Fight the Sugar Addiction
Replies
-
It sounds like we're in 100% agreement in the idea it's a behavioural addiction.albertabeefy wrote: »Most clinicians treating food addictions have found that many (if not a majority) of food-addiction cases they treat meet all the criteria/characteristics for BED according to the DSM-V.
That's true -- however, where people here and elsewhere might get into trouble is believing there's something special about sugar that makes it addictive. And I've run into plenty of people with multiple behavioral addictions in my work with clients. Avoiding sugar isn't necessarily going to address the underlying reasons for the behavioral addiction and I have to wonder whether a consumption disorder based around sugar might be transferred to the consumption of something else, or some other behavior. I don't think we know at this time.Basically, there needs to be more research for it to have it's own distinct inclusion - and with the working groups' findings on how it relates to substance abuse, I'd suspect that research is already underway.
That's why I said "I won't be surprised if the next release of DSM does call out additional behavioral disorders".0 -
She's also underestimating her sugar intake on some things by choosing erroneous entries-like raisins and oranges having 0 sugar (which is not correct).
5 -
stephmph16 wrote: »Bear in mind I'm a newb when it comes to nutrition, but not a moron, can someone explain how sugar isn't addictive? Most the articles I'm seeing online say in big bold letters "sugar is addictive", but here people are scoffing at that idea. I just want to know where I'm getting information from.
A very fair question, and why it's so confusing to so many people who are inundated with this kind of information. In general, I think reasons to be skeptical of a particular site/article would be:
1. That big bold headline you mentioned already. That's definitely something to be wary of especially if it sounds scary/sensationalized, and if it is linked from another site, i.e. a "clickbait" headline.
2. If the article is a summary of other studies and doesn't include the actual sources, or if the sources aren't peer reviewed scientific journal articles
3. If the content includes a list of "steps to follow" or "things to avoid" Scientific studies aren't a how to manual.
4. Looking at the typical "sugar is addictive" article, if it references "lighting up the same part of the brain as cocaine/heroin" then it is suspect, since as others pointed out, this same thing happens anytime something pleasurable happens including petting puppies
5. If the article states that "added sugars are bad" but either doesn't mention natural sugars or indicates that those are ok - it's written by someone who doesn't understand basic chemistry, since the body doesn't differentiate between added and natural sugars because they are the same molecular structures. If sugar was addictive, a person who was addicted would be binging on carrots or bananas in the absence of a package of Oreos...
6. If the article talks about yummy and tempting foods like cookies or cake but fails to mention that about 50% of the calories (and thus the deliciousness) comes from fat in those baked goods. Rarely do people come on these boards saying that they take to the pantry to eat white or brown sugar by the spoonful because of their addiction. It's always things which are hyperpalatable like cookies or ice cream, many of which have not only fat contributing to the pleasure, but often happy emotional memories.
I'm sure there are other red flags to watch out for in articles like the one you read. I think you're starting to see that the science and the source is critical to vet, before trusting these kind of claims.
Stick around, I think you'll learn a lot!7 -
Sugar feeds cancer as well as being addictive......cut out the sugar, there is nothing to recommend it. Our bodies don't need sugar.
Glucose, the type of sugar that runs your whole body, is what feeds some cancers. There might be some benefit to a keto diet to some types of cancers but its far from definitive and it would be a supplemental to chemo.
Add into it, that patients can struggle to eat certains types of foods while going through treatment, it may not be advisable to go on such a very strict diet.4 -
-
stephmph16 wrote: »Bear in mind I'm a newb when it comes to nutrition, but not a moron, can someone explain how sugar isn't addictive? Most the articles I'm seeing online say in big bold letters "sugar is addictive", but here people are scoffing at that idea. I just want to know where I'm getting information from.
I've called my issues with sugar addiction-like. It can be a problem. I ate too much of it. Damaged my health with it and still wanted more of it. And yes, I did not keep table sugar in the house because I have gone to the sugar bowl for a pick-me-up... espeially those sharp little sugar cubes...
IMO, those who scoff at the idea of sugar problems being like an addiction tend not to have problems with sugar. They moderate it readily. Sort of like how I can't understand how someone could be addicted to smoking or alcohol. Too much of that makes me feel ill and I have no desire to ever do it again.... Too much sugar would make me feel ill too but I still went back for more ju-jubes or soda.
There is something to it if you ask me. Sugar has an odd effect on some people. I wouldn't be surprised if it gets classified as an addiction in the future.2 -
-
stephmph16 wrote: »Bear in mind I'm a newb when it comes to nutrition, but not a moron, can someone explain how sugar isn't addictive? Most the articles I'm seeing online say in big bold letters "sugar is addictive", but here people are scoffing at that idea. I just want to know where I'm getting information from.
I've called my issues with sugar addiction-like. It can be a problem. I ate too much of it. Damaged my health with it and still wanted more of it. And yes, I did not keep table sugar in the house because I have gone to the sugar bowl for a pick-me-up... espeially those sharp little sugar cubes...
IMO, those who scoff at the idea of sugar problems being like an addiction tend not to have problems with sugar. They moderate it readily. Sort of like how I can't understand how someone could be addicted to smoking or alcohol. Too much of that makes me feel ill and I have no desire to ever do it again.... Too much sugar would make me feel ill too but I still went back for more ju-jubes or soda.
There is something to it if you ask me. Sugar has an odd effect on some people. I wouldn't be surprised if it gets classified as an addiction in the future.
This is me, too.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
And all carbohydrates, regardless of the source, are ultimately broken down into sugars by the body. Because sugars are what carbohydrates are composed of.5 -
stephmph16 wrote: »Bear in mind I'm a newb when it comes to nutrition, but not a moron, can someone explain how sugar isn't addictive? Most the articles I'm seeing online say in big bold letters "sugar is addictive", but here people are scoffing at that idea. I just want to know where I'm getting information from.
I've called my issues with sugar addiction-like. It can be a problem. I ate too much of it. Damaged my health with it and still wanted more of it. And yes, I did not keep table sugar in the house because I have gone to the sugar bowl for a pick-me-up... espeially those sharp little sugar cubes...
IMO, those who scoff at the idea of sugar problems being like an addiction tend not to have problems with sugar. They moderate it readily. Sort of like how I can't understand how someone could be addicted to smoking or alcohol. Too much of that makes me feel ill and I have no desire to ever do it again.... Too much sugar would make me feel ill too but I still went back for more ju-jubes or soda.
There is something to it if you ask me. Sugar has an odd effect on some people. I wouldn't be surprised if it gets classified as an addiction in the future.
Not being able to empathize does not equal not being able to understand.
Maybe you can't empathize with people who are addicted to cigarettes because smoking them causes you to feel ill but surely you can understand that nicotine is a physically addictive substance upon which the body can become dependent.
There is scientific evidence for this and it is why it's so hard for most people to quit smoking once they've started.
As for sugar, there is no scientific evidence whatsoever that it is a physically addictive substance. There is a whole bunch of scientific evidence to demonstrate that it is not.
I don't need to have a problem with any of these substances to understand this. I love sugary things. I've guzzled a lake's worth of Mountain Dew. I'm also a cookie lover. However, I understand that my desire for these things are born out of taste and preference rather than a physical addiction.
I've also never tried a cigarette, sipped even a single drop of alcohol or taken any drugs not prescribed by a doctor (I didn't even take the pain pills prescribed to me after having my wisdom teeth removed). Still, while having no desire to indulge in these things whatsoever, I understand that they are physically addictive substances even though I am completely unable to empathize with the struggle a true addict goes through.
Also, pretending that those who believe the scientific evidence and deny that sugar is addictive have never struggled with controlling their sugar intake is just incredible.6 -
WinoGelato wrote: »stephmph16 wrote: »Bear in mind I'm a newb when it comes to nutrition, but not a moron, can someone explain how sugar isn't addictive? Most the articles I'm seeing online say in big bold letters "sugar is addictive", but here people are scoffing at that idea. I just want to know where I'm getting information from.
A very fair question, and why it's so confusing to so many people who are inundated with this kind of information. In general, I think reasons to be skeptical of a particular site/article would be:
1. That big bold headline you mentioned already. That's definitely something to be wary of especially if it sounds scary/sensationalized, and if it is linked from another site, i.e. a "clickbait" headline.
2. If the article is a summary of other studies and doesn't include the actual sources, or if the sources aren't peer reviewed scientific journal articles
3. If the content includes a list of "steps to follow" or "things to avoid" Scientific studies aren't a how to manual.
4. Looking at the typical "sugar is addictive" article, if it references "lighting up the same part of the brain as cocaine/heroin" then it is suspect, since as others pointed out, this same thing happens anytime something pleasurable happens including petting puppies
5. If the article states that "added sugars are bad" but either doesn't mention natural sugars or indicates that those are ok - it's written by someone who doesn't understand basic chemistry, since the body doesn't differentiate between added and natural sugars because they are the same molecular structures. If sugar was addictive, a person who was addicted would be binging on carrots or bananas in the absence of a package of Oreos...
6. If the article talks about yummy and tempting foods like cookies or cake but fails to mention that about 50% of the calories (and thus the deliciousness) comes from fat in those baked goods. Rarely do people come on these boards saying that they take to the pantry to eat white or brown sugar by the spoonful because of their addiction. It's always things which are hyperpalatable like cookies or ice cream, many of which have not only fat contributing to the pleasure, but often happy emotional memories.
I'm sure there are other red flags to watch out for in articles like the one you read. I think you're starting to see that the science and the source is critical to vet, before trusting these kind of claims.
Stick around, I think you'll learn a lot!
Yes, yes, yes, yrs, lurv, lurv, luuurrrrrv!!!2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
And all carbohydrates, regardless of the source, are ultimately broken down into sugars by the body. Because sugars are what carbohydrates are composed of.
Yup.
2 -
stephmph16 wrote: »Bear in mind I'm a newb when it comes to nutrition, but not a moron, can someone explain how sugar isn't addictive? Most the articles I'm seeing online say in big bold letters "sugar is addictive", but here people are scoffing at that idea. I just want to know where I'm getting information from.
I've called my issues with sugar addiction-like. It can be a problem. I ate too much of it. Damaged my health with it and still wanted more of it. And yes, I did not keep table sugar in the house because I have gone to the sugar bowl for a pick-me-up... espeially those sharp little sugar cubes...
It IS a pick me up. I've certainly craved quick carbs when tired until I learned it wasn't hunger, just my body wanting energy. Doesn't mean I was addicted physically (any more than anyone else, since our bodies run on glucose).
What is interesting from what you've said is that you seem to have had much more of a taste preference for super sweet than many do. Rather than sugar + fat, which usually scores higher on tests of what we perceive as hyperpalatable, you usually speak of enjoying things that are just sugar -- given that you were into candy of that sort and soda, I guess it's not a huge step to plain sugar. To me plain sugar doesn't really taste good, and sugary soda is unpleasant and I have no temptation with plain sugar candies. Just a taste thing.
Interestingly, the vast majority of people on MFP who claim to have "sugar addiction" report specific trigger foods, usually ones with fat and sugar, often other foods too ("junk foods," "fast food," even, which isn't particularly sugary). I think this is probably related to taste issues and what becomes a trigger food for you. (I'm not saying trigger foods are someone's absolute favorite food or anything, I think it has more to do with habits and associations built up, at least it does for me.)
Fact is that on tests of body reactions and all that sugar doesn't stand out as special, hyperpalatable foods do, and fat gets a reaction in the brain like sugar does.
This is why I think it's (in some extreme cases) a behavioral addiction -- I would agree with some others that we have an ability to make anything "addictive." Where I find the term problematic is when people medicalize (or whatever) what is frankly just normal human reaction (when I eat a cookie I often want another, even if I am not hungry, I can eat tasty food when not hungry, I crave things unrelated to hunger, I find eating will sometimes make me happy, if I eat chips out of a bowl I might eat way more than intended, stuff like that).
For the record, I wasn't the least bit hungry after dinner today, but I had some cheese (tomme) I wanted to have and calories left so justified it. It was because I like the taste of cheese, really. I don't think that makes me addicted to cheese (even though back in the day I used to not moderate it at all).1 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »stephmph16 wrote: »Bear in mind I'm a newb when it comes to nutrition, but not a moron, can someone explain how sugar isn't addictive? Most the articles I'm seeing online say in big bold letters "sugar is addictive", but here people are scoffing at that idea. I just want to know where I'm getting information from.
I've called my issues with sugar addiction-like. It can be a problem. I ate too much of it. Damaged my health with it and still wanted more of it. And yes, I did not keep table sugar in the house because I have gone to the sugar bowl for a pick-me-up... espeially those sharp little sugar cubes...
IMO, those who scoff at the idea of sugar problems being like an addiction tend not to have problems with sugar. They moderate it readily. Sort of like how I can't understand how someone could be addicted to smoking or alcohol. Too much of that makes me feel ill and I have no desire to ever do it again.... Too much sugar would make me feel ill too but I still went back for more ju-jubes or soda.
There is something to it if you ask me. Sugar has an odd effect on some people. I wouldn't be surprised if it gets classified as an addiction in the future.
Not being able to empathize does not equal not being able to understand.
Maybe you can't empathize with people who are addicted to cigarettes because smoking them causes you to feel ill but surely you can understand that nicotine is a physically addictive substance upon which the body can become dependent.
There is scientific evidence for this and it is why it's so hard for most people to quit smoking once they've started.
As for sugar, there is no scientific evidence whatsoever that it is a physically addictive substance. There is a whole bunch of scientific evidence to demonstrate that it is not.
I don't need to have a problem with any of these substances to understand this. I love sugary things. I've guzzled a lake's worth of Mountain Dew. I'm also a cookie lover. However, I understand that my desire for these things are born out of taste and preference rather than a physical addiction.
I've also never tried a cigarette, sipped even a single drop of alcohol or taken any drugs not prescribed by a doctor (I didn't even take the pain pills prescribed to me after having my wisdom teeth removed). Still, while having no desire to indulge in these things whatsoever, I understand that they are physically addictive substances even though I am completely unable to empathize with the struggle a true addict goes through.
Also, pretending that those who believe the scientific evidence and deny that sugar is addictive have never struggled with controlling their sugar intake is just incredible.
You are confused. I can empathize with those who have a nicotine addiction or alcohol addiction. It's a shame and I feel badly for them.
What I can't understand, or fully comprehend, is the FEELING of wanting to smoke or drink a lot because I have never experienced that. I am aware that some people do, but it is beyond my experiences. If I have one or two drinks or a smoke, I want to stop.
It would be like a man claiming to understand what it is like to be a women, or someone stating that you know what it is like to grow old although you are still 20. If something is out of our realm of experiences, how can one fully understand what it feels like? I don't believe we can, and that is why I believe that people who moderate sugar with ease may not believe that other people have a problem with sugar. It is beyond their experiences... It isn't that we have just decided to choose gluttony as our sin of choice.
...And of course you have no physical desire to drink alcohol or smoke if you have never tried it. I doubt addictions happen before a substance is tried. I doubt I would feel an addiction-like pull for sugar if I had not been brought up with sugary convenience foods. Count Chocula with powdered skim milk, and a glass of concentrated apple juice for breakfast for years through grammar school. Yum.
Plus not everyone becomes addicted to alcohol, or even smoking. It makes sense that people do not all react the same ways to foods too.
And please note that I did not say sugar was addictive. I said my feelings were addiction-like (even if yours was not) and I would not be surprised if it was classified as an addiction in the future. The DSM-V is not set in stone and is updated with regularity. Your incredulity is misplaced.2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »stephmph16 wrote: »Bear in mind I'm a newb when it comes to nutrition, but not a moron, can someone explain how sugar isn't addictive? Most the articles I'm seeing online say in big bold letters "sugar is addictive", but here people are scoffing at that idea. I just want to know where I'm getting information from.
I've called my issues with sugar addiction-like. It can be a problem. I ate too much of it. Damaged my health with it and still wanted more of it. And yes, I did not keep table sugar in the house because I have gone to the sugar bowl for a pick-me-up... espeially those sharp little sugar cubes...
It IS a pick me up. I've certainly craved quick carbs when tired until I learned it wasn't hunger, just my body wanting energy. Doesn't mean I was addicted physically (any more than anyone else, since our bodies run on glucose).
What is interesting from what you've said is that you seem to have had much more of a taste preference for super sweet than many do. Rather than sugar + fat, which usually scores higher on tests of what we perceive as hyperpalatable, you usually speak of enjoying things that are just sugar -- given that you were into candy of that sort and soda, I guess it's not a huge step to plain sugar. To me plain sugar doesn't really taste good, and sugary soda is unpleasant and I have no temptation with plain sugar candies. Just a taste thing.
Interestingly, the vast majority of people on MFP who claim to have "sugar addiction" report specific trigger foods, usually ones with fat and sugar, often other foods too ("junk foods," "fast food," even, which isn't particularly sugary). I think this is probably related to taste issues and what becomes a trigger food for you. (I'm not saying trigger foods are someone's absolute favorite food or anything, I think it has more to do with habits and associations built up, at least it does for me.)
Fact is that on tests of body reactions and all that sugar doesn't stand out as special, hyperpalatable foods do, and fat gets a reaction in the brain like sugar does.
This is why I think it's (in some extreme cases) a behavioral addiction -- I would agree with some others that we have an ability to make anything "addictive." Where I find the term problematic is when people medicalize (or whatever) what is frankly just normal human reaction (when I eat a cookie I often want another, even if I am not hungry, I can eat tasty food when not hungry, I crave things unrelated to hunger, I find eating will sometimes make me happy, if I eat chips out of a bowl I might eat way more than intended, stuff like that).
For the record, I wasn't the least bit hungry after dinner today, but I had some cheese (tomme) I wanted to have and calories left so justified it. It was because I like the taste of cheese, really. I don't think that makes me addicted to cheese (even though back in the day I used to not moderate it at all).
I agree that many people's trigger foods often contain fat and sugar. I will believe it if fat is found to be addictive in the future, or addictive when paired with sugar - hyperpalatable foods. It could be. It isn't something I have experienced, nor do I think it is as common as sugar issues, but there could be something to that for some people.
I also would not be surprised if my addiction-like problem for sugar was partially behavioural. That would make sense. My guess is that it is partially physical too. A combination of the two seems right.
I do understand that people can overindulge in substances without being addicted. I too have eaten way too much cheese or nuts in the past just because it tasted good. It didn't lead to the same addiction like behaviors I get with sugars though. Same goes for alcohol. I drank more often, and sometimes too much, in the past. It led me to stop rather than to wanting or needing more alcohol.
How one handles substances is a very individual thing.2 -
What irritates me about this discussion is that you seem to think that if we don't see food as an addiction (or sugar specifically) that we don't understand, that what we experience when overeating is vastly different -- essentially just gluttony, as you've said before, vs. the super special can't help it because cravings or whatever.
I get that we are all different in what we might feel compelled to overeat (I think part of it is taste -- I also think it's probably not irrelevant that you grew up eating super sweet foods, as you've mentioned, studies indicate that lots of really sweet foods as a kid affects palate and desire for sweet). I also get seeing some of the temptations as similar in some ways to addictive behaviors (and I happen to think at least a huge part of alcohol addiction is behavioral, although I think there is some physical element too, even apart from the actual physical dependence one can develop (anyone can develop, even if not tempted to drink to excess, if they actually do drink consistently enough). I also think in these conversations those arguing for sugar (or food or eating -- I'll go along with eating, though I think too broadly applied) seem to characterize addiction as just about having a enjoyment with using drugs or having trouble stopping once you start, and I think that's not really the essence of it. Do I have eating behaviors where I feel out of control at times (and more before I imposed my own form of structure, which is what I see keto as). Absolutely. Seems to me that you call that addiction, I don't, but because of that and because my foods are different from yours you claim that it's much harder (or was) for you and we don't get it. That's where I differ. I think I do get it, but I just haven't see any evidence that convinces me that it's sugar specifically or that your desire to overeat is different in kind from that I experience, or others do. (Again, do certain people have sugar or primarily sugary things as their trigger? Sure. I don't think that's the necessary explanation for most who drink huge quantities of soda, though. I think they believe it tastes good, don't have a strong connection in their minds between doing that and gaining weight (what's one day, one soda, etc. -- we are clearly on average bad at long term vs. short term choices) and aren't filled up by it.)
As for the "it's mainly physical" claim and "it's sugar, not hedonistic eating or behavior," and in that the people claiming "no, it's really mainly sugar" define that as "carbs," I will believe it when I see it shown to be a problem in traditional culture/eating patterns. It seems to me a form of human reaction to our abundant food environment and some of the eating habits we develop (including often the cycle of restrict/binge).4 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »stephmph16 wrote: »Bear in mind I'm a newb when it comes to nutrition, but not a moron, can someone explain how sugar isn't addictive? Most the articles I'm seeing online say in big bold letters "sugar is addictive", but here people are scoffing at that idea. I just want to know where I'm getting information from.
I've called my issues with sugar addiction-like. It can be a problem. I ate too much of it. Damaged my health with it and still wanted more of it. And yes, I did not keep table sugar in the house because I have gone to the sugar bowl for a pick-me-up... espeially those sharp little sugar cubes...
IMO, those who scoff at the idea of sugar problems being like an addiction tend not to have problems with sugar. They moderate it readily. Sort of like how I can't understand how someone could be addicted to smoking or alcohol. Too much of that makes me feel ill and I have no desire to ever do it again.... Too much sugar would make me feel ill too but I still went back for more ju-jubes or soda.
There is something to it if you ask me. Sugar has an odd effect on some people. I wouldn't be surprised if it gets classified as an addiction in the future.
Not being able to empathize does not equal not being able to understand.
Maybe you can't empathize with people who are addicted to cigarettes because smoking them causes you to feel ill but surely you can understand that nicotine is a physically addictive substance upon which the body can become dependent.
There is scientific evidence for this and it is why it's so hard for most people to quit smoking once they've started.
As for sugar, there is no scientific evidence whatsoever that it is a physically addictive substance. There is a whole bunch of scientific evidence to demonstrate that it is not.
I don't need to have a problem with any of these substances to understand this. I love sugary things. I've guzzled a lake's worth of Mountain Dew. I'm also a cookie lover. However, I understand that my desire for these things are born out of taste and preference rather than a physical addiction.
I've also never tried a cigarette, sipped even a single drop of alcohol or taken any drugs not prescribed by a doctor (I didn't even take the pain pills prescribed to me after having my wisdom teeth removed). Still, while having no desire to indulge in these things whatsoever, I understand that they are physically addictive substances even though I am completely unable to empathize with the struggle a true addict goes through.
Also, pretending that those who believe the scientific evidence and deny that sugar is addictive have never struggled with controlling their sugar intake is just incredible.
You are confused. I can empathize with those who have a nicotine addiction or alcohol addiction. It's a shame and I feel badly for them.
What I can't understand, or fully comprehend, is the FEELING of wanting to smoke or drink a lot because I have never experienced that. I am aware that some people do, but it is beyond my experiences. If I have one or two drinks or a smoke, I want to stop.
It would be like a man claiming to understand what it is like to be a women, or someone stating that you know what it is like to grow old although you are still 20. If something is out of our realm of experiences, how can one fully understand what it feels like? I don't believe we can, and that is why I believe that people who moderate sugar with ease may not believe that other people have a problem with sugar. It is beyond their experiences... It isn't that we have just decided to choose gluttony as our sin of choice.
...And of course you have no physical desire to drink alcohol or smoke if you have never tried it. I doubt addictions happen before a substance is tried. I doubt I would feel an addiction-like pull for sugar if I had not been brought up with sugary convenience foods. Count Chocula with powdered skim milk, and a glass of concentrated apple juice for breakfast for years through grammar school. Yum.
Plus not everyone becomes addicted to alcohol, or even smoking. It makes sense that people do not all react the same ways to foods too.
And please note that I did not say sugar was addictive. I said my feelings were addiction-like (even if yours was not) and I would not be surprised if it was classified as an addiction in the future. The DSM-V is not set in stone and is updated with regularity. Your incredulity is misplaced.
You are confusing empathy ("I've been there too so I feel their pain") with sympathy ("I don't know what that's like but I understand it must be very hard so I feel bad for them").
You're also missing the point of my post.
You made the statement that it seems to you that those who argue against sugar addiction have never struggled with controlling sugar. You illustrated this point by equating it with the fact that you can't understand how people become addicted to smoking because it makes you feel ill.
My point was to show that even without having been there or seeing the appeal in a given substance you can understand from an intellectual standpoint that things like nicotine are addictive (which negates your stance that those of us who reject sugar addiction as a real thing must not have ever struggled with controlling our sugar intake because even if we hadn't (I have) we would still be able to understand from an intellectual perspective that it is addictive (if it was, which it's not)).
As for my anecdote about never having used the addictive substances I mentioned, my point there was to show that even though I can only sympathize with addicts and not empathize (because I've never been there), I still understand that those substances are addictive. Similarly, while smoking may not appeal to you, surely you must be able to understand that it does to many and that chemical dependency to nicotine is real. Furthermore, just like I understand that drugs are addictive even though I've not used them, not having struggled to control my sugar intake (if that was the case for me) would not prevent me from accepting that sugar is addictive if it actually was.
The rejection of the proposal that sugar is an addictive substance is not born out of personal experience but rather stems from an understanding of the scientific evidence.5
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
- 424 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