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
Options
Replies
-
cwolfman13 wrote: »getoffin1year wrote: »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.
Lol...I love the new year...
I can go to town on a block of chedar cheese and gallon of milk...I have like zero self control around chedar cheese...I don't consider myself "addicted" to sharp cheddar, nor do I equate it to being a drug...lack of self control =/= addiction.
It seems that today's society would rather just blame everything on addictions and other things than actually taking responsibility for what they do...it's pretty lame.
Let me guess...millennial?
No, and its a science issue not a social one. I feel like you lack a fundamental understanding of other brains besides maybe your own.4 -
getoffin1year wrote: »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.
The science just does not support physical addiction to sugar in humans.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00394-016-1229-6
There is some support for the idea of a behavioral addiction to eating, though the studies I've read suggest that the diagnosis would be rarer than you'd think. Not all problematic behavior reaches the threshold of being an addiction.12 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »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...
But not in its current refined state. Similarly (as the article points out) if you chew a bunch of coca leaves you might get a mild effect but nothing like the addictive hit of pure cocaine.
Again, I don't eat much in the way of added sugar...but on a molecular level, what's the difference? There is none...sugar is sugar...refined sugar is just sugar cane (a plant) that has been processed. Your body is going to treat sugar as sugar regardless of source...this is just fear mongering.
I don't eat much in the way of added sugars for the simple fact that I think over consumption is a problem and I eat a primarily whole foods diet...but I'm not going to pretend that the sugar I'm having in my apple this afternoon is different from the sugar I had last night in my Reece's cup (by the by, my apple is about 19g...my
Reece's cup was 8 grams of sugar)...it's just fear mongering.
As "hits" go, my apple was a far greater crack/cocaine hit than the Reece's...3 -
Impossible to totally give up sugar. It occurs naturally in countless foods, and is necessary for our bodies & brains to function. Whether or not you want to eliminate, or severely cut back overly processed foods that contain sugar is a personal choice. For many of us learning moderation of all foods may be a better, more sustainable, long term choice.6
-
ShammersPink wrote: »"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.
Actually most of the fruits you mention as being grown in UK originated elsewhere, primarily from the Mediterranean, and American continents.
1 -
A lot of us don't even need to read the article, all we have to know is that it's Taubes. We've seen the garbage he spews. He's a crackpot fearmongerer with no education in nutrition. Look him up, he studied physics and engineering, and his degree is in journalism. He's not a researcher, he's a snake oil peddler just like Dr. Oz, making his fortunes off writing books about junk pseudoscience.11 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »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...
But not in its current refined state. Similarly (as the article points out) if you chew a bunch of coca leaves you might get a mild effect but nothing like the addictive hit of pure cocaine.
So what you're saying is, you have no idea how sugar is produced.9 -
ShammersPink wrote: »"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.
Actually most of the fruits you mention as being grown in UK originated elsewhere, primarily from the Mediterranean, and American continents.
I recently read a history of British food and that author seemed to be under the impression that even before refined sugar was introduced to the English, they had quite a sweet tooth. Dried fruits and honey were common ingredients and many pre-medieval and medieval "savory" dishes were probably much sweeter than today's tastes would enjoy. Apples, currents, damsons (a plum actually native to Great Britain), pears, raspberries, and strawberries all would have been available.
The English certainly took to refined sugar, but it was because they already loved sweet things. Not because it was a completely new taste for them.
(The book was "Taste" by Kate Colquhoun, for anyone who is interested. It was a very interesting read).11 -
[/quote] Humans have been consuming sugar since the dawn of time...[/quote]
Humans have been consuming sugar since the dawn of time, but processed sugar is really relatively new. There is added sugar in so much of what we eat that simply wasn't there two or thee generations ago. You can argue that it has no impact, but to imply that people have been eating sugar in the same quantities and the same manner that they do today is a little misleading.
3 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »Again, I don't eat much in the way of added sugar...but on a molecular level, what's the difference? There is none...sugar is sugar...refined sugar is just sugar cane (a plant) that has been processed. Your body is going to treat sugar as sugar regardless of source...this is just fear mongering.
Addictive drugs are addictive in their 'refined' state but not when consumed in their natural (plant) state. The same theory is now being applied to sugar.
The problem has been exacerbated in recent years with the increased consumption of manufactured snacks, fizzy drinks and hidden sugars in diet/low fat foods and breakfast cereals etc (and cigarettes apparently) that are relatively high in refined sugars.
2 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »Again, I don't eat much in the way of added sugar...but on a molecular level, what's the difference? There is none...sugar is sugar...refined sugar is just sugar cane (a plant) that has been processed. Your body is going to treat sugar as sugar regardless of source...this is just fear mongering.
Addictive drugs are addictive in their 'refined' state but not when consumed in their natural (plant) state. The same theory is now being applied to sugar.
The problem has been exacerbated in recent years with the increased consumption of manufactured snacks, fizzy drinks and hidden sugars in diet/low fat foods and breakfast cereals etc (and cigarettes apparently) that are relatively high in refined sugars.
Hidden sugars? They're listed in the ingredients (don't know about cigarettes but for food items). Nothing hidden about them.5 -
ShammersPink wrote: »"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.
Actually most of the fruits you mention as being grown in UK originated elsewhere, primarily from the Mediterranean, and American continents.
Look up "mead". It's a drink that can be traced back to around 2800 BC in what's now known as Europe. It's honey (that's sugar, in case you didn't know) fermented with water, fruits, spices, grains and hops. There are many varieties which used various fruits. So it's not like fruit just appeared in Europe in the last few years or anything.7 -
Have any of the people here who think we don't naturally like sweet things ever tasted breast milk?19
-
cwolfman13 wrote: »getoffin1year wrote: »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.
Lol...I love the new year...
I can go to town on a block of chedar cheese and gallon of milk...I have like zero self control around chedar cheese...I don't consider myself "addicted" to sharp cheddar, nor do I equate it to being a drug...lack of self control =/= addiction.
It seems that today's society would rather just blame everything on addictions and other things than actually taking responsibility for what they do...it's pretty lame.
Let me guess...millennial?
Hey, leave us millennials out of it.4 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Have any of the people here who think we don't naturally like sweet things ever tasted breast milk?
And milk has what in it? Lactose. Otherwise known as "milk sugar".7 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Have any of the people here who think we don't naturally like sweet things ever tasted breast milk?
Don't be giving people crazy ideas, now!
9 -
Humans have been consuming sugar since the dawn of time...[/quote]
Humans have been consuming sugar since the dawn of time, but processed sugar is really relatively new. There is added sugar in so much of what we eat that simply wasn't there two or thee generations ago. You can argue that it has no impact, but to imply that people have been eating sugar in the same quantities and the same manner that they do today is a little misleading.
[/quote]
There are a lot of foods that were not so readily available two or three generations ago.
Over consumption of ANY food, not just sugar, will lead to weight gain.
Depending on how old you are, "giving up sugar for good" may be a very long time. Learning to eat the proper amount of calories your body needs to sustain a healthy weight, may be a more doable choice.
6 -
getoffin1year wrote: »French_Peasant wrote: »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.
There's nothing wrong with laughing and music or in general the release of dopamine. Its the addiction to a negative behavior that causes that that were discussing.
We are discussing an article that states: "The few neurologists and psychologists interested in probing the sweet-tooth phenomenon, or why we might need to ration our sugar consumption so as not to eat too much of it, did so typically from the perspective of how these sugars compared with other drugs of abuse, in which the mechanism of addiction is now relatively well understood. Lately, this comparison has received more attention as the public-health community has looked to ration our sugar consumption as a population, and has thus considered the possibility that one way to regulate these sugars – as with cigarettes – is to establish that they are, indeed, addictive."
It's basically like a society seeing that it has a (legitimate) problem with a few Crazy Cat Ladies who can't moderate on dopamine-inducing kittens, and have a house full of 50 diseased cats and their associated filth. And instead of helping the Crazy Cat Lady get the counselling she needs for the problem *in her brain*, the self-proclaimed authorities instead scream about how cats are addictive (dopamine!!!) and insinuated into our society by EVIL!!! corporations and make plans to regulate everyone in society to half a cat or less. And then people start screaming at the perfectly responsible owners of 2 or 3 or 10 cats about what horrible druggies they are. It's pretty kitten annoying, and it makes no sense. If you can't moderate, then go ahead and cut out sugar or cats, and definitely get some counselling and/or develop some self-awareness and work on discipline. but quit the screeching, and leave me and my sugar cream pie, ice cream, and birthday cake alone.
28 -
Humans have been consuming sugar since the dawn of time...Humans have been consuming sugar since the dawn of time, but processed sugar is really relatively new. There is added sugar in so much of what we eat that simply wasn't there two or thee generations ago. You can argue that it has no impact, but to imply that people have been eating sugar in the same quantities and the same manner that they do today is a little misleading.
It's not that new...and yes, I would agree that consumption is higher now which has more to do with the amount of processed foods that are eaten more so than sugar or the processing of sugar. I never said it wasn't and in fact have mentioned on several occasion in this thread that over consumption is a problem...there's a big difference and whole middle ground between over consumption and "I'm never eating sugar again."
Processed sugar is just cane sugar or beet sugar that has been extracted from the plant...that's it...it's not some crazy *kitten* thing that all of you are making it out to be.cwolfman13 wrote: »Again, I don't eat much in the way of added sugar...but on a molecular level, what's the difference? There is none...sugar is sugar...refined sugar is just sugar cane (a plant) that has been processed. Your body is going to treat sugar as sugar regardless of source...this is just fear mongering.
Addictive drugs are addictive in their 'refined' state but not when consumed in their natural (plant) state. The same theory is now being applied to sugar.
The problem has been exacerbated in recent years with the increased consumption of manufactured snacks, fizzy drinks and hidden sugars in diet/low fat foods and breakfast cereals etc (and cigarettes apparently) that are relatively high in refined sugars.
Sorry guy...I will never buy this *kitten*...lack of self control =/= addiction. I've ready plenty on it...maybe google "sugar is not addictive" and take a look at research from the other side...
Also, there are no "hidden" sugars...they're right there on the label...10 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Have any of the people here who think we don't naturally like sweet things ever tasted breast milk?
Don't be giving people crazy ideas, now!
Don't tell Gary Taubes about this or we'll be hearing about how breast milk is part of some pernicious food industry plot to keep us all fat and sick.11
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K 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
- 389 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
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 919 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions