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
Replies
-
Each person is unique and sugar (as well as other things) affects people differently. It (along with caffeine, nicotine, alcohol, and some drugs) can / do affect the pleasure centers of the brain in some people, per these studies:
If I don't eat sweets I don't want them. But, if I eat one sweet thing, (like a slice of cake) - I can't stop eating it until it is completely gone. It's not a pleasure sensation I am seeking, for me, it's a starving hunger.
So, for me, eating sugar can be addictive.
The argument for addiction specifically posits that people are pleasure seeking in eating sugar and other highly palatable foods (fat affects the brain also, just like sugar, and the pro food addiction sorts like Nicole Avena say that hyperpalatable foods that are a combination of fast carbs and salt and fat often tend to score the highest on the addiction tests/scales -- pizza, for example).
If the issue were hunger, it stands to reason that you would switch to a more satiating food.3 -
Each person is unique and sugar (as well as other things) affects people differently. It (along with caffeine, nicotine, alcohol, and some drugs) can / do affect the pleasure centers of the brain in some people, per these studies:
If I don't eat sweets I don't want them. But, if I eat one sweet thing, (like a slice of cake) - I can't stop eating it until it is completely gone. It's not a pleasure sensation I am seeking, for me, it's a starving hunger.
So, for me, eating sugar can be addictive.
The average cookie or cake gets as much, if not more, of it's calories from FAT than it does carbohydrates, and almost all have more calories from fat than from the sugar in them. But it's the sugar that the issue...
Would you also do the same with an apple, even though 80% of it's calories come from sugar? How about carrots, which are about 50% sugar calories?
It's a highly palatable, very pleasurable food to eat. It's hedonistic hunger (i.e. pleasure seeking), not "true" hunger. If you were truly that hungry, you'd be doing the same behavior (eating until it's gone) with just about any food in front of you. It's the same reason we can feel full after a meal, but feel "hungry" for a desert afterwards.8 -
Packerjohn wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Hawaiian_Iceberg wrote: »LOL ....read my mind...
Of course what you both corrected are accurate sentences. I wouldn't disagree with them at all. I mean how could you. Any calorific surplus will make you fat over time.
However, I bet you a pound to a pinch of *kitten* most obese people have an excessive amount of sugar in their diets.
I bet you ten pounds to a pinch of kittens that most obese people have an excessive amount of everything in their diets and sugar is seldom even the main source.
I'm sure you're correct that obese people have too much of everything in their diet. Following is a list of top 10 sources of calories in the US diet. You could get nit picky whether added sugar is the main source of calories (as it would depend in some cases on the specific recipes), but added sugars (along with unhealthy fats) are a significant component of several of them.
What Americans Eat: Top 10 sources of calories in the U.S. diet
Grain-based desserts (cakes, cookies, donuts, pies, crisps, cobblers, and granola bars)
Yeast breads
Chicken and chicken-mixed dishes
Soda, energy drinks, and sports drinks
Pizza
Alcoholic beverages
Pasta and pasta dishes
Mexican mixed dishes
Beef and beef-mixed dishes
Dairy desserts
http://www.health.harvard.edu/healthy-eating/top-10-sources-of-calories-in-the-us-diet
Pretty pathetic list IMO.
I see 3 with considerable amounts of sugar. Baked goods, soda and dairy desserts out of which soda is the only one that is mostly (or rather entirely) sugar. The others generally don't contain any or an irrelevant amount compared to total calories.
On the other hand... Baked goods, chicken dishes, pizza, beef dishes, probably mexican and dairy too: lots of fat.3 -
Hawaiian_Iceberg wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »I bet you ten pounds to a pinch of kittens that most obese people have an excessive amount of everything in their diets and sugar is seldom even the main source.
Really? What would you think is the main source? (Genuine question)
As said above, fat. Even the things people consider "sugary" often have as much or more fat than sugar.4 -
If you Google empty calorie definition you get items similar to this (what most reasonable people would consider empty calories)
A unit of carbohydrate-based energy derived from refined food products that are high in sugars or salts, but essentially devoid of nutritive value, lacking protein, vitamins, dietary fiber, and essential fats. Empty calories are typical of ‘junk’ or snack foods
Examples Potato chips (crisps in the UK), pastries, cakes, soft drinks
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Empty+calorie
What I found most interesting out of this discussion was the fact that there's actually an official definition for "empty calories" and that I have never used it to mean the same thing. For me, empty calories has always meant foods, usually calorie-dense foods, that are not satiating - which could often lead to overeating due to hunger. I've never considered sugar as a standalone nutrient to be empty calories, because I've never eaten sugar straight; it's always in something, usually paired with a good amount of fat.
Other than that, this whole discussion feels like the typical MFP merry-go-round about sugar. Carry on.5 -
The_Enginerd wrote: »Each person is unique and sugar (as well as other things) affects people differently. It (along with caffeine, nicotine, alcohol, and some drugs) can / do affect the pleasure centers of the brain in some people, per these studies:
If I don't eat sweets I don't want them. But, if I eat one sweet thing, (like a slice of cake) - I can't stop eating it until it is completely gone. It's not a pleasure sensation I am seeking, for me, it's a starving hunger.
So, for me, eating sugar can be addictive.
The average cookie or cake gets as much, if not more, of it's calories from FAT than it does carbohydrates, and almost all have more calories from fat than from the sugar in them. But it's the sugar that the issue...
Would you also do the same with an apple, even though 80% of it's calories come from sugar? How about carrots, which are about 50% sugar calories?
It's a highly palatable, very pleasurable food to eat. It's hedonistic hunger (i.e. pleasure seeking), not "true" hunger. If you were truly that hungry, you'd be doing the same behavior (eating until it's gone) with just about any food in front of you. It's the same reason we can feel full after a meal, but feel "hungry" for a desert afterwards.
^^^This, this and this...2 -
Sugar is highly addictive that's why it's in 99.9% of food. I read the book diet rehab and it completely changed the way I think about sugar.24
-
The_Enginerd wrote: »Each person is unique and sugar (as well as other things) affects people differently. It (along with caffeine, nicotine, alcohol, and some drugs) can / do affect the pleasure centers of the brain in some people, per these studies:
If I don't eat sweets I don't want them. But, if I eat one sweet thing, (like a slice of cake) - I can't stop eating it until it is completely gone. It's not a pleasure sensation I am seeking, for me, it's a starving hunger.
So, for me, eating sugar can be addictive.
The average cookie or cake gets as much, if not more, of it's calories from FAT than it does carbohydrates, and almost all have more calories from fat than from the sugar in them. But it's the sugar that the issue...
Would you also do the same with an apple, even though 80% of it's calories come from sugar? How about carrots, which are about 50% sugar calories?
It's a highly palatable, very pleasurable food to eat. It's hedonistic hunger (i.e. pleasure seeking), not "true" hunger. If you were truly that hungry, you'd be doing the same behavior (eating until it's gone) with just about any food in front of you. It's the same reason we can feel full after a meal, but feel "hungry" for a desert afterwards.
The point about fruit and carrots versus cookies isn't a valid one. I'm a type 2 diabetic and I have direct feedback when I eat different foods - I can tell exactly what they are doing to me. A cookie with 21 g carbs and an orange with 21 g carbs are metabolized totally differently, produce a different insulin response, and spike my blood sugar completely differently, despite being similar on paper. I'm not unique or even unusual in my responses - multiple studies have found that consuming fruit improves diabetes, while consuming added sugars worsens it.14 -
Sugar is highly addictive that's why it's in 99.9% of food. I read the book diet rehab and it completely changed the way I think about sugar.
It's not in 99.9% of food, period, and a heck of a lot of what it is in (including vegetables) is naturally there, so are you blaming Mother Nature?
Perhaps you choose/chose to buy foods, 99.9% of which have added sugar, but that's a choice, and wouldn't reflect a very recommended or sensible diet, IMO.10 -
rheddmobile wrote: »The_Enginerd wrote: »Each person is unique and sugar (as well as other things) affects people differently. It (along with caffeine, nicotine, alcohol, and some drugs) can / do affect the pleasure centers of the brain in some people, per these studies:
If I don't eat sweets I don't want them. But, if I eat one sweet thing, (like a slice of cake) - I can't stop eating it until it is completely gone. It's not a pleasure sensation I am seeking, for me, it's a starving hunger.
So, for me, eating sugar can be addictive.
The average cookie or cake gets as much, if not more, of it's calories from FAT than it does carbohydrates, and almost all have more calories from fat than from the sugar in them. But it's the sugar that the issue...
Would you also do the same with an apple, even though 80% of it's calories come from sugar? How about carrots, which are about 50% sugar calories?
It's a highly palatable, very pleasurable food to eat. It's hedonistic hunger (i.e. pleasure seeking), not "true" hunger. If you were truly that hungry, you'd be doing the same behavior (eating until it's gone) with just about any food in front of you. It's the same reason we can feel full after a meal, but feel "hungry" for a desert afterwards.
The point about fruit and carrots versus cookies isn't a valid one. I'm a type 2 diabetic and I have direct feedback when I eat different foods - I can tell exactly what they are doing to me. A cookie with 21 g carbs and an orange with 21 g carbs are metabolized totally differently, produce a different insulin response, and spike my blood sugar completely differently, despite being similar on paper. I'm not unique or even unusual in my responses - multiple studies have found that consuming fruit improves diabetes, while consuming added sugars worsens it.
The evidence is that different foods have different effects on blood sugar depending on the person, which is one reason the GI/GL isn't all that useful even if you actually ate the foods alone (which people don't do). Makes sense to check your own reactions -- if you are IR or T2D, certainly -- and choose accordingly. But that's also a reason not to make broad statements about what is the case for everyone. This is especially true since, of course, many of us are not IR.
A friend of mine is working on controlling his T2D, and I was talking to him about it, and he said pasta doesn't usually have that strong an effect, at least if it has vegetables and meat. That surprised me, since I think of pasta as a food that of course would be bad in that context (although it was great for me when I was losing weight, since I make lots of fast, easy, nutritious meals with it). He also said that many Chinese dishes (with lots of rice) are very bad for his blood sugar, and often having more fat makes it worse (although other studies have said fat tends to slow down the effect).
Important to figure out how it affects you, but I don't think this has anything to do with the addiction claim or the "pleasure center" one -- GI/GL isn't at all what determines how foods score on tests that look at so called "addictiveness" -- that's about taste and especially hitting multiple sources of taste pleasure (fat and sugar, fat and salt -- you are never going to convince me that the reason people enjoy pizza or fries is the tiny bit of sugar vs. the more apparent pleasures).6 -
rheddmobile wrote: »The_Enginerd wrote: »Each person is unique and sugar (as well as other things) affects people differently. It (along with caffeine, nicotine, alcohol, and some drugs) can / do affect the pleasure centers of the brain in some people, per these studies:
If I don't eat sweets I don't want them. But, if I eat one sweet thing, (like a slice of cake) - I can't stop eating it until it is completely gone. It's not a pleasure sensation I am seeking, for me, it's a starving hunger.
So, for me, eating sugar can be addictive.
The average cookie or cake gets as much, if not more, of it's calories from FAT than it does carbohydrates, and almost all have more calories from fat than from the sugar in them. But it's the sugar that the issue...
Would you also do the same with an apple, even though 80% of it's calories come from sugar? How about carrots, which are about 50% sugar calories?
It's a highly palatable, very pleasurable food to eat. It's hedonistic hunger (i.e. pleasure seeking), not "true" hunger. If you were truly that hungry, you'd be doing the same behavior (eating until it's gone) with just about any food in front of you. It's the same reason we can feel full after a meal, but feel "hungry" for a desert afterwards.
The point about fruit and carrots versus cookies isn't a valid one. I'm a type 2 diabetic and I have direct feedback when I eat different foods - I can tell exactly what they are doing to me. A cookie with 21 g carbs and an orange with 21 g carbs are metabolized totally differently, produce a different insulin response, and spike my blood sugar completely differently, despite being similar on paper. I'm not unique or even unusual in my responses - multiple studies have found that consuming fruit improves diabetes, while consuming added sugars worsens it.
do you know why the cookie spikes your insulin quicker than the orange/carrot? because most cookies have little to no fiber in them so the sugar is broken down quicker. oranges/carrots have fiber and therefore the fiber will cause the breakdown to be slower so the spike wont be as quick. protein can also spike insulin.5 -
CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »The_Enginerd wrote: »Each person is unique and sugar (as well as other things) affects people differently. It (along with caffeine, nicotine, alcohol, and some drugs) can / do affect the pleasure centers of the brain in some people, per these studies:
If I don't eat sweets I don't want them. But, if I eat one sweet thing, (like a slice of cake) - I can't stop eating it until it is completely gone. It's not a pleasure sensation I am seeking, for me, it's a starving hunger.
So, for me, eating sugar can be addictive.
The average cookie or cake gets as much, if not more, of it's calories from FAT than it does carbohydrates, and almost all have more calories from fat than from the sugar in them. But it's the sugar that the issue...
Would you also do the same with an apple, even though 80% of it's calories come from sugar? How about carrots, which are about 50% sugar calories?
It's a highly palatable, very pleasurable food to eat. It's hedonistic hunger (i.e. pleasure seeking), not "true" hunger. If you were truly that hungry, you'd be doing the same behavior (eating until it's gone) with just about any food in front of you. It's the same reason we can feel full after a meal, but feel "hungry" for a desert afterwards.
The point about fruit and carrots versus cookies isn't a valid one. I'm a type 2 diabetic and I have direct feedback when I eat different foods - I can tell exactly what they are doing to me. A cookie with 21 g carbs and an orange with 21 g carbs are metabolized totally differently, produce a different insulin response, and spike my blood sugar completely differently, despite being similar on paper. I'm not unique or even unusual in my responses - multiple studies have found that consuming fruit improves diabetes, while consuming added sugars worsens it.
do you know why the cookie spikes your insulin quicker than the orange/carrot? because most cookies have little to no fiber in them so the sugar is broken down quicker. oranges/carrots have fiber and therefore the fiber will cause the breakdown to be slower so the spike wont be as quick. protein can also spike insulin.
As do most foods with significant amounts of added sugar.1 -
Packerjohn wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »The_Enginerd wrote: »Each person is unique and sugar (as well as other things) affects people differently. It (along with caffeine, nicotine, alcohol, and some drugs) can / do affect the pleasure centers of the brain in some people, per these studies:
If I don't eat sweets I don't want them. But, if I eat one sweet thing, (like a slice of cake) - I can't stop eating it until it is completely gone. It's not a pleasure sensation I am seeking, for me, it's a starving hunger.
So, for me, eating sugar can be addictive.
The average cookie or cake gets as much, if not more, of it's calories from FAT than it does carbohydrates, and almost all have more calories from fat than from the sugar in them. But it's the sugar that the issue...
Would you also do the same with an apple, even though 80% of it's calories come from sugar? How about carrots, which are about 50% sugar calories?
It's a highly palatable, very pleasurable food to eat. It's hedonistic hunger (i.e. pleasure seeking), not "true" hunger. If you were truly that hungry, you'd be doing the same behavior (eating until it's gone) with just about any food in front of you. It's the same reason we can feel full after a meal, but feel "hungry" for a desert afterwards.
The point about fruit and carrots versus cookies isn't a valid one. I'm a type 2 diabetic and I have direct feedback when I eat different foods - I can tell exactly what they are doing to me. A cookie with 21 g carbs and an orange with 21 g carbs are metabolized totally differently, produce a different insulin response, and spike my blood sugar completely differently, despite being similar on paper. I'm not unique or even unusual in my responses - multiple studies have found that consuming fruit improves diabetes, while consuming added sugars worsens it.
do you know why the cookie spikes your insulin quicker than the orange/carrot? because most cookies have little to no fiber in them so the sugar is broken down quicker. oranges/carrots have fiber and therefore the fiber will cause the breakdown to be slower so the spike wont be as quick. protein can also spike insulin.
As do most foods with significant amounts of added sugar.
exactly1 -
Packerjohn wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »The_Enginerd wrote: »Each person is unique and sugar (as well as other things) affects people differently. It (along with caffeine, nicotine, alcohol, and some drugs) can / do affect the pleasure centers of the brain in some people, per these studies:
If I don't eat sweets I don't want them. But, if I eat one sweet thing, (like a slice of cake) - I can't stop eating it until it is completely gone. It's not a pleasure sensation I am seeking, for me, it's a starving hunger.
So, for me, eating sugar can be addictive.
The average cookie or cake gets as much, if not more, of it's calories from FAT than it does carbohydrates, and almost all have more calories from fat than from the sugar in them. But it's the sugar that the issue...
Would you also do the same with an apple, even though 80% of it's calories come from sugar? How about carrots, which are about 50% sugar calories?
It's a highly palatable, very pleasurable food to eat. It's hedonistic hunger (i.e. pleasure seeking), not "true" hunger. If you were truly that hungry, you'd be doing the same behavior (eating until it's gone) with just about any food in front of you. It's the same reason we can feel full after a meal, but feel "hungry" for a desert afterwards.
The point about fruit and carrots versus cookies isn't a valid one. I'm a type 2 diabetic and I have direct feedback when I eat different foods - I can tell exactly what they are doing to me. A cookie with 21 g carbs and an orange with 21 g carbs are metabolized totally differently, produce a different insulin response, and spike my blood sugar completely differently, despite being similar on paper. I'm not unique or even unusual in my responses - multiple studies have found that consuming fruit improves diabetes, while consuming added sugars worsens it.
do you know why the cookie spikes your insulin quicker than the orange/carrot? because most cookies have little to no fiber in them so the sugar is broken down quicker. oranges/carrots have fiber and therefore the fiber will cause the breakdown to be slower so the spike wont be as quick. protein can also spike insulin.
As do most foods with significant amounts of added sugar.
Significant amounts, yes. Any, no.1 -
CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »The_Enginerd wrote: »Each person is unique and sugar (as well as other things) affects people differently. It (along with caffeine, nicotine, alcohol, and some drugs) can / do affect the pleasure centers of the brain in some people, per these studies:
If I don't eat sweets I don't want them. But, if I eat one sweet thing, (like a slice of cake) - I can't stop eating it until it is completely gone. It's not a pleasure sensation I am seeking, for me, it's a starving hunger.
So, for me, eating sugar can be addictive.
The average cookie or cake gets as much, if not more, of it's calories from FAT than it does carbohydrates, and almost all have more calories from fat than from the sugar in them. But it's the sugar that the issue...
Would you also do the same with an apple, even though 80% of it's calories come from sugar? How about carrots, which are about 50% sugar calories?
It's a highly palatable, very pleasurable food to eat. It's hedonistic hunger (i.e. pleasure seeking), not "true" hunger. If you were truly that hungry, you'd be doing the same behavior (eating until it's gone) with just about any food in front of you. It's the same reason we can feel full after a meal, but feel "hungry" for a desert afterwards.
The point about fruit and carrots versus cookies isn't a valid one. I'm a type 2 diabetic and I have direct feedback when I eat different foods - I can tell exactly what they are doing to me. A cookie with 21 g carbs and an orange with 21 g carbs are metabolized totally differently, produce a different insulin response, and spike my blood sugar completely differently, despite being similar on paper. I'm not unique or even unusual in my responses - multiple studies have found that consuming fruit improves diabetes, while consuming added sugars worsens it.
do you know why the cookie spikes your insulin quicker than the orange/carrot? because most cookies have little to no fiber in them so the sugar is broken down quicker. oranges/carrots have fiber and therefore the fiber will cause the breakdown to be slower so the spike wont be as quick. protein can also spike insulin.
As do most foods with significant amounts of added sugar.
exactly
That could explain why fruit doesn't cause diabetics complications. But it wouldn't explain why fruit improves diabetes, as @rheddmobile posted.
Btw, scientific research backs up what @rheddmobile posted. Whatever the explanation, there is something else going on. It's not just macros like sugar and fiber.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/behindtheheadlines/news/2017-04-12-daily-diet-of-fresh-fruit-linked-to-lower-diabetes-risk/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/253770092 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »The_Enginerd wrote: »Each person is unique and sugar (as well as other things) affects people differently. It (along with caffeine, nicotine, alcohol, and some drugs) can / do affect the pleasure centers of the brain in some people, per these studies:
If I don't eat sweets I don't want them. But, if I eat one sweet thing, (like a slice of cake) - I can't stop eating it until it is completely gone. It's not a pleasure sensation I am seeking, for me, it's a starving hunger.
So, for me, eating sugar can be addictive.
The average cookie or cake gets as much, if not more, of it's calories from FAT than it does carbohydrates, and almost all have more calories from fat than from the sugar in them. But it's the sugar that the issue...
Would you also do the same with an apple, even though 80% of it's calories come from sugar? How about carrots, which are about 50% sugar calories?
It's a highly palatable, very pleasurable food to eat. It's hedonistic hunger (i.e. pleasure seeking), not "true" hunger. If you were truly that hungry, you'd be doing the same behavior (eating until it's gone) with just about any food in front of you. It's the same reason we can feel full after a meal, but feel "hungry" for a desert afterwards.
The point about fruit and carrots versus cookies isn't a valid one. I'm a type 2 diabetic and I have direct feedback when I eat different foods - I can tell exactly what they are doing to me. A cookie with 21 g carbs and an orange with 21 g carbs are metabolized totally differently, produce a different insulin response, and spike my blood sugar completely differently, despite being similar on paper. I'm not unique or even unusual in my responses - multiple studies have found that consuming fruit improves diabetes, while consuming added sugars worsens it.
The evidence is that different foods have different effects on blood sugar depending on the person, which is one reason the GI/GL isn't all that useful even if you actually ate the foods alone (which people don't do). Makes sense to check your own reactions -- if you are IR or T2D, certainly -- and choose accordingly. But that's also a reason not to make broad statements about what is the case for everyone. This is especially true since, of course, many of us are not IR.
A friend of mine is working on controlling his T2D, and I was talking to him about it, and he said pasta doesn't usually have that strong an effect, at least if it has vegetables and meat. That surprised me, since I think of pasta as a food that of course would be bad in that context (although it was great for me when I was losing weight, since I make lots of fast, easy, nutritious meals with it). He also said that many Chinese dishes (with lots of rice) are very bad for his blood sugar, and often having more fat makes it worse (although other studies have said fat tends to slow down the effect).
Important to figure out how it affects you, but I don't think this has anything to do with the addiction claim or the "pleasure center" one -- GI/GL isn't at all what determines how foods score on tests that look at so called "addictiveness" -- that's about taste and especially hitting multiple sources of taste pleasure (fat and sugar, fat and salt -- you are never going to convince me that the reason people enjoy pizza or fries is the tiny bit of sugar vs. the more apparent pleasures).
I think your point is valid, as far as pizza goes - but just because pizza is not a particularly sugary food doesn't mean there are no addictive sugary foods. I have been in the past, and my husband is now, strongly motivated by the "sugar rush" from foods. Does that go as far as addiction? There's pretty reasonable evidence that it operates by the same mechanisms as other addictions.
By the way, I'm the same as your friend re: rice versus pasta. Glucose response to particular foods does differ dramatically from person to person, which to me is a hint something we don't fully understand is going on here.4 -
rheddmobile wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »The_Enginerd wrote: »Each person is unique and sugar (as well as other things) affects people differently. It (along with caffeine, nicotine, alcohol, and some drugs) can / do affect the pleasure centers of the brain in some people, per these studies:
If I don't eat sweets I don't want them. But, if I eat one sweet thing, (like a slice of cake) - I can't stop eating it until it is completely gone. It's not a pleasure sensation I am seeking, for me, it's a starving hunger.
So, for me, eating sugar can be addictive.
The average cookie or cake gets as much, if not more, of it's calories from FAT than it does carbohydrates, and almost all have more calories from fat than from the sugar in them. But it's the sugar that the issue...
Would you also do the same with an apple, even though 80% of it's calories come from sugar? How about carrots, which are about 50% sugar calories?
It's a highly palatable, very pleasurable food to eat. It's hedonistic hunger (i.e. pleasure seeking), not "true" hunger. If you were truly that hungry, you'd be doing the same behavior (eating until it's gone) with just about any food in front of you. It's the same reason we can feel full after a meal, but feel "hungry" for a desert afterwards.
The point about fruit and carrots versus cookies isn't a valid one. I'm a type 2 diabetic and I have direct feedback when I eat different foods - I can tell exactly what they are doing to me. A cookie with 21 g carbs and an orange with 21 g carbs are metabolized totally differently, produce a different insulin response, and spike my blood sugar completely differently, despite being similar on paper. I'm not unique or even unusual in my responses - multiple studies have found that consuming fruit improves diabetes, while consuming added sugars worsens it.
The evidence is that different foods have different effects on blood sugar depending on the person, which is one reason the GI/GL isn't all that useful even if you actually ate the foods alone (which people don't do). Makes sense to check your own reactions -- if you are IR or T2D, certainly -- and choose accordingly. But that's also a reason not to make broad statements about what is the case for everyone. This is especially true since, of course, many of us are not IR.
A friend of mine is working on controlling his T2D, and I was talking to him about it, and he said pasta doesn't usually have that strong an effect, at least if it has vegetables and meat. That surprised me, since I think of pasta as a food that of course would be bad in that context (although it was great for me when I was losing weight, since I make lots of fast, easy, nutritious meals with it). He also said that many Chinese dishes (with lots of rice) are very bad for his blood sugar, and often having more fat makes it worse (although other studies have said fat tends to slow down the effect).
Important to figure out how it affects you, but I don't think this has anything to do with the addiction claim or the "pleasure center" one -- GI/GL isn't at all what determines how foods score on tests that look at so called "addictiveness" -- that's about taste and especially hitting multiple sources of taste pleasure (fat and sugar, fat and salt -- you are never going to convince me that the reason people enjoy pizza or fries is the tiny bit of sugar vs. the more apparent pleasures).
I think your point is valid, as far as pizza goes - but just because pizza is not a particularly sugary food doesn't mean there are no addictive sugary foods. I have been in the past, and my husband is now, strongly motivated by the "sugar rush" from foods. Does that go as far as addiction? There's pretty reasonable evidence that it operates by the same mechanisms as other addictions.
By the way, I'm the same as your friend re: rice versus pasta. Glucose response to particular foods does differ dramatically from person to person, which to me is a hint something we don't fully understand is going on here.
Links to this supposed evidence?
Glucose causes a release of dopamine and activates the "pleasure center" of the brain, yes. So does petting puppies, eating fat, kissing, getting a massage or anything else that is pleasurable.
Addictive drugs do not "operate by the same mechanisms." They hijack those mechanisms and wreck them.11 -
1 -
9
-
rheddmobile wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »The_Enginerd wrote: »Each person is unique and sugar (as well as other things) affects people differently. It (along with caffeine, nicotine, alcohol, and some drugs) can / do affect the pleasure centers of the brain in some people, per these studies:
If I don't eat sweets I don't want them. But, if I eat one sweet thing, (like a slice of cake) - I can't stop eating it until it is completely gone. It's not a pleasure sensation I am seeking, for me, it's a starving hunger.
So, for me, eating sugar can be addictive.
The average cookie or cake gets as much, if not more, of it's calories from FAT than it does carbohydrates, and almost all have more calories from fat than from the sugar in them. But it's the sugar that the issue...
Would you also do the same with an apple, even though 80% of it's calories come from sugar? How about carrots, which are about 50% sugar calories?
It's a highly palatable, very pleasurable food to eat. It's hedonistic hunger (i.e. pleasure seeking), not "true" hunger. If you were truly that hungry, you'd be doing the same behavior (eating until it's gone) with just about any food in front of you. It's the same reason we can feel full after a meal, but feel "hungry" for a desert afterwards.
The point about fruit and carrots versus cookies isn't a valid one. I'm a type 2 diabetic and I have direct feedback when I eat different foods - I can tell exactly what they are doing to me. A cookie with 21 g carbs and an orange with 21 g carbs are metabolized totally differently, produce a different insulin response, and spike my blood sugar completely differently, despite being similar on paper. I'm not unique or even unusual in my responses - multiple studies have found that consuming fruit improves diabetes, while consuming added sugars worsens it.
The evidence is that different foods have different effects on blood sugar depending on the person, which is one reason the GI/GL isn't all that useful even if you actually ate the foods alone (which people don't do). Makes sense to check your own reactions -- if you are IR or T2D, certainly -- and choose accordingly. But that's also a reason not to make broad statements about what is the case for everyone. This is especially true since, of course, many of us are not IR.
A friend of mine is working on controlling his T2D, and I was talking to him about it, and he said pasta doesn't usually have that strong an effect, at least if it has vegetables and meat. That surprised me, since I think of pasta as a food that of course would be bad in that context (although it was great for me when I was losing weight, since I make lots of fast, easy, nutritious meals with it). He also said that many Chinese dishes (with lots of rice) are very bad for his blood sugar, and often having more fat makes it worse (although other studies have said fat tends to slow down the effect).
Important to figure out how it affects you, but I don't think this has anything to do with the addiction claim or the "pleasure center" one -- GI/GL isn't at all what determines how foods score on tests that look at so called "addictiveness" -- that's about taste and especially hitting multiple sources of taste pleasure (fat and sugar, fat and salt -- you are never going to convince me that the reason people enjoy pizza or fries is the tiny bit of sugar vs. the more apparent pleasures).
I think your point is valid, as far as pizza goes - but just because pizza is not a particularly sugary food doesn't mean there are no addictive sugary foods. I have been in the past, and my husband is now, strongly motivated by the "sugar rush" from foods. Does that go as far as addiction? There's pretty reasonable evidence that it operates by the same mechanisms as other addictions.
No, I think that's a combination of two things -- taste (the real reason people overconsume specific foods with lots of added sugar) and the fact that sugar (and all easily digested carbs) is a quick source of energy, so what your body may naturally seek if tired or low on energy.
I totally know that when I am short on sleep I'm more likely to crave fast carbs, and only part of it is weak willpower. Most of it is that it does wake you up in the short term. But that's not the same thing as an addiction. It's a real thing, and important to understand, and helpful to be aware of, but calling it addiction seems to me to misunderstand what addiction is, and not to add anything that is useful. (I do think, again, that there are ways of relating to food or, more likely, eating, that are addictive or akin to addiction.)By the way, I'm the same as your friend re: rice versus pasta. Glucose response to particular foods does differ dramatically from person to person, which to me is a hint something we don't fully understand is going on here.
I think what raises blood sugar (essentially, the GI effect) is somewhat individual. But I'm not sure why you would think this is related to addiction.4 -
Sugar may not be addictive to some people but it is for others. Personally I don't believe in sex addiction nor smoking as an addiction because I'm not addicted to them. Ditto alcohol, drugs or gambling. Therefore they don't exist as addictions right?8
-
Sugar may not be addictive to some people but it is for others. Personally I don't believe in sex addiction nor smoking as an addiction because I'm not addicted to them. Ditto alcohol, drugs or gambling. Therefore they don't exist as addictions right?
The mechanisms of substance addiction are pretty clearly understood. We know how drugs make you addicted to them. Sugar does not work that way.7 -
Sugar may not be addictive to some people but it is for others. Personally I don't believe in sex addiction nor smoking as an addiction because I'm not addicted to them. Ditto alcohol, drugs or gambling. Therefore they don't exist as addictions right?
@stevencloser addressed the substance abuse, but additionally sex and gambling addictions are legitimate behavioral addictions - they are officially recognized.
Notice that you don't have a 'poker addiction' or a 'betting on the ponies addiction' - it's the action of taking the risk that is the problem, not the specific type of risk. In the same way, there will never be an 'eating sugar/sweets addiction' added to the list of behavioral addictions, but there is a possibility that 'eating addiction' will be added at some point. It was, and I believe still is, under consideration.5 -
I literally tried to climb up my husband last night to get some m&ms. If that is not the action of an addict, I don't know what is.
Long story short -- Hubby keeps a candy dish of m&ms. I am having a serious sugar craving. He sees my headed toward the dish because I want some. He holds the dish over my head so I couldn't get any. I tried to climb him to get it. He is not keeping me away from the M&Ms to make me skinny or anything like that. I have PCOS, and I have been counselled by my doctor to stay away from sugar and refined carbs.1 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »
I take it you don't do any endurance sports?0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »
I take it you don't do any endurance sports?
I take it you don't know what empty calories are.3 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »
I take it you don't do any endurance sports?
I take it you don't know what empty calories are.
I don't believe in the concept of any empty calorie (unless you're counting alcohol, a reasonable case can be made for that). Everything that I eat contains either carbohydrates, protein, or fat and my body can use all of those for energy.
Now is it possible to eat so much of something that it either gives you an excess of energy (resulting in weight gain) or crowds out something else that you need? Absolutely. But that can be true for just about any food. I've met people on raw diets who are eating too many raw fruits and vegetables, keeping them from meeting their other needs. It doesn't mean fruits and vegetables are therefore "empty" calories just because they can't be consumed in unlimited quantities.
There are certain circumstances where something like a sports drink, gummy bears, or a gel pack (things that would commonly be considered "empty calories") would be very useful.5 -
janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »
I take it you don't do any endurance sports?
I take it you don't know what empty calories are.
I don't believe in the concept of any empty calorie (unless you're counting alcohol, a reasonable case can be made for that). Everything that I eat contains either carbohydrates, protein, or fat and my body can use all of those for energy.
Now is it possible to eat so much of something that it either gives you an excess of energy (resulting in weight gain) or crowds out something else that you need? Absolutely. But that can be true for just about any food. I've met people on raw diets who are eating too many raw fruits and vegetables, keeping them from meeting their other needs. It doesn't mean fruits and vegetables are therefore "empty" calories just because they can't be consumed in unlimited quantities.
There are certain circumstances where something like a sports drink, gummy bears, or a gel pack (things that would commonly be considered "empty calories") would be very useful.
It doesn't matter if you "believe in it" whatever that means.
It is a phrase used to describe something with caloric content with little or no micronutrient value. Its not something you do or don't believe in, its a phrase that describes things. Just because you don't like the words used to describe it, doesn't change that.
By definition eating raw fruits and vegetables would never be empty calories, unless they were somehow stripped of their nutrients and still contained the calories.7 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »
I take it you don't do any endurance sports?
I take it you don't know what empty calories are.
I don't believe in the concept of any empty calorie (unless you're counting alcohol, a reasonable case can be made for that). Everything that I eat contains either carbohydrates, protein, or fat and my body can use all of those for energy.
Now is it possible to eat so much of something that it either gives you an excess of energy (resulting in weight gain) or crowds out something else that you need? Absolutely. But that can be true for just about any food. I've met people on raw diets who are eating too many raw fruits and vegetables, keeping them from meeting their other needs. It doesn't mean fruits and vegetables are therefore "empty" calories just because they can't be consumed in unlimited quantities.
There are certain circumstances where something like a sports drink, gummy bears, or a gel pack (things that would commonly be considered "empty calories") would be very useful.
It doesn't matter if you "believe in it" whatever that means.
It is a phrase used to describe something with caloric content with little or no micronutrient value. Its not something you do or don't believe in, its a phrase that describes things. Just because you don't like the words used to describe it, doesn't change that.
By definition eating raw fruits and vegetables would never be empty calories, unless they were somehow stripped of their nutrients and still contained the calories.
I'm using "I don't believe in it" as a way of saying "I don't accept it." I apologize, I thought this usage would be familiar to most English-speakers. Foods stigmatized as "empty calories" still provide carbohydrates, protein, or fat. I'm unclear why foods must contain significant micronutrient content to be able to make a contribution to the diet. Macronutrients are nutrients too.
I sometimes eat foods that are high carbohydrate (but contain little to no micronutrients) while I'm racing or training. It's fairly common for people during endurance sports and I don't think anyone doing that considers the calories to be "empty."15
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions