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.
The Sugar Conspiracy
Replies
-
Look at him, pile of powdered sugar on his desk.1
-
stevencloser wrote: »Look at him, pile of powdered sugar on his desk.
total sugar addict...0 -
Meh, we stopped using the imperial system before i was born. Grams rule maaan
0 -
And if you want to be technical, grams and ounces don't even measure the same thing.
Grams measure the amount of mass. Pounds and ounces measure the force of gravity on said mass (weight).
Weight will vary based on planet size and distance from the planet's core.
Mass is constant.2 -
Christine_72 wrote: »Meh, we stopped using the imperial system before i was born. Grams rule maaan
As an American, let me state for the record, i would love to go metric. So much easier.0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »Meh, we stopped using the imperial system before i was born. Grams rule maaan
As an American, let me state for the record, i would love to go metric. So much easier.
I've heard it would be way too hard, because the manufactures having to change dimensions on tools, measuring cups etc etc Your whole country would have to be overhauled lol But then again, we did it here, but our population is 1/4 of yours so the uproar wouldn't have been so loud.0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »Meh, we stopped using the imperial system before i was born. Grams rule maaan
As an American, let me state for the record, i would love to go metric. So much easier.
I've heard it would be way too hard, because the manufactures having to change dimensions on tools, measuring cups etc etc Your whole country would have to be overhauled lol But then again, we did it here, but our population is 1/4 of yours so the uproar wouldn't have been so loud.
It's already happening/has happened for a lot of manufacturers.
The big deal would be getting the general population to learn a new rule of measurement (uncle Charlie has been measuring carpet by the foot for 30 years and isn't likely to stop).
Of course, that's all second to the fact that American football is played on a 100 yard field and good luck changing it to 100 meters.2 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »Meh, we stopped using the imperial system before i was born. Grams rule maaan
As an American, let me state for the record, i would love to go metric. So much easier.
I've heard it would be way too hard, because the manufactures having to change dimensions on tools, measuring cups etc etc Your whole country would have to be overhauled lol But then again, we did it here, but our population is 1/4 of yours so the uproar wouldn't have been so loud.
It's already happening/has happened for a lot of manufacturers.
The big deal would be getting the general population to learn a new rule of measurement (uncle Charlie has been measuring carpet by the foot for 30 years and isn't likely to stop).
Of course, that's all second to the fact that American football is played on a 100 yard field and good luck changing it to 100 meters.
I was young as we were transitioning. I use both, sometimes in the same sentence.2 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »Meh, we stopped using the imperial system before i was born. Grams rule maaan
As an American, let me state for the record, i would love to go metric. So much easier.
I've heard it would be way too hard, because the manufactures having to change dimensions on tools, measuring cups etc etc Your whole country would have to be overhauled lol But then again, we did it here, but our population is 1/4 of yours so the uproar wouldn't have been so loud.
It's already happening/has happened for a lot of manufacturers.
The big deal would be getting the general population to learn a new rule of measurement (uncle Charlie has been measuring carpet by the foot for 30 years and isn't likely to stop).
Of course, that's all second to the fact that American football is played on a 100 yard field and good luck changing it to 100 meters.
I agree with this. I would venture to say that SI is pretty standard for manufacturers, at least those in high-tech industries. I work in medical device manufacturing and all of our official work is in SI.
We still use legacy units where we must - 1/4" bolts, for example, or pressure gauges in psi - but even there we are slowly using more and more parts in metric. And where we have to use imperial parts we often still specify SI units: 25.4 mm instead of 1.00 inch, for example.
I would venture that most of the difficulty is transitioning to metric is just people's every day experience. Sure I'm familiar with cm and kg, but I weigh myself in pounds and calculate my car's fuel efficiency in miles per gallon. I could do those things in metric, but it requires some effort and there's no obvious reason why I should change.4 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »Meh, we stopped using the imperial system before i was born. Grams rule maaan
As an American, let me state for the record, i would love to go metric. So much easier.
I've heard it would be way too hard, because the manufactures having to change dimensions on tools, measuring cups etc etc Your whole country would have to be overhauled lol But then again, we did it here, but our population is 1/4 of yours so the uproar wouldn't have been so loud.
It's already happening/has happened for a lot of manufacturers.
The big deal would be getting the general population to learn a new rule of measurement (uncle Charlie has been measuring carpet by the foot for 30 years and isn't likely to stop).
Of course, that's all second to the fact that American football is played on a 100 yard field and good luck changing it to 100 meters.
I was young as we were transitioning. I use both, sometimes in the same sentence.
I've only known the metric system, and yet i use different measurements. I'm 5'8 and have never used cms for that, but i use cms to measure smaller things. I find feet easier to work with when i'm measuring distance, instead of metres.
I have no idea how to use or what miles, ounces, yards and gallons are. My conversion calculator gets quite the workout when reading this forum
1 -
I read through this thread eating a Cadbury milk chocolate bar with almonds.4
-
-
Christine_72 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »Meh, we stopped using the imperial system before i was born. Grams rule maaan
As an American, let me state for the record, i would love to go metric. So much easier.
I've heard it would be way too hard, because the manufactures having to change dimensions on tools, measuring cups etc etc Your whole country would have to be overhauled lol But then again, we did it here, but our population is 1/4 of yours so the uproar wouldn't have been so loud.
The real reason we aren't metric is, as you alluded, expense. We have flirted several times with adaption of metric as a nation, as early as the inception of our country (a proposal by none other than George Washington). In 1975 Congress passed a law to convert the nation, and President Ford signed it, but then the cost of oil went sky-high, and the federal enaction was suspended as part of the cost-saving measures in the ensuing years. It was quite unfortunate, aside from retaining Farenheit which is a far more descriptive temperature scale for biological organisms.
1 -
Christine_72 wrote: »I've only known the metric system, and yet i use different measurements. I'm 5'8 and have never used cms for that, but i use cms to measure smaller things. I find feet easier to work with when i'm measuring distance, instead of metres.
I have no idea how to use or what miles, ounces, yards and gallons are. My conversion calculator gets quite the workout when reading this forum
A mile is about 1.6 kilometers (A little over 1.5...)
An ounce is about 28 grams (I cheat and use 30 grams to convert sometimes. Easier math).
A yard is about 0.9 meters ( Just under 1:1 )
A gallon is about 3.8 liters (it's 4 quarts exactly, so a quart is slightly more than a liter).
Neither system is inherently better, but the base-10 math is easier to compute on the fly than base-12 (American/Imperial system).4 -
-
i usually have 50-100+ grams of sugar a day, but the thing is all that sugar comes from vegetables or fruits, as long as your sugar comes from those sources u are good and u can have as much as u want (as long as its in your macros ofc). added sugar conspiracy is stupid and should only be applied to drinking sodas and stuff. sugar intake fro healthy sources shouldnt even be mentioned2
-
Worthy of resurrecting a discussion:
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6377/747.full
The author claims that there was no sugar conspiracy.1 -
I guess I don't understand the comparisons. If the addiction and/or withdrawal isn't exactly like heroin, meth or crack then it doesn't exist? So, addiction to nicotine and caffeine cannot exist either because no one with a nicotine addiction, no matter how strong, has had to be put into a coma to get over withdrawal either. So, by this reasoning the only addictive substances on earth are as follows: heroin, crack, meth and possibly alcohol (although that has sugar so it's probably only a psychological addiction. )8
-
positivepowers wrote: »I guess I don't understand the comparisons. If the addiction and/or withdrawal isn't exactly like heroin, meth or crack then it doesn't exist? So, addiction to nicotine and caffeine cannot exist either because no one with a nicotine addiction, no matter how strong, has had to be put into a coma to get over withdrawal either. So, by this reasoning the only addictive substances on earth are as follows: heroin, crack, meth and possibly alcohol (although that has sugar so it's probably only a psychological addiction. )
Nicotine and caffeine are dependencies. If one has sugar addiction, they would have the same reaction to fruit as other sugary foods. Also the fact that your body runs on sugar, its hard to have a addiction that is important to life.5 -
positivepowers wrote: »I guess I don't understand the comparisons. If the addiction and/or withdrawal isn't exactly like heroin, meth or crack then it doesn't exist? So, addiction to nicotine and caffeine cannot exist either because no one with a nicotine addiction, no matter how strong, has had to be put into a coma to get over withdrawal either. So, by this reasoning the only addictive substances on earth are as follows: heroin, crack, meth and possibly alcohol (although that has sugar so it's probably only a psychological addiction. )
@positivepowers that is good logic. I have started reading Chasing the Scream that seems to indicate all addictions are only psychological in nature just like vision is psychological and not physical in nature.16 -
positivepowers wrote: »I guess I don't understand the comparisons. If the addiction and/or withdrawal isn't exactly like heroin, meth or crack then it doesn't exist? So, addiction to nicotine and caffeine cannot exist either because no one with a nicotine addiction, no matter how strong, has had to be put into a coma to get over withdrawal either. So, by this reasoning the only addictive substances on earth are as follows: heroin, crack, meth and possibly alcohol (although that has sugar so it's probably only a psychological addiction. )
Withdrawal doesn't exist without a physical dependency, and as psulemon said to your body any carbs = sugar and so it CAN'T be a physical dependency, as you aren't eliminating sugar when you cut back (or cut out) added sugar. There flat out is not any physical withdrawal here.
Might it be some sort of psychological thing that's akin to an addiction? Sure, maybe, but then it's more likely "highly palatable foods" and not sugar -- and the research seems to suggest that an "eating addiction" is more likely a better way to characterize it than "food addiction" (or specific kind of food addiction).
I also think equating the kind of serious ED that could be characterized as an eating addiction with "jeez, I have trouble not overdoing it when I eat tasty foods" is wrong.
But the reason we always get into the crack/meth/heroin comparisons is that invariably someone claims that "sugar addiction" (usually in the "I have trouble moderating" sense) is just the same (or worse than) those things, which is IMO absurd.11 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »positivepowers wrote: »I guess I don't understand the comparisons. If the addiction and/or withdrawal isn't exactly like heroin, meth or crack then it doesn't exist? So, addiction to nicotine and caffeine cannot exist either because no one with a nicotine addiction, no matter how strong, has had to be put into a coma to get over withdrawal either. So, by this reasoning the only addictive substances on earth are as follows: heroin, crack, meth and possibly alcohol (although that has sugar so it's probably only a psychological addiction. )
@positivepowers that is good logic. I have started reading Chasing the Scream that seems to indicate all addictions are only psychological in nature just like vision is psychological and not physical in nature.
Neurological, psychological
Tomato, tomahto4 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »positivepowers wrote: »I guess I don't understand the comparisons. If the addiction and/or withdrawal isn't exactly like heroin, meth or crack then it doesn't exist? So, addiction to nicotine and caffeine cannot exist either because no one with a nicotine addiction, no matter how strong, has had to be put into a coma to get over withdrawal either. So, by this reasoning the only addictive substances on earth are as follows: heroin, crack, meth and possibly alcohol (although that has sugar so it's probably only a psychological addiction. )
Withdrawal doesn't exist without a physical dependency, and as psulemon said to your body any carbs = sugar and so it CAN'T be a physical dependency, as you aren't eliminating sugar when you cut back (or cut out) added sugar. There flat out is not any physical withdrawal here.
Might it be some sort of psychological thing that's akin to an addiction? Sure, maybe, but then it's more likely "highly palatable foods" and not sugar -- and the research seems to suggest that an "eating addiction" is more likely a better way to characterize it than "food addiction" (or specific kind of food addiction).
I also think equating the kind of serious ED that could be characterized as an eating addiction with "jeez, I have trouble not overdoing it when I eat tasty foods" is wrong.
But the reason we always get into the crack/meth/heroin comparisons is that invariably someone claims that "sugar addiction" (usually in the "I have trouble moderating" sense) is just the same (or worse than) those things, which is IMO absurd.
By that reasoning, nicotine addiction is truly an addiction because we have receptors in our bodies called nicotinic receptors. They respond to acetycholine but physically respond to nicotine, which replaces the acetylcholine in the receptors (sorry, that's a little simplified for time and space.) And yet, withdrawal from them (physical withdrawal) does not create the kind of havoc on our systems as does withdrawal from heroin. By some posters' reckonings, then, nicotine withdrawal is not true withdrawal because, as far as I know, no one has had to be put into a coma to survive the withdrawal symptoms. Because, as we all now know, if it ain't life threatening, it ain't an addiction. To which I have to say - bull snot.9 -
But...but every cell in our body is primed to accept sugar, and swiftly die without the sugar. It's not withdrawal, it's death. The glucagon we use for energy however, is not a pseudo-replacement for what we really need.5
-
I haven't read that anyone here is saying sugar addiction "is just the same as" heroin addiction. Why acuse people of this?6
-
positivepowers wrote: »I guess I don't understand the comparisons. If the addiction and/or withdrawal isn't exactly like heroin, meth or crack then it doesn't exist?
I dont think anyone said that. There were posters who said sugar is just as addictive as heroine and cocaine, so other posters were arguing that is not true. And that sugar is not physically addictive. The thread is 2 years old though, but that's what I remember from a brief skim to refresh my memory.2 -
The first comparison to heroine is on page 10 (later than I'd expect in a thread like this) and the first comparison to cocaine on page 13, both from May 2016 if anyone was curious.4 -
Yes, and it's extremely common in all of these threads.4 -
positivepowers wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »positivepowers wrote: »I guess I don't understand the comparisons. If the addiction and/or withdrawal isn't exactly like heroin, meth or crack then it doesn't exist? So, addiction to nicotine and caffeine cannot exist either because no one with a nicotine addiction, no matter how strong, has had to be put into a coma to get over withdrawal either. So, by this reasoning the only addictive substances on earth are as follows: heroin, crack, meth and possibly alcohol (although that has sugar so it's probably only a psychological addiction. )
Withdrawal doesn't exist without a physical dependency, and as psulemon said to your body any carbs = sugar and so it CAN'T be a physical dependency, as you aren't eliminating sugar when you cut back (or cut out) added sugar. There flat out is not any physical withdrawal here.
Might it be some sort of psychological thing that's akin to an addiction? Sure, maybe, but then it's more likely "highly palatable foods" and not sugar -- and the research seems to suggest that an "eating addiction" is more likely a better way to characterize it than "food addiction" (or specific kind of food addiction).
I also think equating the kind of serious ED that could be characterized as an eating addiction with "jeez, I have trouble not overdoing it when I eat tasty foods" is wrong.
But the reason we always get into the crack/meth/heroin comparisons is that invariably someone claims that "sugar addiction" (usually in the "I have trouble moderating" sense) is just the same (or worse than) those things, which is IMO absurd.
By that reasoning, nicotine addiction is truly an addiction because we have receptors in our bodies called nicotinic receptors. They respond to acetycholine but physically respond to nicotine, which replaces the acetylcholine in the receptors (sorry, that's a little simplified for time and space.) And yet, withdrawal from them (physical withdrawal) does not create the kind of havoc on our systems as does withdrawal from heroin.
And unlike with sugar, you don't have people claiming that cigarette addiction is exactly like or worse than heroin addiction.
That said, I'm not quite sure what your point is, because OBVIOUSLY nicotine creates an actual dependency and results in actual withdrawal (not all withdrawal is the same, true).
The point with sugar is not that the physical dependency/withdrawal isn't as bad, it's that is cannot exist at all -- when you cut out added sugar you are not depriving your body of sugar, first, and, second, your body does not become dependent on sugar similar to nicotine -- it naturally runs on glucose.
I don't think "addiction" is solely about physical dependence or withdrawal (or requires any physical dependency), but when people claim sugar addiction is just like cocaine or heroin or results in a physical withdrawal, that's simply false and shows they are not approaching the topic honestly (or at least not with any understanding).
And I do think it's offensive when someone claims that struggling with moderating cookies (which, btw, have more fat than sugar normally) is basically the same as heroin addiction -- and "sugar is just like cocaine or heroin" is very commonly said in these threads -- I think it is that precise claim that usually throws them off topic.
Also there is a significant difference between physical dependency (which need not involve addiction, although with heroin it will be both) and addiction, which is usually defined as something quite serious (which you seem to be dismissive of, but I think that's fundamental to addiction, it basically takes over the life and chokes away normal attachments and pleasures).0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions