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.

Sugar Addiction Myths

ndj1979
ndj1979 Posts: 29,136 Member
edited November 2024 in Debate Club
I was browsing the interwebs during lunch and came across the below article.

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/10_myths_about_sugar/14526#.WQOG8ojyuUk

I found it interesting as it debunks every myth that we see posted in the forums about sugar every day.

discuss...
«13456712

Replies

  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,136 Member
    anyway, I found it interesting and it is no way peer reviewed...
  • kclaar11
    kclaar11 Posts: 162 Member
    I also found it interesting regardless of the "validity". I do have to agree that I do not find sugar to be addictive and/or toxic. I know people will argue the idea of "mental addiction" to sugar, but I personally find that to be more habit than anything else. That could just be my opinion; I think the idea that sugar is always "bad" or "toxic" is very much fact though.
  • ccrdragon
    ccrdragon Posts: 3,374 Member
    edited April 2017
    kclaar11 wrote: »
    I also found it interesting regardless of the "validity". I do have to agree that I do not find sugar to be addictive and/or toxic. I know people will argue the idea of "mental addiction" to sugar, but I personally find that to be more habit than anything else. That could just be my opinion; I think the idea that sugar is always "bad" or "toxic" is very much fact though.

    So you don't eat fruit, vegetables, bread, pasta, etc?
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,136 Member
    kclaar11 wrote: »
    I also found it interesting regardless of the "validity". I do have to agree that I do not find sugar to be addictive and/or toxic. I know people will argue the idea of "mental addiction" to sugar, but I personally find that to be more habit than anything else. That could just be my opinion; I think the idea that sugar is always "bad" or "toxic" is very much fact though.

    how exactly is sugar toxic?
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,136 Member
    ccrdragon wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    kclaar11 wrote: »
    I also found it interesting regardless of the "validity". I do have to agree that I do not find sugar to be addictive and/or toxic. I know people will argue the idea of "mental addiction" to sugar, but I personally find that to be more habit than anything else. That could just be my opinion; I think the idea that sugar is always "bad" or "toxic" is very much fact though.

    how exactly is sugar toxic?

    Given that the basic definition of a carbohydrate is something that the body can break down into glucose (SUGAR) to be used by the body for energy, how exactly is this toxic? Is the body trying to kill itself?!?!?

    don't know and never really understood that claim. Technically, water is toxic because if you drink too much you can die from water poisoning but I don't see anyone saying "avoid water."
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,136 Member
    kclaar11 wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    kclaar11 wrote: »
    I also found it interesting regardless of the "validity". I do have to agree that I do not find sugar to be addictive and/or toxic. I know people will argue the idea of "mental addiction" to sugar, but I personally find that to be more habit than anything else. That could just be my opinion; I think the idea that sugar is always "bad" or "toxic" is very much fact though.

    how exactly is sugar toxic?

    Oops. Major typo there; I meant to type "false" not "fact". I completely agree that sugar is neither bad nor toxic. HUGE typing error there.

    bahahahahaha.....

    LOL, no problem. I kind of thought that might be a typo...
  • zyxst
    zyxst Posts: 9,150 Member
    dfwesq wrote: »
    It disagrees with the "myths" but I'm not sure I'd say it debunks anything. It's just someone's opinion.

    The one about sugar not being just empty calories is just a facile semantic argument. Basically, its reasoning is that calories are a nutritional component, and since sugar has calories it has nutritional value. That's basically just denying that there's any such thing as "empty calories." Pure refined table sugar is the prime example of empty calories, as that term is used by the medical community.

    ETA I also noticed whoever wrote this doesn't think alcohol addiction exists either. So I'm not sure I'd put much stock in what he says.

    So carbohydrates aren't nutrients and have no calories? Sorry for me being literal when someone claims a food has empty calories.
  • Gamliela
    Gamliela Posts: 2,468 Member
    It could be just me, but apple pie doesn't really need sugar, or strawberry shortcake imo.

    Course then again I put cocoa powder in full fat unsweetened yogurt and call it fantastic, so idk, my tastbuds are different?
  • gamerbabe14
    gamerbabe14 Posts: 876 Member
    Does anyone listen to podcasts? Freakonomics just released one on sugar. They do a good job of showing both arguments although it's pretty clear at the end of the episode which one is the standout.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited April 2017
    Gamliela wrote: »
    It could be just me, but apple pie doesn't really need sugar, or strawberry shortcake imo.

    You don't need a lot, but most recipes I've enjoyed include some, and I think it's better with it than it would be without.

    I'm not a strawberry shortcake fan (assuming good strawberries, I'd always rather just have strawberries and plain whipping cream or just add the strawberries to some pancakes or waffles, perhaps, or some vanilla ice cream, but I digress...). Here's a pretty standard recipe: https://cooking.nytimes.com/recipes/11823-strawberry-shortcake. The shortcake normally has sugar in it.

    Obviously the apples and strawberries also have sugar, which is what actually relates to the point I was making.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited April 2017
    Does anyone listen to podcasts? Freakonomics just released one on sugar. They do a good job of showing both arguments although it's pretty clear at the end of the episode which one is the standout.

    I used to listen to that one but haven't in ages. I'll have to find the episode.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    I think that added sugar is the main problem, but that sugar in fruits and other carbs became a problem for people like me who have autoimmune issues and insulin resisance - like me. I wonder if I had been brought up with much less (or no) added sugars like honey, sucrose and HFCS, along with fewer refined grains (especially since I am a celiac) if my health in my middle age would have been improved. I suspect it would have been.

    I suspect that too, probably especially if the celiac had been caught earlier. But there don't seem to be people who struggle with IR in blue zone cultures, even higher carb ones (relating to what you ask below).
    A fast hit of sugar from a refined or ultra processed food in the blood stream is a different expereince than what you get from a salad and fruit bowl. KWIM?

    For someone with IR, certainly. On the other hand, a banana or potato can be a quick hit, and I don't think those are problems in healthy people (or in a balanced diet eaten with other foods, not even for plenty of people with IR, although I think genetic sensitivity and other factors can make a difference so that some might need to avoid them entirely after developing issues). But I would say that doesn't make sugar really the culprit or suggest that it always would be better avoided in general (vs. for some, just as some with Crohn may need to avoid vegetables that would be really healthful to include in a diet for others -- you can make do without vegetables, but I would never say as if I were recommending it "vegetables are entirely unnecessary," which was the point I was making re sugar, really).
    Nutritionally, in terms of micronutrients, there's quite a difference too.

    Depending on how it's used. Apples aren't any better than cranberries with a bit of sugar or rhubarb with a bit of sugar. But you know me well enough to know I'm not saying there's no difference between foods, and I see lots of differences between some blueberries and a cookie (although I think both can be part of a healthful diet)!
    I tend to think that less sugar is better, but that's in terms of added sugar or naturally occurrng sugar. I don't believe that more sugar in one's lfe is better/healthier than less.

    Are there any Blue Zone diets that are high in added sugar and refined grains?

    Not to my knowledge, and I'd guess not.

    I share your bias that keeping added sugar low is better (although I don't think it's important to keep it as low as you possibly can if it's at a reasonably low level -- proper level and reasons for that being debatable still, of course -- and you have no other reasons, such as health issues, desire to stay in ketosis, personal hunger level, whatever, to worry about it). I also tend to agree with some others (Attia, Noakes, many more) that there are some individual genetic differences as to how much is too much even before developing issues.
  • Packerjohn
    Packerjohn Posts: 4,855 Member
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    anyway, I found it interesting and it is no way peer reviewed...

    It's just one guy's thoughts. If you look at his LinkedIn profile his education is a bachelor's in psychology/law and a master's in IT. No background at all to discuss the pluses and minuses of anything related to nutrition.

    Personally don't think sugar is physically addictive, psychologically maybe.
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    anyway, I found it interesting and it is no way peer reviewed...

    It's just one guy's thoughts. If you look at his LinkedIn profile his education is a bachelor's in psychology/law and a master's in IT. No background at all to discuss the pluses and minuses of anything related to nutrition.

    Personally don't think sugar is physically addictive, psychologically maybe.

    Many people with no more nutritional education than that write diet books or make "documentaries" telling you sugar is horrible for you too.
  • donnarfredin
    donnarfredin Posts: 7 Member
    Great article!!!!
  • Packerjohn
    Packerjohn Posts: 4,855 Member
    edited April 2017
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    anyway, I found it interesting and it is no way peer reviewed...

    It's just one guy's thoughts. If you look at his LinkedIn profile his education is a bachelor's in psychology/law and a master's in IT. No background at all to discuss the pluses and minuses of anything related to nutrition.

    Personally don't think sugar is physically addictive, psychologically maybe.

    Many people with no more nutritional education than that write diet books or make "documentaries" telling you sugar is horrible for you too.

    Oh I agree.

    My challenge with the original post is the article debunks a lot of myths, but the "debunking" is done by an individual with no applicable background and no references to any science backing his statements.

    No better/worse than sugar demonizers with no background that write blog posts.
This discussion has been closed.