Sugar Woo

Was it a blanket statement? Those get woo’d.

stanmann571 wrote: »

Sugar lights up the same part of our brain that heroin does, and some of us just are not able to moderate. <snip> If you're eating real food, you wont be hungry.

You got woo'd for this.

Yes, this is neurologically true and other things that light up that area are fat, sex, exercise, comedy etc. but that doesn't make it an additive substance like heroin. Two obvious differences is that nobody eats pure sugar and if you make lab rats sick while eating sugar they will avoid it but will continue to injest heroin under the same circumstances.

filthy389 wrote: »

Who knows. I might not even get what woo means anyway; out of my depth here I guess. Not trying to be a creep.

Woo=Bro-Science, Junk Science, etc. In this instance, while technically and literally factually, the statement is so misleading and unuseful that it communicates no meaningful or useful truth. Certainly if you want to dig into the meat of the study and brain response, we can. And it could be valuable. But it's like the discussion of "psychoactive drugs" Caffeine is a psychoactive, mood altering drug.

filthy389 wrote: »

... and here’s the debate: you can find that heroin study. Two seconds on google; the actual study. So that’s not even a debate. This, perhaps: I should have phrased the second part better and said; “When I eat a well balanced diet with whole fruits and veggies, lean meat, limited grains, and no processed food, I don’t get hungry.” Again; apologies. I used the second person and inferred first person. Woo that.

Again, there is no debate that sugar causes a dopamine release, as do drugs and alcohol, the problem is that there is just too much hype over that similarity. Dopamine release happens for a wide variety of substances and activities, not just those two specific items and many things that cause it's release are necessary to our survival. Just because you get a dopamine response does not mean you get addicted, it simply tells you that you should seek out the activity or substance. This does not imply that it's an addiction, however.

C'mon. This many posts on the topic and no one has brought up the addictive properties of petting puppies? I'm disappointed.

OP. You got woo'd because what you posted was basic BS (which is what I wish the woo button was, less confusion). You get the same brain response from a multitude of thing, including petting puppies.

Tacklewasher wrote: »

C'mon. This many posts on the topic and no one has brought up the addictive properties of petting puppies? I'm disappointed.

OP. You got woo'd because what you posted was basic BS (which is what I wish the woo button was, less confusion). You get the same brain response from a multitude of thing, including petting puppies.

Funny...I was just about to.

filthy389 wrote: »

... and here’s the debate: you can find that heroin study. Two seconds on google; the actual study.

The issue seems to be that you misinterpreted or mischaracterized the study and suggested that sugar and heroin are especially alike (and unlike other substances) with the comment.

As another poster above pointed out, that's not true. To suggest that "lighting up a particular part of the brain" makes sugar more like heroin than, say, fat, or means that sugar must be addictive is, of course, incorrect (or even woo).

I should have phrased the second part better and said; “When I eat a well balanced diet with whole fruits and veggies, lean meat, limited grains, and no processed food, I don’t get hungry.” Again; apologies. I used the second person and inferred first person. Woo that.

I am wondering if you are using a unique definition of "processed foods" because of course grains are processed, and almost no one eats NO processed foods. Many of them are even quite healthful and certainly don't cause hunger in the average person (no foods I eat cause me to be hungry, although some are less filling than others).

I mostly (and always have, even when I was overweight) cook from whole foods.

I also eat a variety of processed foods in varying amounts and think the idea that one should completely avoid them at all times or "be hungry" is odd. I go out to nice (and interesting) restaurants (I live in a city with a good restaurant culture), I occasionally eat dark chocolate or make a dessert, I'll eat grains, I eat tofu and tempeh and occasional protein powder. I'm not eating meat or dairy now, but when I do I eat cottage cheese and greek yogurt (plain) and lots of wonderful cheeses, and smoked salmon and smoked trout. I currently eat plenty of canned beans and always use canned tomatoes in the winter. Those are all processed foods that I don't see as bad for me and they don't make me hungry.

I worked til 10:30 last night and was out of leftovers and didn't feel like cooking, so I grabbed an Amy's frozen meal. Seemed reasonable from a nutrition perspective and didn't make me hungry. Not my preference (and extremely rare for me) since I am basically a home cooking/restaurant kind of snob, but hardly the end of the world or something that means I didn't eat well yesterday.

That's why pronouncements about processed food being inherently bad (and all the same) as if the actual ingredients did not matter tends to strike people the wrong way. That, plus the idea that we all get hungry based on the same foods -- there's clearly a ton of diversity there.

Wheelhouse15 wrote: »

stanmann571 wrote: »

Sugar lights up the same part of our brain that heroin does, and some of us just are not able to moderate. <snip> If you're eating real food, you wont be hungry.

You got woo'd for this.

Yes, this is neurologically true and other things that light up that area are fat, sex, exercise, comedy etc. but that doesn't make it an additive substance like heroin. Two obvious differences is that nobody eats pure sugar and if you make lab rats sick while eating sugar they will avoid it but will continue to injest heroin under the same circumstances.

You forgot petting puppies and stubbing your toe light up that area of the brain.

Heck! I am the king of woo's! Not sure if I am proud or ashamed of that?!?!?

https://youtu.be/2sSofokAIiw

sgt1372 wrote: »

Just ignore the woo's.

Some are merited but many are not. You're free to express your opinion (as long as the 1st A remains intact in America) and many opinions woo'd in the past, have prevailed over time.

Despite the penchant on the Net (and on MFP) to cultivate "likes," "friends," and "followers," the people who buck the trend and think their own thoughts are "right" more often than not.

So don't let the woo-birds deter you. Speak your mind and be true to yourself.

I am the first to admit, that I am probably the John Snow of nutrition and health. I really don't mind getting woo's as long as some one will relay to me what info i got wrong. It's the only way to learn from each other IMHO.

I like being woo’d.