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.
Giving up sugar for good
Replies
-
It's a good article. It definitely would be helpful if people read it before commenting because he doesn't say "sugar is a drug". It is more along the lines of sugar could possibly be considered a drug because of the way it affects some people. He doesn't say everyone. He does say sugar should be looked at more closely for the effect it has on (some) people.
He writes that it may create problems for some people, health wise, but you won't know it until 20 years down the road when it is a bit late. The health problem is there. He encourages scientists and the government to look into how little sugar is too much.
Granted, I am a fan of his writing - I don't think he won his journalistic awards for writing woo - but I don't think this article is that out there. He questions sugar's nutritional and health value. A fair question in my mind. If people eat it, meaning a lot of it, they should know what sugar can do for or to them beyond giving a few moments of pleasure while ingesting it.14 -
Sugar, just like anything else, can become addicting to people prone to addiction and compulsive behaviors. It has little (if anything) in my opinion to do with the sugar itself.
I have had issues with eating disorders, substance abuse, compulsive shopping, and over exercising. There are plenty of people who go their whole lives eating what they want, taking medications, shopping, and working out without problems moderating. Those things aren't where the problem was. The problem was with me.22 -
Interesting long read by Gary Taubes in The Guardian today about sugar's addictive effects and the futility of trying to "moderate" its consumption. He also makes the interesting observation that people tend to define moderation as "whatever works for them". Anyway, it's all enough to convince me...
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jan/05/is-sugar-worlds-most-popular-drug
While there are some foods I cannot moderate and thus do not have in the house, I was certainly able to painlessly moderate my overall sugar consumption by eating more protein and less carbs.
The scientific consensus appears to be that there is no indicator that sugar is physically addicting, and that behavioral addiction needs more research. I do believe that there can be behavioral addictions around food, which can be addressed by Cognitive Behavioral Therapy.
I've retrained myself to self-soothe with exercise rather than food.10 -
FatChickToNotSoFatChick wrote: »All these people making jokes have obviously never walked into a club bathroom to find their friend passed out with a spoon sticky with sugar and a lighter. It's something you never forget
Have you watched any episodes of My 600 Pound Life? (Not specific to sugar - making a point about people self-medicating with food.)5 -
We're all pretty familiar with Taubes and his articles...
Also, I had a Reece's Peanutbutter Cup yesterday...is that moderation?
I don't eat much in the way of added sugars...I don't think sugar is so much the issue as is over consumption...but the notion that it's a "drug" and moderating intake is futile is asinine. Sugar is nothing new...we've been consuming sugar since the dawn of time.
I am more than capable of having a cookie and going about the rest of my day...or having a Reece's, etc. It's not like I eat a cookie and then proceed to eat all of the cookies.KetoLady86 wrote: »Sorry - I lost interest when he calls sugar a drug. It's not a drug and it's not addictive. People may LIKE the taste of sugar and thus want to consume more but it's no more addictive than cheese is (which is something I have problems moderating but I'm not addicted to it).
I really wish people would stop listening to this kind of low intellect fear-mongering.
/rant
Define "drug". A psychoactive substance with some addictive characteristics? Yes sugar is a drug, as well as being a nutrient.
Yep!
nope...11 -
crzycatlady1 wrote: »I really must be a special freak snowflake then because I can eat sugar in moderation no problem. OP-if you feel that you need to eliminate it and actually think that it will be sustainable for you, for the rest of your life then you got to do what you got to do. But, I've figured out how to continue eating all the foods I like while hitting my health and weight goals. This is what's sustainable for me, for the next 40+ years.
Or perhaps the ill-effects may be so insidious that you won't notice them until it's too late. I sincerely hope that is not the case, obviously.
Humans have been consuming sugar since the dawn of time...7 -
Only problem with sugar is it is calorie dense. Eating too much means eating too many calories and gaining weight. Yes, individuals may have differing reactions to it (same for caffeine or gluten) but that does not justify the fear-mongering that goes on with sugar.
Taubes is a quack and needs to get less press, not more.11 -
On a molecular level, how is sugar in a banana or an apple different from sugar cane that has been processed and added to something? Hint...there is no difference.10
-
It's a good article. It definitely would be helpful if people read it before commenting because he doesn't say "sugar is a drug". It is more along the lines of sugar could possibly be considered a drug because of the way it affects some people. He doesn't say everyone. He does say sugar should be looked at more closely for the effect it has on (some) people.
He writes that it may create problems for some people, health wise, but you won't know it until 20 years down the road when it is a bit late. The health problem is there. He encourages scientists and the government to look into how little sugar is too much.
Granted, I am a fan of his writing - I don't think he won his journalistic awards for writing woo - but I don't think this article is that out there. He questions sugar's nutritional and health value. A fair question in my mind. If people eat it, meaning a lot of it, they should know what sugar can do for or to them beyond giving a few moments of pleasure while ingesting it.
Sugar is some new substance that needs studying and we won't know for another 20 years? That doesn't even make sense...sugar is nothing new.14 -
For me, the statement "The critical question, as the journalist and historian Charles C Mann has elegantly put it, “is whether [sugar] is actually an addictive substance, or if people just act like it is.", isn't true. I have trouble moderating my sugar consumption in certain conditions and that's all I need to know.
I'm not willing to give up sugar completely (even if that were a simple task, which it isn't, unless I were also willing to go low carb, which I'm not). I like it too much, and I do believe that, in reasonable quantities, it's fine. The problem has been that I like it in unreasonable quantities. Luckily, I find that generally, the less I have of it, the less I want it. I don't read labels to find out if there's sugar in something, and I don't avoid fruit, but I do avoid sweet treats as much as possible. I didn't moderate very well over the holiday season, but I did a decent job the rest of 2016 and expect the same in 2017.
My advice to you OP is to not get hung up on the debate, and perhaps reconsider "giving up sugar for good", just from a sustainability point of view, but if you feel that reducing the amount of sugar in your diet is a good idea, you're probably right. Btw, more protein in my diet and exercise have helped curb the cravings for me. Good luck!
ETA: I should have added that keeping my calorie deficit low is important in preventing those monster cravings.5 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »Only problem with sugar is it is calorie dense. Eating too much means eating too many calories and gaining weight. Yes, individuals may have differing reactions to it (same for caffeine or gluten) but that does not justify the fear-mongering that goes on with sugar.
Taubes is a quack and needs to get less press, not more.
But if a person is keeping their overall calories in check, there is nothing inherently harmful about eating some added sugar in the context of an overall balanced diet. This article like so many others implies that sugar in and of itself is bad, which just simply isn't the case.
If a person has a medical reason to limit added sugars or has difficulty moderating it because it is a trigger food for them (and usually those triggers are things like baked goods which include as many calories from fat as from sugar) then it is advisable to limit or even completely cut out for a time period.
Not disagreeing with your post just adding my thoughts.9 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »It's a good article. It definitely would be helpful if people read it before commenting because he doesn't say "sugar is a drug". It is more along the lines of sugar could possibly be considered a drug because of the way it affects some people. He doesn't say everyone. He does say sugar should be looked at more closely for the effect it has on (some) people.
He writes that it may create problems for some people, health wise, but you won't know it until 20 years down the road when it is a bit late. The health problem is there. He encourages scientists and the government to look into how little sugar is too much.
Granted, I am a fan of his writing - I don't think he won his journalistic awards for writing woo - but I don't think this article is that out there. He questions sugar's nutritional and health value. A fair question in my mind. If people eat it, meaning a lot of it, they should know what sugar can do for or to them beyond giving a few moments of pleasure while ingesting it.
Sugar is some new substance that needs studying and we won't know for another 20 years? That doesn't even make sense...sugar is nothing new.
New? Who said new?
Although the amount of sugar people now consume is is relatively new. It seems to go up each decade.4 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »It's a good article. It definitely would be helpful if people read it before commenting because he doesn't say "sugar is a drug". It is more along the lines of sugar could possibly be considered a drug because of the way it affects some people. He doesn't say everyone. He does say sugar should be looked at more closely for the effect it has on (some) people.
He writes that it may create problems for some people, health wise, but you won't know it until 20 years down the road when it is a bit late. The health problem is there. He encourages scientists and the government to look into how little sugar is too much.
Granted, I am a fan of his writing - I don't think he won his journalistic awards for writing woo - but I don't think this article is that out there. He questions sugar's nutritional and health value. A fair question in my mind. If people eat it, meaning a lot of it, they should know what sugar can do for or to them beyond giving a few moments of pleasure while ingesting it.
Sugar is some new substance that needs studying and we won't know for another 20 years? That doesn't even make sense...sugar is nothing new.
New? Who said new?
Although the amount of sugar people now consume is is relatively new. It seems to go up each decade.
The amount of calories in general has gone up considerably, not just sugar.
Excess calorie intake over time = obesity = health problems. It's not the sugar.Sugar, just like anything else, can become addicting to people prone to addiction and compulsive behaviors. It has little (if anything) in my opinion to do with the sugar itself.
I have had issues with eating disorders, substance abuse, compulsive shopping, and over exercising. There are plenty of people who go their whole lives eating what they want, taking medications, shopping, and working out without problems moderating. Those things aren't where the problem was. The problem was with me.
^This is the correct answer. Certain foods are more palatable than others, and eating more palatable foods is pleasurable. Some people take this pleasure to an extreme. It can happen with many other pleasurable activities, such as sex, gambling, or shopping. The problem lies within the individual experiencing the compulsion, not in the activity (or in this case, sugar) itself.10 -
"the English had the world’s most productive network of sugar-producing colonies – is that they lacked any succulent native fruit, and so had little previous opportunity to accustom themselves to sweet things."
WTAF?
I must be hallucinating all the apples, pears, plums, cherries, blackberries, bilberries, carrots, parsnips etc that grow all over England, and even (heaven forbid) Scotland, not to mention the honey from bees.
Also, we are primates FFS. We have all the apparatus required for digesting sugar. We just shouldn't eat it to the near-exclusion of all else.17 -
Chef_Barbell wrote: »Nope.
Hey, you must be a speed reader if you read that piece in four minutes! (;-)
"Gary Taubes" is enough for that response.15 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »It's a good article. It definitely would be helpful if people read it before commenting because he doesn't say "sugar is a drug". It is more along the lines of sugar could possibly be considered a drug because of the way it affects some people. He doesn't say everyone. He does say sugar should be looked at more closely for the effect it has on (some) people.
He writes that it may create problems for some people, health wise, but you won't know it until 20 years down the road when it is a bit late. The health problem is there. He encourages scientists and the government to look into how little sugar is too much.
Granted, I am a fan of his writing - I don't think he won his journalistic awards for writing woo - but I don't think this article is that out there. He questions sugar's nutritional and health value. A fair question in my mind. If people eat it, meaning a lot of it, they should know what sugar can do for or to them beyond giving a few moments of pleasure while ingesting it.
Sugar is some new substance that needs studying and we won't know for another 20 years? That doesn't even make sense...sugar is nothing new.
New? Who said new?
Although the amount of sugar people now consume is is relatively new. It seems to go up each decade.
Acting like we won't know anything for 20 years makes it seem like it's some new substance...we've been consuming sugar since the dawn of time.
In general I think people who eat the SAD eat too much sugar...over consumption is the issue, not sugar itself. I just really don't get the "quit sugar for good stuff"...again, there's a whole middle ground but people seem to want to be extreme in absolutely everything.
The notion that one can't moderate sugar in asinine...we've been moderating sugar for millions of years.
This is also the same kind of crack pot BS that makes people question whether they should have an apple...it's utter stupidity.11 -
This content has been removed.
-
cwolfman13 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »It's a good article. It definitely would be helpful if people read it before commenting because he doesn't say "sugar is a drug". It is more along the lines of sugar could possibly be considered a drug because of the way it affects some people. He doesn't say everyone. He does say sugar should be looked at more closely for the effect it has on (some) people.
He writes that it may create problems for some people, health wise, but you won't know it until 20 years down the road when it is a bit late. The health problem is there. He encourages scientists and the government to look into how little sugar is too much.
Granted, I am a fan of his writing - I don't think he won his journalistic awards for writing woo - but I don't think this article is that out there. He questions sugar's nutritional and health value. A fair question in my mind. If people eat it, meaning a lot of it, they should know what sugar can do for or to them beyond giving a few moments of pleasure while ingesting it.
Sugar is some new substance that needs studying and we won't know for another 20 years? That doesn't even make sense...sugar is nothing new.
New? Who said new?
Although the amount of sugar people now consume is is relatively new. It seems to go up each decade.
Acting like we won't know anything for 20 years makes it seem like it's some new substance...we've been consuming sugar since the dawn of time.
In general I think people who eat the SAD eat too much sugar...over consumption is the issue, not sugar itself. I just really don't get the "quit sugar for good stuff"...again, there's a whole middle ground but people seem to want to be extreme in absolutely everything.
The notion that one can't moderate sugar in asinine...we've been moderating sugar for millions of years.
This is also the same kind of crack pot BS that makes people question whether they should have an apple...it's utter stupidity.
Perhaps I didn't type that clearly enough. An individual will not know if his sugar consumption is creating future problems for him until the problem makes itself known - often 20, 30, 40+ years down the line.
Taubes' point with this is that we don't know how little sugar is too much for each person. Erring on the low side, which may be close to no sugar at all, may be the safest bet.
I disagree that we've been moderating sugar for millions of years. Sugar consumption is increasing. A lot. That's not moderating in my mind. That's more of a mindset of there is more sugar so I will eat sugar. IMO.6 -
Watch TedEd's three minute video on sugars effect on the brain. Is causes a dopamine release consistently while brocolli doesn't. Sex isn't a drug, but some people sure get addicted to that for the same reasons...2
-
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »It's a good article. It definitely would be helpful if people read it before commenting because he doesn't say "sugar is a drug". It is more along the lines of sugar could possibly be considered a drug because of the way it affects some people. He doesn't say everyone. He does say sugar should be looked at more closely for the effect it has on (some) people.
He writes that it may create problems for some people, health wise, but you won't know it until 20 years down the road when it is a bit late. The health problem is there. He encourages scientists and the government to look into how little sugar is too much.
Granted, I am a fan of his writing - I don't think he won his journalistic awards for writing woo - but I don't think this article is that out there. He questions sugar's nutritional and health value. A fair question in my mind. If people eat it, meaning a lot of it, they should know what sugar can do for or to them beyond giving a few moments of pleasure while ingesting it.
Sugar is some new substance that needs studying and we won't know for another 20 years? That doesn't even make sense...sugar is nothing new.
New? Who said new?
Although the amount of sugar people now consume is is relatively new. It seems to go up each decade.
The amount of calories in general has gone up considerably, not just sugar.
Excess calorie intake over time = obesity = health problems. It's not the sugar.
Meh. I've never been obese. I developed insulin resistance in my 30's, maybe even in my 20's, when I was a normal BMI, although on the high end by my 30's.
For me it went: High sugar intake = Health problem = weight gain3 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »
We're all pretty familiar with Taubes and his articles...
Also, I had a Reece's Peanutbutter Cup yesterday...is that moderation?
I don't eat much in the way of added sugars...I don't think sugar is so much the issue as is over consumption...but the notion that it's a "drug" and moderating intake is futile is asinine. Sugar is nothing new...we've been consuming sugar since the dawn of time.
I am more than capable of having a cookie and going about the rest of my day...or having a Reece's, etc. It's not like I eat a cookie and then proceed to eat all of the cookies.KetoLady86 wrote: »Sorry - I lost interest when he calls sugar a drug. It's not a drug and it's not addictive. People may LIKE the taste of sugar and thus want to consume more but it's no more addictive than cheese is (which is something I have problems moderating but I'm not addicted to it).
I really wish people would stop listening to this kind of low intellect fear-mongering.
/rant
Define "drug". A psychoactive substance with some addictive characteristics? Yes sugar is a drug, as well as being a nutrient.
Yep!
nope...
Not YOU but for some its very real. The same way people can get addicted to any healthy or unhealthy behavior while others don't. Some people are addicted to working or, others will always dislike it. Some can do cocaine in college and not develop a habit, others have full blown drug addictions after doing the same blow in college. Science is a long way from knowing all the ins and outs about addiction, but that doesn't mean sugar addiction isn't real and should be avoided by those with those behaviors while others like yourself can moderate consumption.
6 -
Good luck eliminating sugar completely, as it is in everything.9
-
I've yet to see a drug trade go down where the white powder in the bag is actual sugar.6
-
getoffin1year wrote: »Watch TedEd's three minute video on sugars effect on the brain. Is causes a dopamine release consistently while brocolli doesn't. Sex isn't a drug, but some people sure get addicted to that for the same reasons...
Puppies and kittens aren't a drug, music isn't a drug, laughter isn't a drug...well...it IS said to be medicine, so perhaps we should have Taubes and other puritanical nags, scolds and assorted misanthropes working to quantify its damage potential, regulate it and yank it out of people's lives so nobody gets a dopamine hit from anything, and we all sit around with our joyless lives eating only thin amaranth-and-flaxseed gruel and broccoli. Sounds super healthy!
In the meantime, I'll personally just work on eating common-sense, modest amounts of sugar, like moms have been telling their kids for years, and maybe get a beehive and hide it from the sugar police.18 -
Physiology 101. The body needs glycogen for muscular contractions. Basically glycogen is polysaccharide.............dum ta dum dum basically broken down SUGAR.Sorry - I lost interest when he calls sugar a drug. It's not a drug and it's not addictive. People may LIKE the taste of sugar and thus want to consume more but it's no more addictive than cheese is (which is something I have problems moderating but I'm not addicted to it).
I really wish people would stop listening to this kind of low intellect fear-mongering.
/rant
Define "drug". A psychoactive substance with some addictive characteristics? Yes sugar is a drug, as well as being a nutrient.
If sugar is an addictive drug, how do you rid the body of it when it needs it? See how stupid that sounds? You bought into some psuedoscience hook, line and sinker.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
9 -
So do you believe sugar is a drug too?janicelo1971 wrote: »I have to admit i never knew the part about "As for tobacco, sugar was, and still is, a critical ingredient in the American blended-tobacco cigarette, the first of which was Camel. It’s this “marriage of tobacco and sugar”, as a sugar-industry report described it in 1950, that makes for the “mild” experience of smoking cigarettes as compared with cigars and, perhaps more important, makes it possible for most of us to inhale cigarette smoke and draw it deep into our lungs." Interesting article, but yes, you will get slammed on this site talking about sugar being a drug or addictive. I also have a hard time eating sugar in moderation and find natural sugars in fruit to be enough in my diet. to keep my blood work levels "good" i limit all added sugar so i see/understand your point. Not many people are going to be positive towards this though.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
crzycatlady1 wrote: »I really must be a special freak snowflake then because I can eat sugar in moderation no problem. OP-if you feel that you need to eliminate it and actually think that it will be sustainable for you, for the rest of your life then you got to do what you got to do. But, I've figured out how to continue eating all the foods I like while hitting my health and weight goals. This is what's sustainable for me, for the next 40+ years.
Or perhaps the ill-effects may be so insidious that you won't notice them until it's too late. I sincerely hope that is not the case, obviously.
Sugar has been a substantial part of our diet for hundreds of thousands of years. At this rate, the insidious ill-effects might not manifest until the heat-death of the universe.8 -
Again, if the body needs sugar to function, explain how you rid the body of this "drug"? And look to see if the FDA defines sugar as a drug. NOPE.KetoLady86 wrote: »Sorry - I lost interest when he calls sugar a drug. It's not a drug and it's not addictive. People may LIKE the taste of sugar and thus want to consume more but it's no more addictive than cheese is (which is something I have problems moderating but I'm not addicted to it).
I really wish people would stop listening to this kind of low intellect fear-mongering.
/rant
Define "drug". A psychoactive substance with some addictive characteristics? Yes sugar is a drug, as well as being a nutrient.
Yep!
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
5 -
Chef_Barbell wrote: »Nope.
Hey, you must be a speed reader if you read that piece in four minutes! (;-)
Gary Taubes. Enough said. Famous for diet woo.
If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck....Tacklewasher wrote: »Only problem with sugar is it is calorie dense. Eating too much means eating too many calories and gaining weight. Yes, individuals may have differing reactions to it (same for caffeine or gluten) but that does not justify the fear-mongering that goes on with sugar.
Taubes is a quack and needs to get less press, not more.
Actually, sugar isn't very calorie dense at all (1tsp 16 calories). It is the fat that it is often combined with that makes a calorie dense combination.9 -
It's a good article. It definitely would be helpful if people read it before commenting because he doesn't say "sugar is a drug". It is more along the lines of sugar could possibly be considered a drug because of the way it affects some people. He doesn't say everyone. He does say sugar should be looked at more closely for the effect it has on (some) people.
He writes that it may create problems for some people, health wise, but you won't know it until 20 years down the road when it is a bit late. The health problem is there. He encourages scientists and the government to look into how little sugar is too much.
Granted, I am a fan of his writing - I don't think he won his journalistic awards for writing woo - but I don't think this article is that out there. He questions sugar's nutritional and health value. A fair question in my mind. If people eat it, meaning a lot of it, they should know what sugar can do for or to them beyond giving a few moments of pleasure while ingesting it.
You're right, he didn't win his journalistic awards for writing woo, he won them for writing about physics which is the subject he studied. Unfortunately it appears that diet books make more money than physics.17
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions