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: »Our body has absolutely no use of sugar. None! -we eat it because it tastes good. It's a treat. And we like to treat ourselves,even if it's good or bad. Some people are more likely to get addicted to "treats", (in some forms), than others
Salt is something the body needs, BUT not much-just enough! Happy New year 
You may want to brush up on your physiology a bit. The human brain relies on glucose (that's a sugar, in case you didn't know) as its main source of energy. The brain accounts for 2% of your body weight, but consumes about 20% of your glucose-derived energy. (All of which may actually help explain some of the posts in this thread.)
As for the whole addiction BS - I've seen alcoholics who will drink mouthwash for its alcohol content when they don't have access to booze. I've seen plenty of heroin and meth addicts who will commit burglaries or steal from their own families to support their habits. Show me a "sugar addict" who will grab a spoon and start shoveling down sugar from a bag when their usual treats aren't available if you want to talk about sugar truly being addictive. Or maybe one who goes and breaks into other people's houses to eat their sugary treats. The addiction hypothesis is nothing more than a) fearmongering and b) an attempt to absolve people of personal responsibility.
Don't forget whoring yourself out...
That too. Look up the urban dictionary definition of "strawberry" (warning: nsfw). I have yet to ever hear of a prostitute exchanging their services for sugar.0 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »French_Peasant wrote: »@lyn_glenmont Buying a sack of sugar to add to cakes and pies and homemade treats is very different from having sugar added to almost everything you buy in a grocery store filled with processed food. Are you really arguing that people today eat in the same way they did 50 years ago--or in the 19th century?
I don't see that she made that argument at all. I think she made the point that people in the 1800s ate a crapload of sugar and bought it by the hundredweight. Just like the Amish do today.
I live in a 120-year-old farm house with a root cellar currently full of leeks and potatoes that I planted, nurtured and dug myself; shelves lined with jars of jam from strawberries, rhubarb, and peaches that I cultivated and processed myself, plus an insane amount of canned tomatoes and pickled items of every description, plus multiple freezers stuffed to capacity. I have vinegar mothers living in my basement, sourdough organisms living in my fridge, god knows what kinds of critters living in the kraut that is pickling in a crock on my counter, and I have 8 linear feet of shelving dedicated to cookbooks passed down through my family or featuring classical and traditional from-scratch European and American cuisine. I go to local farms to get my eggs, raw milk, and many of our meats, and often visit with the animals that produce them and the farmers that raise them. I have 7,000 ish square feet of assorted gardens under cultivation.
Please, illuminate me as to the evils of the 1 T of sugar I put in my sour dough loaves or the 1 cup I put into my peach or apple or strawberry-rhubarb pie, with more sprinkled on the top crust, of course.
I am housebroken and tidy. Can I come live with you?
I live closer so will get there first, sorry!
I will up the ante, then, by offering free gardening services.
And I'll come along to supervise. And taste test. 1 -
@lyn_glenmont Buying a sack of sugar to add to cakes and pies and homemade treats is very different from having sugar added to almost everything you buy in a grocery store filled with processed food. Are you really arguing that people today eat in the same way they did 50 years ago--or in the 19th century?
This point was raised early on in the thread when someone suggested that we couldn't know he long term effects of sugar on our body since this is such a new thing. Repeatedly, people have pointed out that sugar has been consumed for thousands of years in various forms.
How people eat today has little to do with whether sugar is, in and of itself, addictive. The fact remains, it isn't chemically addictive. If it were, from a molecular standpoint, then it wouldn't matter if it were sugar in the domino bag, the banana in your fruit bowl, the cookie in the office break room, or the carrots you make for dinner. They all contain sugar and the chemical composition and how it is processed in the body is the same.
People eat too many calories today, period. Many of those calories can come from added sugar, but they also come from fats and other areas which just are tasty. Acknowledging that while sugar is not the sole scapegoat while suggesting though that cutting back on added sugar could be a way to reduce overall calories and address many obesity related health issues is the goal of many of the posters here.
I'm not sure why people have such a hard time with understanding that there can be a middle ground and that people should look at the true root cause rather than identifying a convenient scapegoat to blame for so many problems...5 -
kshama2001 wrote: »Yes, I'm not claiming that sugar (or food) is physically addicting like crack is. I've mentioned behavioral addiction earlier in this thread. Gambling is a behavioral addiction. There are drugs to help with physical withdrawal, but other than that, both types of addictions can be treated similarly.
I'm curious if there isn't something to this. Is it possible that sugar, while not physically addicting, might be emotionally addicting to some people? Is there a difference between "needing" to gamble and "needing" comfort foods? And is this the type of addiction Taubes is (poorly) talking about?
Gambling isn't bad and many can enjoy a night out playing poker, slots etc. without spending the last of their food and rent money, but to some they can't stop.
I'm firmly in the "sugar is not evil and Taubes is and idiot" camp, but am curious about the implication for some.
1 -
This thread just keeps on going.2
-
-
cwolfman13 wrote: »Our body has absolutely no use of sugar. None! -we eat it because it tastes good. It's a treat. And we like to treat ourselves,even if it's good or bad. Some people are more likely to get addicted to "treats", (in some forms), than others Salt is something the body needs, BUT not much-just enough! Happy New year
You may want to brush up on your physiology a bit. The human brain relies on glucose (that's a sugar, in case you didn't know) as its main source of energy. The brain accounts for 2% of your body weight, but consumes about 20% of your glucose-derived energy. (All of which may actually help explain some of the posts in this thread.)
As for the whole addiction BS - I've seen alcoholics who will drink mouthwash for its alcohol content when they don't have access to booze. I've seen plenty of heroin and meth addicts who will commit burglaries or steal from their own families to support their habits. Show me a "sugar addict" who will grab a spoon and start shoveling down sugar from a bag when their usual treats aren't available if you want to talk about sugar truly being addictive. Or maybe one who goes and breaks into other people's houses to eat their sugary treats. The addiction hypothesis is nothing more than a) fearmongering and b) an attempt to absolve people of personal responsibility.
Don't forget whoring yourself out...
That too. I have yet to ever hear of a prostitute exchanging their services for sugar.
Can confirm.
In my line of work, I see a lot of young women in the sex trade industry whose pimps deliberately get them addicted to drugs in order to keep them dependent, compliant and trapped.
A Klondike Bar has never entered this equation.11 -
3rdof7sisters wrote: »I have just recently tried to eliminate all refined sugar (not fruits, grains, potatoes, etc) these last two weeks to try to help with gout issues. I typically have been losing 1-lb/week doing a 20:4 IF diet. I don't count cals and eat ad libitum in my eating window. During the last two weeks, I've lost 5-lbs and that includes the holidays where I ate a lot. I went to cheese as my go-to splurge item instead of the loads of sugary things around the kitchen and we had tons of it (I ate zero of it and wasn't even tempted because I associated it with gout). I would never give up fruits and whole grains but I think giving up refined sugars could really help. Just anecdotal evidence since I'm not logging cals. I will continue this and see what the long-term weight loss rate is. I think the preliminary evidence is outstanding!
Great! That works for you, but others can enjoy whatever they want to eat with no adverse issues. And the fact remains, that our bodies/brains, do need sugar, and it is virtually impossible to eliminate it, nor should we.
We need to focus on the issue of overeating and what works for each of us to achieve and maintain healthy body weight. For most, or at least many people, that means moderation in all foods and eating less calories than we burn to lose weight and eating @ the number of calories we burn to maintain. How we get there and stay there is up to each of us.
I think lots of refined sugar will have adverse issues. Moderate use for most probably wont although I think a compete elimination of refined sugars could possibly help a person lose weight faster than if there were not eliminated. When I hit maintenance and if I'm not having gout issues, I will have a little here and there. I will probably never give up fruits and grains because I don't want to miss out on the micro-nutrients there and I like them.
I do believe the brain can run off of butyrate (derived from fat) very well and whatever glucose the body needs can also be generated from fat (gluconeogenesis). I don't think there is any requirement for the human body to have to eat carbs. I sure as heck will not eat that way though because just eating fats and proteins sounds horrible to me and I'm not sure that is healthy.1 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »Our body has absolutely no use of sugar. None! -we eat it because it tastes good. It's a treat. And we like to treat ourselves,even if it's good or bad. Some people are more likely to get addicted to "treats", (in some forms), than others Salt is something the body needs, BUT not much-just enough! Happy New year
You may want to brush up on your physiology a bit. The human brain relies on glucose (that's a sugar, in case you didn't know) as its main source of energy. The brain accounts for 2% of your body weight, but consumes about 20% of your glucose-derived energy. (All of which may actually help explain some of the posts in this thread.)
As for the whole addiction BS - I've seen alcoholics who will drink mouthwash for its alcohol content when they don't have access to booze. I've seen plenty of heroin and meth addicts who will commit burglaries or steal from their own families to support their habits. Show me a "sugar addict" who will grab a spoon and start shoveling down sugar from a bag when their usual treats aren't available if you want to talk about sugar truly being addictive. Or maybe one who goes and breaks into other people's houses to eat their sugary treats. The addiction hypothesis is nothing more than a) fearmongering and b) an attempt to absolve people of personal responsibility.
Don't forget whoring yourself out...
That too. I have yet to ever hear of a prostitute exchanging their services for sugar.
Can confirm.
In my line of work, I see a lot of young women in the sex trade industry whose pimps deliberately get them addicted to drugs in order to keep them dependent, compliant and trapped.
A Klondike Bar has never entered this equation.
But is that just a narrow view of addiction? Pot isn't physically addictive, but there are people addicted to it emotionally.1 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »Our body has absolutely no use of sugar. None! -we eat it because it tastes good. It's a treat. And we like to treat ourselves,even if it's good or bad. Some people are more likely to get addicted to "treats", (in some forms), than others Salt is something the body needs, BUT not much-just enough! Happy New year
You may want to brush up on your physiology a bit. The human brain relies on glucose (that's a sugar, in case you didn't know) as its main source of energy. The brain accounts for 2% of your body weight, but consumes about 20% of your glucose-derived energy. (All of which may actually help explain some of the posts in this thread.)
As for the whole addiction BS - I've seen alcoholics who will drink mouthwash for its alcohol content when they don't have access to booze. I've seen plenty of heroin and meth addicts who will commit burglaries or steal from their own families to support their habits. Show me a "sugar addict" who will grab a spoon and start shoveling down sugar from a bag when their usual treats aren't available if you want to talk about sugar truly being addictive. Or maybe one who goes and breaks into other people's houses to eat their sugary treats. The addiction hypothesis is nothing more than a) fearmongering and b) an attempt to absolve people of personal responsibility.
Don't forget whoring yourself out...
That too. I have yet to ever hear of a prostitute exchanging their services for sugar.
Can confirm.
In my line of work, I see a lot of young women in the sex trade industry whose pimps deliberately get them addicted to drugs in order to keep them dependent, compliant and trapped.
A Klondike Bar has never entered this equation.
What would you do-oo-oo for a Klondike Bar?8 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Yes, I'm not claiming that sugar (or food) is physically addicting like crack is. I've mentioned behavioral addiction earlier in this thread. Gambling is a behavioral addiction. There are drugs to help with physical withdrawal, but other than that, both types of addictions can be treated similarly.
I'm curious if there isn't something to this. Is it possible that sugar, while not physically addicting, might be emotionally addicting to some people? Is there a difference between "needing" to gamble and "needing" comfort foods? And is this the type of addiction Taubes is (poorly) talking about?
Gambling isn't bad and many can enjoy a night out playing poker, slots etc. without spending the last of their food and rent money, but to some they can't stop.
I'm firmly in the "sugar is not evil and Taubes is and idiot" camp, but am curious about the implication for some.
As a behavioral addiction, I wouldn't limit it to just sugar...going back to 600# life...I'd wager there is a behavioral addiction there...but it's food in general, not just sugar. The binging and overeating is the disordered behavioral issue, and it involves a variety of food...I'd wager that a whole mess of people who have "eating addiction" in the behavioral sense are eating just as much, if not more dietary fat as they are sugar...but singling out fat is so 80s/90s, so sugar is the new scapegoat.5 -
[/quote] A Klondike Bar has never entered this equation.[/quote]
LOL!
0 -
Our body has absolutely no use of sugar. None! -we eat it because it tastes good. It's a treat. And we like to treat ourselves,even if it's good or bad. Some people are more likely to get addicted to "treats", (in some forms), than others Salt is something the body needs, BUT not much-just enough! Happy New year
You may want to brush up on your physiology a bit. The human brain relies on glucose (that's a sugar, in case you didn't know) as its main source of energy. The brain accounts for 2% of your body weight, but consumes about 20% of your glucose-derived energy. (All of which may actually help explain some of the posts in this thread.)
As for the whole addiction BS - I've seen alcoholics who will drink mouthwash for its alcohol content when they don't have access to booze. I've seen plenty of heroin and meth addicts who will commit burglaries or steal from their own families to support their habits. Show me a "sugar addict" who will grab a spoon and start shoveling down sugar from a bag when their usual treats aren't available if you want to talk about sugar truly being addictive. Or maybe one who goes and breaks into other people's houses to eat their sugary treats. The addiction hypothesis is nothing more than a) fearmongering and b) an attempt to absolve people of personal responsibility.
I have heard of people doing weird things like stealing co-workers sugary treats.3 -
Our body has absolutely no use of sugar. None! -we eat it because it tastes good. It's a treat. And we like to treat ourselves,even if it's good or bad. Some people are more likely to get addicted to "treats", (in some forms), than others Salt is something the body needs, BUT not much-just enough! Happy New year
You may want to brush up on your physiology a bit. The human brain relies on glucose (that's a sugar, in case you didn't know) as its main source of energy. The brain accounts for 2% of your body weight, but consumes about 20% of your glucose-derived energy. (All of which may actually help explain some of the posts in this thread.)
As for the whole addiction BS - I've seen alcoholics who will drink mouthwash for its alcohol content when they don't have access to booze. I've seen plenty of heroin and meth addicts who will commit burglaries or steal from their own families to support their habits. Show me a "sugar addict" who will grab a spoon and start shoveling down sugar from a bag when their usual treats aren't available if you want to talk about sugar truly being addictive. Or maybe one who goes and breaks into other people's houses to eat their sugary treats. The addiction hypothesis is nothing more than a) fearmongering and b) an attempt to absolve people of personal responsibility.
I have heard of people doing weird things like stealing co-workers sugary treats.
I've heard of people doing weird things like stealing co-workers' pens and pencils too. Does that mean they're addicted to pens and pencils?9 -
Our body has absolutely no use of sugar. None! -we eat it because it tastes good. It's a treat. And we like to treat ourselves,even if it's good or bad. Some people are more likely to get addicted to "treats", (in some forms), than others Salt is something the body needs, BUT not much-just enough! Happy New year
You may want to brush up on your physiology a bit. The human brain relies on glucose (that's a sugar, in case you didn't know) as its main source of energy. The brain accounts for 2% of your body weight, but consumes about 20% of your glucose-derived energy. (All of which may actually help explain some of the posts in this thread.)
As for the whole addiction BS - I've seen alcoholics who will drink mouthwash for its alcohol content when they don't have access to booze. I've seen plenty of heroin and meth addicts who will commit burglaries or steal from their own families to support their habits. Show me a "sugar addict" who will grab a spoon and start shoveling down sugar from a bag when their usual treats aren't available if you want to talk about sugar truly being addictive. Or maybe one who goes and breaks into other people's houses to eat their sugary treats. The addiction hypothesis is nothing more than a) fearmongering and b) an attempt to absolve people of personal responsibility.
I have heard of people doing weird things like stealing co-workers sugary treats.
That's just d-baggery, not addiction.6 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »Our body has absolutely no use of sugar. None! -we eat it because it tastes good. It's a treat. And we like to treat ourselves,even if it's good or bad. Some people are more likely to get addicted to "treats", (in some forms), than others Salt is something the body needs, BUT not much-just enough! Happy New year
You may want to brush up on your physiology a bit. The human brain relies on glucose (that's a sugar, in case you didn't know) as its main source of energy. The brain accounts for 2% of your body weight, but consumes about 20% of your glucose-derived energy. (All of which may actually help explain some of the posts in this thread.)
As for the whole addiction BS - I've seen alcoholics who will drink mouthwash for its alcohol content when they don't have access to booze. I've seen plenty of heroin and meth addicts who will commit burglaries or steal from their own families to support their habits. Show me a "sugar addict" who will grab a spoon and start shoveling down sugar from a bag when their usual treats aren't available if you want to talk about sugar truly being addictive. Or maybe one who goes and breaks into other people's houses to eat their sugary treats. The addiction hypothesis is nothing more than a) fearmongering and b) an attempt to absolve people of personal responsibility.
Don't forget whoring yourself out...
That too. I have yet to ever hear of a prostitute exchanging their services for sugar.
Can confirm.
In my line of work, I see a lot of young women in the sex trade industry whose pimps deliberately get them addicted to drugs in order to keep them dependent, compliant and trapped.
A Klondike Bar has never entered this equation.
But is that just a narrow view of addiction? Pot isn't physically addictive, but there are people addicted to it emotionally.
The drugs of choice in the sex trade industry do not include pot, so I cannot comment on that within the realm of my professional experience.
The 'escorts' are given hardcore drugs by their pimps in order to keep them working impossible hours and to desensitize them to what they are actually doing. Pot would just make most of them either sleepy or hungry, both of which would be counterproductive to the pimps ulterior motives. 4 -
if that's true then why wasn't cancer higher 300 years a go verses now?masterscallit wrote: »We're all gonna die. I read this article and it scared the *kitten* out of me. Apparently there was a lot of resistance from the medical community in the past about the destruction and cancer-causing effects sugar creates in the body. I NEED HELP kicking sugar. It's so hard man.
Too much of one thing is not good for you. Moderation is okay. In the last twenty years cancer is up, so is the amount of aspartame (derived from weed killer. And you wonder why people are realizing its not such a good idea to consume it after all), preservatives in the food to make it last longer on the shelves. The amount of chemicals found in our water that causes people to get sick. May I go on?
If you're really worried about it, drink more tea, put lemon in your water. It's been known to help your body become an inhospitable environment for cancer cells to grow. (Doctors don't want their patients to know that. Otherwise they would be out of a job.)
And now we have an "aspartame is evil" post.
Man, this thread has it all. I appreciate this entertainment.6 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »LeileiNadine wrote: »Too much sugar makes me feel rubbish, takes my weight up (whether it's in outright sugar form or too many carbs causing my blood sugar to go cray cray) I kind of wonder if those that are singing the praises of sugar don't want to admit that they are a lil addicted, just sayin ;-)
Nobody is "singing the praises" of sugar...we are simply pointing out that it's not crack...it's not addictive. I eat very little added sugar as I eat a primarily whole foods diet...that doesn't mean I buy into a bunch of BS about something we've been consuming forever being the equivalent to crack cocaine...it's stupid.
You may also notice that the people "singing the praises" as you say...well...don't tell anyone...but most of us have been around the block a few times and had a lot of success and are pretty healthy and fit...shhhh....don't tell anyone.
Quoting this from cwolfman for emphasis. It is interesting on these threads how many people think the folks who are saying sugar isn't addictive are defensive or afraid to look in the own mirror. Many of us were in the same position as so many claiming sugar is inherently bad. We were looking for something to blame for our weight problems, our health issues, etc. we came to this site and started reading and learning and many of us got into arguments just like this one when our beliefs were challenged. The fact is that until people look at the big picture and understand that there is not one single food or ingredient or macro to blame for the host of medical issues related to obesity, etc that the primary cause is in fact TOO MANY CALORIES.
And the reasons we eat too many calories vary from person to person. There are eating disorders there are compulsions there are emotional issues there is just straight up lack of willpower, complacency, enjoyment, etc. But the bottom line is that until people understand that a single item isn't to blame and find their own reasons and a pragmatic, logic based approach to addressing those reasons, they are going to continue to struggle.
Take a step back and read what people are really saying. When they say "sugar isn't addictive, but sure many people might benefit from reducing added sugar if it helps reduce total calories", why do you only read the first part and argue that? Do you ever look at how long these people have been here? How successful they are? How they stick around to try to help other new people understand how to be successful too, by stopping demonizing foods and coming up with a plan that will really work for the long term? Do you ever look at their diaries to see what they eat? I bet you think it's nothing but poptarts, cookies, and ketchup (since people weirdly fixate on sugar in ketchup); when in fact it's actually usually filled with a variety of nutrient dense foods with some treats mixed in. Most people saying sugar isn't addictive are actually under the national guidelines for sugar consumption I would wager.
I just don't understand why people don't take time to really read and try to understand what helpful people like @cwolfman13 and @lemurcat12 and @GottaBurnEmAll and so many others are saying. You jump to "hey maybe they are afraid to admit they too are addicted".
Happy New Year!11 -
Our body has absolutely no use of sugar. None! -we eat it because it tastes good. It's a treat. And we like to treat ourselves,even if it's good or bad. Some people are more likely to get addicted to "treats", (in some forms), than others Salt is something the body needs, BUT not much-just enough! Happy New year
You may want to brush up on your physiology a bit. The human brain relies on glucose (that's a sugar, in case you didn't know) as its main source of energy. The brain accounts for 2% of your body weight, but consumes about 20% of your glucose-derived energy. (All of which may actually help explain some of the posts in this thread.)
As for the whole addiction BS - I've seen alcoholics who will drink mouthwash for its alcohol content when they don't have access to booze. I've seen plenty of heroin and meth addicts who will commit burglaries or steal from their own families to support their habits. Show me a "sugar addict" who will grab a spoon and start shoveling down sugar from a bag when their usual treats aren't available if you want to talk about sugar truly being addictive. Or maybe one who goes and breaks into other people's houses to eat their sugary treats. The addiction hypothesis is nothing more than a) fearmongering and b) an attempt to absolve people of personal responsibility.
I have heard of people doing weird things like stealing co-workers sugary treats.
I've heard of people doing weird things like stealing co-workers' pens and pencils too. Does that mean they're addicted to pens and pencils?
No, they may just be a klepto or have a need of a pen. Do they have a need of the co-workers sweets?2 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »Our body has absolutely no use of sugar. None! -we eat it because it tastes good. It's a treat. And we like to treat ourselves,even if it's good or bad. Some people are more likely to get addicted to "treats", (in some forms), than others Salt is something the body needs, BUT not much-just enough! Happy New year
You may want to brush up on your physiology a bit. The human brain relies on glucose (that's a sugar, in case you didn't know) as its main source of energy. The brain accounts for 2% of your body weight, but consumes about 20% of your glucose-derived energy. (All of which may actually help explain some of the posts in this thread.)
As for the whole addiction BS - I've seen alcoholics who will drink mouthwash for its alcohol content when they don't have access to booze. I've seen plenty of heroin and meth addicts who will commit burglaries or steal from their own families to support their habits. Show me a "sugar addict" who will grab a spoon and start shoveling down sugar from a bag when their usual treats aren't available if you want to talk about sugar truly being addictive. Or maybe one who goes and breaks into other people's houses to eat their sugary treats. The addiction hypothesis is nothing more than a) fearmongering and b) an attempt to absolve people of personal responsibility.
Don't forget whoring yourself out...
That too. I have yet to ever hear of a prostitute exchanging their services for sugar.
Can confirm.
In my line of work, I see a lot of young women in the sex trade industry whose pimps deliberately get them addicted to drugs in order to keep them dependent, compliant and trapped.
A Klondike Bar has never entered this equation.
What would you do-oo-oo for a Klondike Bar?
Not prostitute oneself. Of that I am certain. 4
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
- 388 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
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions