequences of sugar "addiction" will not affect all either. Not everyone will develop IR or reactive hypoglycemia, just like not all smokers get cancer, or all alcoholics develop liver disease. Many people can eat all the sugar they want and remain insulin sensitive for a variety of reasons (good genetics, high levels of exercise, "good" carbs rather than "bad" processed carbs are eaten, youth). It would be wrong to think sugar is not a problem for some just because that person has stayed insulin sensitive.
Someone up thread implied that the problem with this thread is that people with medical conditions seem to think what applies to them applies to healthy people too. That could be part of it but the door swings both ways. Part of the problem with this thread is also people without medical conditions that seem to think that what applies to them applies to all other people too.
For me, Lustig is not 100% right or wrong. He is only right for some. He was right for me.8 -
stevencloser wrote: »The real sugar conspiracy is the amount of people with medical conditions that seem to think what applies to them applies to healthy people too.
So much this^^^0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 395 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 959 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions