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
-
KatzeDerNacht22 wrote: »I am amused at people who think sugar can not be addictive. ;O
Scientists amuse you?13 -
chocolate_owl wrote: »Question for @Ty_Floyd: you said earlier that science was still out on this, meaning that it hasn't been proven that sugar isn't addictive, or that it is. Why do you want it to be? What will it mean for you personally if sugar someday gets classified as a drug?
That's a good question. I wouldn't say I *want* it to be classified as a drug, but perhaps if it were people would be less inclined/have less opportunity to develop it as a harmless habit that's they're eventually going to pay for big time. I'm sure it's come all too late for my generation but perhaps not for the next...
(In my parents' day people used to scoff at the idea that smoking was harmful too...)
Here's the thing though: we are not evolved to process nicotine. Even though I drink alcohol, we're not really evolved to process that either, and I'm aware of the risks I run by choosing to consume it. We're not evolved to process hard drugs. But sugar is something our bodies ARE evolved to consume and break down for energy. To compare something that our bodies are designed to handle to things our bodies are not designed to handle is why I think this drug comparison breaks down.
I don't foresee us paying big time specifically for eating sugar. For overconsuming calories? Yes, of course. And some people do have a hard time regulating their sugar intake, for whatever reason. That doesn't make it a drug, a toxin, or a poison. It means the person either has 1) a medical condition or 2) a behavioral problem. The blame does not and should not fall on sugar.
If we really are concerned about the health of future generations, let's focus on how to meet our nutrient and calorie goals rather than on making ____ a bad, terrible thing. Because when we do that, whatever the bad, terrible thing is tends to be consumed in reasonable quantities that aren't harmful.7 -
KatzeDerNacht22 wrote: »I am amused at people who think sugar can not be addictive.
And I am amused at people who think sugar is addictive.
Amusing thread is amusing for all. That so rarely happens.
11 -
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?
I don't think that "sugar" is behaviorally addicting, but I do think eating can be, and of course that eating will most commonly be directed toward highly palatable and available foods that you enjoy in most cases.
What I don't think is that having trouble not eating a second cookie or being tempted by cannoli in the breakroom = addiction of any sort. But to go back to the 600 lb life thing someone mentioned, sure I think super morbid obesity is often related to an addictive-type response.
I also think there are some links between BED and even just emotional eating and addiction. I don't think the latter is an addiction, but there are similarities and certain responses will help with both. Don't know enough about BED and the research to classify it, but I'd not object if someone did classify it as addiction.1 -
It feels like I'm witnessing a discussion on a religious topic, its sooo long.
So far I've learned that:
1. everyone who decides to give up sugar believes that they should because it is as addictive as heroin.
2. all mfp longtimers are really healthy and they all eat sugar 'in moderation'.
3. *kitten* don't eat sugary foods, especially candy bars and their pimps never buy those things for them.
IDK
4. Everyone who decides to give up sugar is shifting the blame, trying to avoid taking responsibility and/or hysterical.
5. Sugar isn't addictive because people won't steal to get it, but if they do, that's only because they're kleptomaniacs.
6. The definition of moderation is: "whatever works for me"...
7. Because some MFP members aren't addicted to sugar, that means no-one else is either.
This is great!! (:-)
You mean it's great to just make stuff up? Works for some, I guess, but it's really not a particularly effective debating technique and certainly is not a good way to try and reach common ground or convince anyone. Distorting what those you are disagreeing with are saying and making up stuff about them might make you feel good, though (hmm, maybe it's an addiction!).
4. Distortion of what was said or taking one person's opinion for everyone's, which is rude.
5. No one said this, you may be misinterpreting some prior posts.
6. No one said this, and it's an effort to claim that those who are disagreeing with you must not care about nutrition, so pretty rude. Again, I ask that you quote or retract.
7. This is not what was said either -- I don't think there's a common shared viewpoint on whether it sometimes is or not (if you include behavioral addiction). I see 0 reason to single out sugar from other eating behaviors or foods, especially other highly palatable foods, however. I'd be open to discussing your claim that "sugar" is an addiction on its own, though, vs. it being a behavior problem (addiction, if you like) with eating.7 -
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.)
I believe the body can produce glycogen from dietary protein as well in the absence of carbohydrates, is that not correct?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.
Well the truth is that there is rarely a place/time when one doesn't have access to sugary treats (at least in the West).
But yes there are many documented cases of people who sneak/steal food, or go out in the middle of the night to a 24-hr convenience store to get it.
Right, "food". People will sneak food, like chicken legs or potato chips even. Not necessarily sugar. Do you have any tales of some sugar addict realizing they are out of soda so they sneak a spoon and a bag of sugar into their room?
Sugar is not an addictive substance. People for sure can develop an emotional or behavioral addiction to eating. But sugar is not an addictive substance.
Quoting myself because with everything else in this thread, why not start quoting ourselves?
What is really blowing my mind is, no one is saying everyone should eat massive amounts of sugar. No one is denying that excess sugar is a prime reason for excess calories, and probably affects the body in other adverse ways. No one is saying that moderating sugar intake in general or added sugar in particular is a bad idea. No one is saying that avoiding added sugar is a bad idea. NO ONE.
All anyone is saying is that sugar is not an addictive substance, and you don't need to eliminate it from your diet. That's it. If you want to cut out added sugar because you have no control with it, go for it! But that doesn't make it addictive, it doesn't make it necessary for everyone to do, it doesn't make sugar the one big problem for everyone. That's all anyone is saying!
Great summary!2 -
It feels like I'm witnessing a discussion on a religious topic, its sooo long.
So far I've learned that:
1. everyone who decides to give up sugar believes that they should because it is as addictive as heroin.
2. all mfp longtimers are really healthy and they all eat sugar 'in moderation'.
3. *kitten* don't eat sugary foods, especially candy bars and their pimps never buy those things for them.
IDK
4. Everyone who decides to give up sugar is shifting the blame, trying to avoid taking responsibility and/or hysterical.
5. Sugar isn't addictive because people won't steal to get it, but if they do, that's only because they're kleptomaniacs.
6. The definition of moderation is: "whatever works for me"...
7. Because some MFP members aren't addicted to sugar, that means no-one else is either.
This is great!! (:-)
2. all mfp longtimers are really healthy and they all eat sugar 'in moderation'. {/quote]
What is a long timer? Do I qualify yet? I've been around for about 20 months... Sugar is usually well under 10g per day.3 -
How many people have you worked with that are "addicted" to sugar? Lol, I can tell you I've done a few hundred that "thought" they were addicted and found out that they could actually moderate it if they just focused on it. Mind you can't be an "addict" and moderate what you're addicted to. Right?It feels like I'm witnessing a discussion on a religious topic, its sooo long.
So far I've learned that:
1. everyone who decides to give up sugar believes that they should because it is as addictive as heroin.
2. all mfp longtimers are really healthy and they all eat sugar 'in moderation'.
3. *kitten* don't eat sugary foods, especially candy bars and their pimps never buy those things for them.
IDK
4. Everyone who decides to give up sugar is shifting the blame, trying to avoid taking responsibility and/or hysterical.
5. Sugar isn't addictive because people won't steal to get it, but if they do, that's only because they're kleptomaniacs.
6. The definition of moderation is: "whatever works for me"...
7. Because some MFP members aren't addicted to sugar, that means no-one else is either.
This is great!! (:-)
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
8 -
How many people have you worked with that are "addicted" to sugar? Lol, I can tell you I've done a few hundred that "thought" they were addicted and found out that they could actually moderate it if they just focused on it. Mind you can't be an "addict" and moderate what you're addicted to. Right?It feels like I'm witnessing a discussion on a religious topic, its sooo long.
So far I've learned that:
1. everyone who decides to give up sugar believes that they should because it is as addictive as heroin.
2. all mfp longtimers are really healthy and they all eat sugar 'in moderation'.
3. *kitten* don't eat sugary foods, especially candy bars and their pimps never buy those things for them.
IDK
4. Everyone who decides to give up sugar is shifting the blame, trying to avoid taking responsibility and/or hysterical.
5. Sugar isn't addictive because people won't steal to get it, but if they do, that's only because they're kleptomaniacs.
6. The definition of moderation is: "whatever works for me"...
7. Because some MFP members aren't addicted to sugar, that means no-one else is either.
This is great!! (:-)
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
I have interacted with a few hundred who abstained from sugar as their primary means of losing weight with much success in the long term.
Sugar is not an addictive substance yet people can become addicted to eating it. People can also become addicted to other substances or combinations such as salt and fat yet have no addiction to sugar. Whatever anyone wants to call it, the reality is the same: Abstinence is a viable option for those who struggle moderating. Whether you struggle with refraining from overeating bacon or cupcakes, abstinence might work for you. On the other hand, many will find abstinence to be unsustainable and even triggering. Those individuals would probably find greater success moderating.
Get in where you fit in.4 -
...Whatever anyone wants to call it, the reality is the same: Abstinence is a viable option for those who struggle moderating. Whether you struggle with refraining from overeating bacon or cupcakes, abstinence might work for you. On the other hand, many will find abstinence to be unsustainable and even triggering. Those individuals would probably find greater success moderating...
Truth, and I don't think anybody is arguing that point. Abstinence is a viable option for virtually anything that somebody has trouble moderating. The disconnect in every one of these ridiculous sugar threads is the blanket fearmongering about "sugarz iz da debilz!!1!" and how it's poison and just like cocaine and heroin and you're going to end up finding yourself scantily clad on a dark street corner selling your body for your next Twinkie if you so much as taste the demon sugar.10 -
I agree that sugar cravings in no way resemble drug addiction. But the prostitute and pimping comments above got me thinking.. Would people who claim to have a sugar addiction, or whatever their problem food is go walk the streets and sell their bodies, steal from family, friends and neighbours, risk imprisonment etc etc if a gram bag of candy cost them $250?? If the answer is yes, then an addiction you may have...
FTR: I'm not a sugar pusher, my sugar grams go way too high in summer due to fruit, and drop back down in winter.5 -
...Whatever anyone wants to call it, the reality is the same: Abstinence is a viable option for those who struggle moderating. Whether you struggle with refraining from overeating bacon or cupcakes, abstinence might work for you. On the other hand, many will find abstinence to be unsustainable and even triggering. Those individuals would probably find greater success moderating...
Truth, and I don't think anybody is arguing that point. Abstinence is a viable option for virtually anything that somebody has trouble moderating. The disconnect in every one of these ridiculous sugar threads is the blanket fearmongering about "sugarz iz da debilz!!1!" and how it's poison and just like cocaine and heroin and you're going to end up finding yourself scantily clad on a dark street corner selling your body for your next Twinkie if you so much as taste the demon sugar.
Exactly.4 -
Wynterbourne wrote: »KatzeDerNacht22 wrote: »I am amused at people who think sugar can not be addictive. ;O
Scientists amuse you?
I'm not even, yeah no, shouldn't had said that on here, I know how you people are >.<
1 -
@elsesvan is absolutely correct. There is no dietary requirement in human beings for glucose. (There's also no need to severely restrict it, except if medically advised or by your own choice for behavioural food-addiction reasons.)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.)
The brain is able to utilize both glucose and ketones for it's metabolic requirements. For those on a ketogenic diet, it will still require a very tiny bit of glucose - but the majority of it's energy needs are met by ketones.
For someone in a healthy state of ketosis, the human body needs approximately 20-30g of total glucose per day for the following: The brain, kidney medulla, erythrocytes and the male testes. Even if somebody restricts carbohydrate intake to less than that required, the process of gluconeogenesis is more than capable of easily supplying this small amount, even in the most severely glycogen-depleted individuals.4 -
...Whatever anyone wants to call it, the reality is the same: Abstinence is a viable option for those who struggle moderating. Whether you struggle with refraining from overeating bacon or cupcakes, abstinence might work for you. On the other hand, many will find abstinence to be unsustainable and even triggering. Those individuals would probably find greater success moderating...
Truth, and I don't think anybody is arguing that point. Abstinence is a viable option for virtually anything that somebody has trouble moderating. The disconnect in every one of these ridiculous sugar threads is the blanket fearmongering about "sugarz iz da debilz!!1!" and how it's poison and just like cocaine and heroin and you're going to end up finding yourself scantily clad on a dark street corner selling your body for your next Twinkie if you so much as taste the demon sugar.
People have argued that point in the past...I haven't read the whole thread here. While I don't doubt that people have said "Sugar is the devil" or that it is "just like cocaine and heroine" I think the debate will better served if the hyperbolic outliers are ignored.
Saying "I am addicted to sugar" is not the same thing as saying that it is a substance which will create a physical dependence. This seems to be the sticking point for the argument. @RobD520 had a very informative thread which discussed this concept a while back. Unfortunately, this is such an emotionally charged subject that people are reluctant to put forth the effort to consider the actual message.
For what it's worth, I think Taubes in general paints with too wide a brush in seemingly saying sugar is addictive to all people.1 -
http://healthdefine.com/medical-advice/what-is-aspartame-and-the-aspartame-side-effects
maybe the fact that the company that produces aspartame also produces herbicides should raise a red flag.
I'll never step on an escalator by Thyssenkrupp again, they used to build weapons for the nazis.9 -
You just knew this topic was going to die a slow painful death.0
-
I love it when people say "I don't eat sugar" then they say "I eat lots of fruits" in the same post.6
-
-
Christine_72 wrote: »I agree that sugar cravings in no way resemble drug addiction. But the prostitute and pimping comments above got me thinking.. Would people who claim to have a sugar addiction, or whatever their problem food is go walk the streets and sell their bodies, steal from family, friends and neighbours, risk imprisonment etc etc if a gram bag of candy cost them $250?? If the answer is yes, then an addiction you may have...
FTR: I'm not a sugar pusher, my sugar grams go way too high in summer due to fruit, and drop back down in winter.
This was an interesting point. What price would we be willing to pay for the sweets we love? A major price hike would definitely solve a lot of my problems.
Ut-oh... that might open up a whole "should sugar be taxed" argument!1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 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
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 901 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions