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
-
And I the former...and yes, I confess to being a long time geek who enjoys debating
1 -
eveandqsmom wrote: »I think many people have insinuated that people who claim sugar is an addiction are whiners
Stating that sugar (the chemical substance) is not physically addictive and explaining why is not the same as calling people who believe they are addicted, "whiners".
I'm curious if you read through the whole thread?4 -
I did. A lot of people have said that it's ridiculous and insulting to people with "real" addictions, that suggests to me that the people who have this problem are really just whiners.4
-
paulgads82 wrote: »
It's a scientific debate, semantics are important. I think we are all just geeks who like debating
But its also important in the context of the idea of a sugar conspiracy, or whatever. Are corporate interests feeding us an addictive substance or is sugar just really tasty and some of us develop unhealthy relationships with it? Obviously i support the latter explanation.
I believe refined sugar is addictive to many people and at the minimum an appetite stimulant which interferes with normal brain functionality. So I think corporations are using these attributes of sugar to increase profits.
Aaaaannnnnndddddddd...I don't like debating at all. I used to though, but when I started understanding that different people experience different realities when faced with an objectively same situation, debating became less interesting and learning about different experiences and perspective became more interesting.9 -
pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »
It's a scientific debate, semantics are important. I think we are all just geeks who like debating
But its also important in the context of the idea of a sugar conspiracy, or whatever. Are corporate interests feeding us an addictive substance or is sugar just really tasty and some of us develop unhealthy relationships with it? Obviously i support the latter explanation.
I believe refined sugar is addictive to many people and at the minimum an appetite stimulant which interferes with normal brain functionality. So I think corporations are using these attributes of sugar to increase profits.
Aaaaannnnnndddddddd...I don't like debating at all. I used to though, but when I started understanding that different people experience different realities when faced with an objectively same situation, debating became less interesting and learning about different experiences and perspective became more interesting.
Refined sugar is chemically identical to the same sugar found naturally in fruit. It is processed by your body to its components glucose and fructose and used identically to those two sugars found in fruit and vegetables. As long as you live, you always have glucose in your blood, even if you don't eat any carbohydrates at all.
Sugar interferes with your brain chemistry as much as water.6 -
eveandqsmom wrote: »I did. A lot of people have said that it's ridiculous and insulting to people with "real" addictions, that suggests to me that the people who have this problem are really just whiners.
If someone says sugar is more addictive than heroin, then yes, that is very insulting to anyone who had the pleasure of dealing directly or indirectly with that.
It's like comparing a papercut to an amputation.12 -
I've seen people try and quit heroin and crack. I've suffered with mental health problems and emotional eating. Both awful, just not the same. I had no physical addiction or psychological addiction but can admit that some people will meet behaviour that may fit a psychological addiction, but it isn't sugar. It's them. If someone wishes to argue sugar is not an arbitrary component in a food addiction there needs to be hard evidence. So far I've seen examples which can equally apply to things like exercise, other foods, gambling etc etc. Sugar changes brain chemistry? So does sex. People wake up in the night and crave sugar? Same with other foods. All the behavioural examples around sugar can apply to so many other triggers. Then we have the problem of sugar being in so many foods which never seem to be the focus of the addiction. It seems impossible for sugar to be the addictive component when stacked up to actual drugs. High sugar foods give us a big hit of energy, it's no surprise people view this as a high. But its not a drug high, even if it feels really good. It's always high sugar foods, never a carrot.4
-
eveandqsmom wrote: »I did. A lot of people have said that it's ridiculous and insulting to people with "real" addictions, that suggests to me that the people who have this problem are really just whiners.
So you are focusing on comments of the last couple of pages. Got it.
I do think it is insulting to people who have been addicted to narcotics or other chemically addictive substances to compare sugar to heroin and that sugar withdrawals are similar to nicotine or narcotics. That doesn't mean I think the people making those claims are whiners. I think it means they don't understand the science of how all forms of sugar work in your body from a biochemical perspective, and that they haven't accepted that you can't be addicted to sugar in cookies but not be addicted to sugars in vegetables. I think they maybe haven't addressed the behavioral component of their desires, that often what feels like such a strong urge that it's comparable to an addiction is actually tied to an emotional trigger, a habit, or a behavioral compulsion. These were all things that were discussed at length in early parts of this thread which is why I was asking if you had read the whole thing.6 -
pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »
It's a scientific debate, semantics are important. I think we are all just geeks who like debating
But its also important in the context of the idea of a sugar conspiracy, or whatever. Are corporate interests feeding us an addictive substance or is sugar just really tasty and some of us develop unhealthy relationships with it? Obviously i support the latter explanation.
I believe refined sugar is addictive to many people and at the minimum an appetite stimulant which interferes with normal brain functionality. So I think corporations are using these attributes of sugar to increase profits.
Aaaaannnnnndddddddd...I don't like debating at all. I used to though, but when I started understanding that different people experience different realities when faced with an objectively same situation, debating became less interesting and learning about different experiences and perspective became more interesting.
Experiences do not negate reality. If I start seeing unicorns, the unicorns are not there. It's me. The fact that I saw unicorns is real, the existence of unicorns is not. If someone believes they are physically addicted to sugar the only way to determine if this is true is through science.5 -
WinoGelato wrote: »eveandqsmom wrote: »I did. A lot of people have said that it's ridiculous and insulting to people with "real" addictions, that suggests to me that the people who have this problem are really just whiners.
So you are focusing on comments of the last couple of pages. Got it.
I do think it is insulting to people who have been addicted to narcotics or other chemically addictive substances to compare sugar to heroin and that sugar withdrawals are similar to nicotine or narcotics. That doesn't mean I think the people making those claims are whiners. I think it means they don't understand the science of how all forms of sugar work in your body from a biochemical perspective, and that they haven't accepted that you can't be addicted to sugar in cookies but not be addicted to sugars in vegetables. I think they maybe haven't addressed the behavioral component of their desires, that often what feels like such a strong urge that it's comparable to an addiction is actually tied to an emotional trigger, a habit, or a behavioral compulsion. These were all things that were discussed at length in early parts of this thread which is why I was asking if you had read the whole thing.
Yep. It may feel like a physical addiction but that doesn't make it true. Personally, if I have a lot of sugar I feel great. An apple? Not so much. It's no wonder people start wanting lots of sugar. But it is always lots of sugar. It's never a single apple.1 -
paulgads82 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »
It's a scientific debate, semantics are important. I think we are all just geeks who like debating
But its also important in the context of the idea of a sugar conspiracy, or whatever. Are corporate interests feeding us an addictive substance or is sugar just really tasty and some of us develop unhealthy relationships with it? Obviously i support the latter explanation.
I believe refined sugar is addictive to many people and at the minimum an appetite stimulant which interferes with normal brain functionality. So I think corporations are using these attributes of sugar to increase profits.
Aaaaannnnnndddddddd...I don't like debating at all. I used to though, but when I started understanding that different people experience different realities when faced with an objectively same situation, debating became less interesting and learning about different experiences and perspective became more interesting.
Experiences do not negate reality. If I start seeing unicorns, the unicorns are not there. It's me. The fact that I saw unicorns is real, the existence of unicorns is not. If someone believes they are physically addicted to sugar the only way to determine if this is true is through science.
Your tone is totally respectful. I don't know where I could have misunderstood.2 -
pcoslady83 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »It's not remotely the same, it's dumb people want to pretend it's the same.
Sure, some people might benefit from cutting out added sugar or low carbing. Others find they do better getting over the idea that some foods are "bad."
What is dumb is your absolute belief that only you are correct and every one else who think otherwise are stupid.
You'll notice that she didn't call anyone dumb, like you did. She said the belief that sugar is addictive is dumb.
I didn't call her dumb. I called her belief dumb.
Then I misread you.
I will never understand people who have decided that food has this much power over them, and it certainly isn't for lack of trying.
You can read what I wrote once more..
I don't understand how people are addicted to alcohol or smoking. I cannot understand why they need rehab or a support group to quit drinking when I cannot finish a glass of wine or stand the smell of smoke. That is completely okay. What I do understand if they need assistance to quit is that they have a legitimate problem which is beyond my understanding and experience. I don't degrade them by saying that it was their decision to give more power to the substance they are abusing and if they tried hard enough on their own, they would get over it.
Because alcohol and tobacco can cause physical dependencies. Sugar cannot. Well, I suppose if you want to go the "You'll literally die without it" route, you could, but that's not what we're talking about. Science can explain alcohol and tobacco addictions, and has at best suggested an eating addiction in some individuals. The science done on all of this indicates no addictive food-substance.
If people feel truly addicted to sugar, they need a therapist, not a methadone clinic, and that's the point.2 -
I've never heard of a scientific explanation for alcoholism. In fact, every piece of literature I've seen says only the person can determine whether or not they are an alcoholic. There's no blood test, no specific criteria...just opinion.2
-
pcoslady83 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »It's not remotely the same, it's dumb people want to pretend it's the same.
Sure, some people might benefit from cutting out added sugar or low carbing. Others find they do better getting over the idea that some foods are "bad."
What is dumb is your absolute belief that only you are correct and every one else who think otherwise are stupid.
You'll notice that she didn't call anyone dumb, like you did. She said the belief that sugar is addictive is dumb.
I didn't call her dumb. I called her belief dumb.
Then I misread you.
I will never understand people who have decided that food has this much power over them, and it certainly isn't for lack of trying.
You can read what I wrote once more..
I don't understand how people are addicted to alcohol or smoking. I cannot understand why they need rehab or a support group to quit drinking when I cannot finish a glass of wine or stand the smell of smoke. That is completely okay. What I do understand if they need assistance to quit is that they have a legitimate problem which is beyond my understanding and experience. I don't degrade them by saying that it was their decision to give more power to the substance they are abusing and if they tried hard enough on their own, they would get over it.
Because alcohol and tobacco can cause physical dependencies. Sugar cannot. Well, I suppose if you want to go the "You'll literally die without it" route, you could, but that's not what we're talking about. Science can explain alcohol and tobacco addictions, and has at best suggested an eating addiction in some individuals. The science done on all of this indicates no addictive food-substance.
If people feel truly addicted to sugar, they need a therapist, not a methadone clinic, and that's the point.
Science cannot explain sugar addiction YET. The jury is still out. Science cannot explain a lot of things/phenomena YET, that doesn't mean those things don't exist or phenomena doesn't happen.5 -
paulgads82 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »
It's a scientific debate, semantics are important. I think we are all just geeks who like debating
But its also important in the context of the idea of a sugar conspiracy, or whatever. Are corporate interests feeding us an addictive substance or is sugar just really tasty and some of us develop unhealthy relationships with it? Obviously i support the latter explanation.
I believe refined sugar is addictive to many people and at the minimum an appetite stimulant which interferes with normal brain functionality. So I think corporations are using these attributes of sugar to increase profits.
Aaaaannnnnndddddddd...I don't like debating at all. I used to though, but when I started understanding that different people experience different realities when faced with an objectively same situation, debating became less interesting and learning about different experiences and perspective became more interesting.
Experiences do not negate reality. If I start seeing unicorns, the unicorns are not there. It's me. The fact that I saw unicorns is real, the existence of unicorns is not. If someone believes they are physically addicted to sugar the only way to determine if this is true is through science.
Sure science will determine that...eventually. Till then, it is good to have an open mind.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »
It's a scientific debate, semantics are important. I think we are all just geeks who like debating
But its also important in the context of the idea of a sugar conspiracy, or whatever. Are corporate interests feeding us an addictive substance or is sugar just really tasty and some of us develop unhealthy relationships with it? Obviously i support the latter explanation.
I believe refined sugar is addictive to many people and at the minimum an appetite stimulant which interferes with normal brain functionality. So I think corporations are using these attributes of sugar to increase profits.
Aaaaannnnnndddddddd...I don't like debating at all. I used to though, but when I started understanding that different people experience different realities when faced with an objectively same situation, debating became less interesting and learning about different experiences and perspective became more interesting.
Refined sugar is chemically identical to the same sugar found naturally in fruit. It is processed by your body to its components glucose and fructose and used identically to those two sugars found in fruit and vegetables. As long as you live, you always have glucose in your blood, even if you don't eat any carbohydrates at all.
Sugar interferes with your brain chemistry as much as water.
Sugar interferes as much as water with brain chemistry for you. It may not be the case for others.
0 -
pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »
It's a scientific debate, semantics are important. I think we are all just geeks who like debating
But its also important in the context of the idea of a sugar conspiracy, or whatever. Are corporate interests feeding us an addictive substance or is sugar just really tasty and some of us develop unhealthy relationships with it? Obviously i support the latter explanation.
I believe refined sugar is addictive to many people and at the minimum an appetite stimulant which interferes with normal brain functionality. So I think corporations are using these attributes of sugar to increase profits.
Aaaaannnnnndddddddd...I don't like debating at all. I used to though, but when I started understanding that different people experience different realities when faced with an objectively same situation, debating became less interesting and learning about different experiences and perspective became more interesting.
Experiences do not negate reality. If I start seeing unicorns, the unicorns are not there. It's me. The fact that I saw unicorns is real, the existence of unicorns is not. If someone believes they are physically addicted to sugar the only way to determine if this is true is through science.
Sure science will determine that...eventually. Till then, it is good to have an open mind.
I do. It's open to evidence.4 -
paulgads82 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »
It's a scientific debate, semantics are important. I think we are all just geeks who like debating
But its also important in the context of the idea of a sugar conspiracy, or whatever. Are corporate interests feeding us an addictive substance or is sugar just really tasty and some of us develop unhealthy relationships with it? Obviously i support the latter explanation.
I believe refined sugar is addictive to many people and at the minimum an appetite stimulant which interferes with normal brain functionality. So I think corporations are using these attributes of sugar to increase profits.
Aaaaannnnnndddddddd...I don't like debating at all. I used to though, but when I started understanding that different people experience different realities when faced with an objectively same situation, debating became less interesting and learning about different experiences and perspective became more interesting.
Experiences do not negate reality. If I start seeing unicorns, the unicorns are not there. It's me. The fact that I saw unicorns is real, the existence of unicorns is not. If someone believes they are physically addicted to sugar the only way to determine if this is true is through science.
Sure science will determine that...eventually. Till then, it is good to have an open mind.
I do. It's open to evidence.
And there continues to be none.
Eating addiction? Sure. Sugar addiction? Not so much.5 -
paulgads82 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »
It's a scientific debate, semantics are important. I think we are all just geeks who like debating
But its also important in the context of the idea of a sugar conspiracy, or whatever. Are corporate interests feeding us an addictive substance or is sugar just really tasty and some of us develop unhealthy relationships with it? Obviously i support the latter explanation.
I believe refined sugar is addictive to many people and at the minimum an appetite stimulant which interferes with normal brain functionality. So I think corporations are using these attributes of sugar to increase profits.
Aaaaannnnnndddddddd...I don't like debating at all. I used to though, but when I started understanding that different people experience different realities when faced with an objectively same situation, debating became less interesting and learning about different experiences and perspective became more interesting.
Experiences do not negate reality. If I start seeing unicorns, the unicorns are not there. It's me. The fact that I saw unicorns is real, the existence of unicorns is not. If someone believes they are physically addicted to sugar the only way to determine if this is true is through science.
Sure science will determine that...eventually. Till then, it is good to have an open mind.
I do. It's open to evidence.
Then..let us just wait and respect people's experiences rather than dismissing them as willpower problem.2 -
paulgads82 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »pcoslady83 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »
It's a scientific debate, semantics are important. I think we are all just geeks who like debating
But its also important in the context of the idea of a sugar conspiracy, or whatever. Are corporate interests feeding us an addictive substance or is sugar just really tasty and some of us develop unhealthy relationships with it? Obviously i support the latter explanation.
I believe refined sugar is addictive to many people and at the minimum an appetite stimulant which interferes with normal brain functionality. So I think corporations are using these attributes of sugar to increase profits.
Aaaaannnnnndddddddd...I don't like debating at all. I used to though, but when I started understanding that different people experience different realities when faced with an objectively same situation, debating became less interesting and learning about different experiences and perspective became more interesting.
Experiences do not negate reality. If I start seeing unicorns, the unicorns are not there. It's me. The fact that I saw unicorns is real, the existence of unicorns is not. If someone believes they are physically addicted to sugar the only way to determine if this is true is through science.
Sure science will determine that...eventually. Till then, it is good to have an open mind.
I do. It's open to evidence.
And there continues to be none.
Eating addiction? Sure. Sugar addiction? Not so much.
Yeah, I would change my mind in a second with solid evidence. I have no ideological commitment to the idea of sugar addiction being a specific psychological food craving or emotional problem. Not that in anyway renders it inferior or whatever. I can't see how this is rude or disrespectful.3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K 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
- 958 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions