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.

Addicted to sugar DEBATE

189101113

Replies

  • Carlos_421
    Carlos_421 Posts: 5,132 Member
    joelrivard wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »

    I know a lot about addiction.


    I really don't understand this idea that if your tastes run to sugar you must be an addict, but people with different preferences and different foods they have control over cannot understand the difficulties of sugar addiction.

    Without even looking up brain studies I'm going to say that for most people sugar causes a brief but intense release of a host of brain chemicals including dopamine and seratonin.

    I have experience with addiction and a good sugar buzz could be momentarily compared to a low dose opiate buzz. The sugar high is fleeting but it's real. Not every sugar user is an addict and sugar use doesn't cause your brain to grow new sugar receptors which have to be filled constantly or withdrawals result (like opiates).
    But choosing to ingest sugar to feel better does become habit forming.

    You lost me at the bolded. We should just accept your feels on the subject?
  • J72FIT
    J72FIT Posts: 5,958 Member
    lucerorojo wrote: »
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    Momepro wrote: »
    Highly patatable and sugar are definitely two different categories, but if the cravings are specifically towards high sugar items, rather than greasy, salty, or just tasty, than the addiction is the sugar. I can easily eat myself sick with pixie sticks and sugar cubes, but though I absolutely love pizza, I'm not going to go out of my way to pigout on it, especially if I don't feel great.
    Someone else may be addicted to the highly palatable, or high carb, or spicy or salty items. Just like someone can be addicted to heroin AND cocaine, but not necessarily Vicodine or alchohol. Another might be addicted to more than one category. In my case, it is the sugar.

    To call it a sugar addiction because you eat too much candy but not too much fruit is like saying an alcoholic is addicted to beer but not whiskey. If the issue is sugar, you'd go for bananas as fast as you'd go for a twinkie because the substance is in both, just like alcohol is in both wine and whiskey.
    Does your "addiction" cause you to overeat fruit or does fruit satisfy your cravings for sweets? If no to either question, you are not addicted to sugar. You just eat too much of the foods you like because you like them.

    I'm not a scientist, so you can "woo" this if you want, but the difference between fruit and and refined/processed sweets, is the type of sugar and also that the fruit has fiber and other things in it to mediate the sugar use/transport in the body.

    Sugar is sugar...

    So, eat a varied diet with plenty of fiber. Problem solved...
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,879 Member
    Momepro wrote: »
    Highly patatable and sugar are definitely two different categories, but if the cravings are specifically towards high sugar items, rather than greasy, salty, or just tasty, than the addiction is the sugar. I can easily eat myself sick with pixie sticks and sugar cubes, but though I absolutely love pizza, I'm not going to go out of my way to pigout on it, especially if I don't feel great.
    Someone else may be addicted to the highly palatable, or high carb, or spicy or salty items. Just like someone can be addicted to heroin AND cocaine, but not necessarily Vicodine or alchohol. Another might be addicted to more than one category. In my case, it is the sugar.

    If it was sugar then people could and would also get their "fix" eating an apple...but I don't see that happening.
    Momepro wrote: »

    You CAN be addicted to beer and not whiskey.

    Not really...I've seen alcoholics...they may have a preference, but if they're an alcoholic they will go for anything. When I was in boot camp I saw guys drink Listerine to get their fix...
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    joelrivard wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »

    I know a lot about addiction.


    I really don't understand this idea that if your tastes run to sugar you must be an addict, but people with different preferences and different foods they have control over cannot understand the difficulties of sugar addiction.

    Without even looking up brain studies I'm going to say that for most people sugar causes a brief but intense release of a host of brain chemicals including dopamine and seratonin.

    Same with fat, any palatable food, or many other pleasurable experiences.

    So back to my question about why sugar is being treated as different.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Adamanda5 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    I am sorry if I misread you. My way of reading people who jump in and complain about how others have posted and then proclaim something (what matters is not what we call it, but the specifics and what can help) is that they are assuming no one else made that same point and were instead posting, well, wrongly. Here, I think a lot of the posts in the thread have made that point (that when it comes to advice what it's called doesn't matter, as well as that the specifics matter) and not just been debating.

    Also, this was split from a prior thread so that thread could be all about advice and not the debate, and the intent was that this one focus on the topic of "sugar addiction."

    I may be oversensitive, since I do think it's important to provide helpful advice (although I think we need to know more details to really do so than that OP feels out of control around certain foods or in his or her eating), and thus IMO always do or try to. This thread is really about a lot of things (none relating to the specific OP, that's why it's here).

    As I reread my earlier post, I can see why it would be taken as a lecture, so I apologize for my tone. I actually did read several of the responses before posting, but what I wrote was not in response to any of the posts I read in this particular thread. I enjoy reading threads, but rarely comment (due to time, my introverted nature, and honestly, a fear of being "woo-d"). (Thanks for those, whoever! Lol) This topic is very meaningful to me because so often I see very interesting parallels between addiction/recovery and binge eating/weight loss and maintenance in the prevention/intervention field, and I want to share them! But I never have the time to do the topic justice, so I just read what other people post and keep all thoughts to myself. The above was a bit of that, plus some misplaced frustration. I get kind of worked up when I read posts written by people who compare their compulsion to binge eat sugary foods to addiction and are promptly shut down by those who are (understandably) tired of the cocaine comparisons (which, I absolutely agree, inspire derailment). More than anything, I meant to be helpful. And apparently I really suck at that here! Lol

    I just want to say I appreciate this, and I don't think you suck at being helpful. I just think it's tough sometimes to jump into a thread way into it.

    I also see interesting parallels, but as someone who had a serious addiction I get bothered by how addiction is sometimes caricatured in making the parallels. But a serious discussion (not the "it's just like cocaine" stuff you and I both dislike) is interesting, and I do think eating can be an addiction for sure (although I DON'T think that needs to be behind weight gain or usually is).
  • lucerorojo
    lucerorojo Posts: 790 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    lucerorojo wrote: »
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    Momepro wrote: »
    Highly patatable and sugar are definitely two different categories, but if the cravings are specifically towards high sugar items, rather than greasy, salty, or just tasty, than the addiction is the sugar. I can easily eat myself sick with pixie sticks and sugar cubes, but though I absolutely love pizza, I'm not going to go out of my way to pigout on it, especially if I don't feel great.
    Someone else may be addicted to the highly palatable, or high carb, or spicy or salty items. Just like someone can be addicted to heroin AND cocaine, but not necessarily Vicodine or alchohol. Another might be addicted to more than one category. In my case, it is the sugar.

    To call it a sugar addiction because you eat too much candy but not too much fruit is like saying an alcoholic is addicted to beer but not whiskey. If the issue is sugar, you'd go for bananas as fast as you'd go for a twinkie because the substance is in both, just like alcohol is in both wine and whiskey.
    Does your "addiction" cause you to overeat fruit or does fruit satisfy your cravings for sweets? If no to either question, you are not addicted to sugar. You just eat too much of the foods you like because you like them.

    I'm not a scientist, so you can "woo" this if you want, but the difference between fruit and and refined/processed sweets, is the type of sugar and also that the fruit has fiber and other things in it to mediate the sugar use/transport in the body.

    The sugar is not different. Fruit has sucrose, glucose, and fructose (and sucrose is broken down into glucose and fructose). Table sugar is sucrose. Edit: I see Carlos already explained this better than I did.

    Yes, fiber (although not all fruits have much fiber, some have very little) slows down how quickly it affects your body, but to some extent so does fat, and all that would mean is that by eating something with sugar WITH something with fiber (or adding it to, say, oats) it would be different in effect.

    More likely explanation is that it's not "sugar," that is the issue, but specific hyperpalatable treats which often contain sugar along with other ingredients. This is also why most who have trouble moderating cookies don't go to the sugar bowl any more than they go to apples (I'd go to an apple before plain sugar) -- and before anyone posts yes, I know some people enjoy the taste of plain sugar a lot, but some like plain vinegar or plain oil too, most people don't consume sugar straight.

    The benefit of this explanation is also that is explains why many foods that people have trouble moderating have no sugar at all.

    But the effect IS different when one eats an apple and eats a piece of candy or chocolate. (Chocolate has caffeine and fat and caffeine adds another component to this). If a person unknowingly craves a sugar high, then the piece of candy is going to give it to them faster than an apple, so they will reach for that before the apple (or other fruit).
  • kimny72
    kimny72 Posts: 16,023 Member
    I get way more of a sugar buzz/energy hit off of an apple or banana than I do off of a piece of chocolate.
  • MichelleSilverleaf
    MichelleSilverleaf Posts: 2,028 Member
    Not reading every reply... Table sugar is probably best to be minimized for sure. Same with high fructose corn syrup and any other overly processed sweetener.. but fruit is healthy. For years I would avoid eating fruit in fear of weight gain
    or diabetes ect (runs rampant through my family) but with some research and experience, I know, for myself and my body that fruit is incredibly healthy. Not sure of the validity of my tactic but I try to eat fruit in the morning or earlier in the day, to give myself time throughout the day to burn it off.

    From what I understand (and someone can correct me if I'm wrong) the sugar in fruits is absorbed slower than other sources, so you're less likely to get a spike than if you have say candy of some kind.
  • HappyGrape
    HappyGrape Posts: 436 Member
    kimny72 wrote: »
    I get way more of a sugar buzz/energy hit off of an apple or banana than I do off of a piece of chocolate.

    but is it sugar buz, or awesome energy?
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    kimny72 wrote: »
    I get way more of a sugar buzz/energy hit off of an apple or banana than I do off of a piece of chocolate.

    And this.
  • kimny72
    kimny72 Posts: 16,023 Member
    HappyGrape wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    I get way more of a sugar buzz/energy hit off of an apple or banana than I do off of a piece of chocolate.

    but is it sugar buz, or awesome energy?

    I honestly have no idea what the difference is?
  • MichelleSilverleaf
    MichelleSilverleaf Posts: 2,028 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Not reading every reply... Table sugar is probably best to be minimized for sure. Same with high fructose corn syrup and any other overly processed sweetener.. but fruit is healthy. For years I would avoid eating fruit in fear of weight gain
    or diabetes ect (runs rampant through my family) but with some research and experience, I know, for myself and my body that fruit is incredibly healthy. Not sure of the validity of my tactic but I try to eat fruit in the morning or earlier in the day, to give myself time throughout the day to burn it off.

    From what I understand (and someone can correct me if I'm wrong) the sugar in fruits is absorbed slower than other sources, so you're less likely to get a spike than if you have say candy of some kind.

    No, as explained above, the sugar is the same. Fruit does not have different, slower absorbing sugar (sucrose = fructose and glucose and gets broken down into the two; fruit has sucrose, fructose, and glucose).

    To get more nerdy, so called sugar spikes -- which are not a problem for most people -- are caused by glucose (which you get from starches too) and not fructose, but the worst effects of sugar is from an overload in your liver which is from fructose. In moderate amounts, no sugar is a problem and this distinction doesn't matter.

    Some fruit and other foods (like oats, which some add sugar to) will have fiber and fiber slows down the digestion of the food, including the sugar in it. Many fruits are not that high in fiber, though, which is why a banana is good pre or during race fuel for many.

    Some candies are basically just sugar (IMO the least appealing ones I would never overconsume, but people's tastes are different) and those are like consuming just sugar, sure (same with pop or juice). Other so called candies -- chocolate, for example, or my favorite, chocolate covered nuts, have a slower sugar "hit" than most fruits, I expect. Yet, that does not mean chocolate covered nuts are less "addictive" (trust me, they can be impossible to stop eating).

    Now foods are different, and fruit has not that many calories and lots of micronutrients, so I think it would be silly to stop eating it if you like it (I love it), and the time of day doesn't matter a bit, that's another diet myth. But that fruit is different from a cookie has nothing to do with the sugar, it's that the fruit has different micros and essentially no fat, and the cookie is much higher cal due to the fat and has fewer micros, usually. Not that a cookie can't fit into a decent diet is one likes cookies.

    The bolded is what I was trying to say (albeit very poorly), not to insinuate that sugar in fruit was somehow different.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Not reading every reply... Table sugar is probably best to be minimized for sure. Same with high fructose corn syrup and any other overly processed sweetener.. but fruit is healthy. For years I would avoid eating fruit in fear of weight gain
    or diabetes ect (runs rampant through my family) but with some research and experience, I know, for myself and my body that fruit is incredibly healthy. Not sure of the validity of my tactic but I try to eat fruit in the morning or earlier in the day, to give myself time throughout the day to burn it off.

    From what I understand (and someone can correct me if I'm wrong) the sugar in fruits is absorbed slower than other sources, so you're less likely to get a spike than if you have say candy of some kind.

    No, as explained above, the sugar is the same. Fruit does not have different, slower absorbing sugar (sucrose = fructose and glucose and gets broken down into the two; fruit has sucrose, fructose, and glucose).

    To get more nerdy, so called sugar spikes -- which are not a problem for most people -- are caused by glucose (which you get from starches too) and not fructose, but the worst effects of sugar is from an overload in your liver which is from fructose. In moderate amounts, no sugar is a problem and this distinction doesn't matter.

    Some fruit and other foods (like oats, which some add sugar to) will have fiber and fiber slows down the digestion of the food, including the sugar in it. Many fruits are not that high in fiber, though, which is why a banana is good pre or during race fuel for many.

    Some candies are basically just sugar (IMO the least appealing ones I would never overconsume, but people's tastes are different) and those are like consuming just sugar, sure (same with pop or juice). Other so called candies -- chocolate, for example, or my favorite, chocolate covered nuts, have a slower sugar "hit" than most fruits, I expect. Yet, that does not mean chocolate covered nuts are less "addictive" (trust me, they can be impossible to stop eating).

    Now foods are different, and fruit has not that many calories and lots of micronutrients, so I think it would be silly to stop eating it if you like it (I love it), and the time of day doesn't matter a bit, that's another diet myth. But that fruit is different from a cookie has nothing to do with the sugar, it's that the fruit has different micros and essentially no fat, and the cookie is much higher cal due to the fat and has fewer micros, usually. Not that a cookie can't fit into a decent diet is one likes cookies.

    The bolded is what I was trying to say (albeit very poorly), not to insinuate that sugar in fruit was somehow different.

    Got it. It's just a pet peeve that some seem to think that the sugar is actually different, so for example that in a banana is slow digesting and sugar added to steel cut oats would be fast digesting, when the latter has more fiber. If it weren't misunderstood so often I wouldn't feel the need to be so darned pedantic! ;-)