The Sugar Conspiracy

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.

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.

I haven't read that anyone here is saying sugar addiction "is just the same as" heroin addiction. Why acuse people of this?

lemurcat12 wrote: »

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).

Actually, that's my point. Just because an addiction does not mimic heroin, or crack, or meth exactly, doesn't mean it's not an addiction. I don't remember anyone on here stating their sugar withdrawals are anywhere near the intensity of a heroin withdrawal, but there are some on this thread that have said because someone withdrawing from sugar does not require a medical coma - they can't have an addiction. I simply pointed out that physical addiction withdrawals come in different intensities. Those physically withdrawing from nicotine do not have to be put into a medical coma, either - but no one denies they were physically addicted. I pointed out that nicotine is a substance used by our bodies on a regular basis (nicotinic receptors) just like sugar, and, yes, physical addiction to nicotine is a medically accepted idea.

I can attest to body aches and having very disordered thinking and low energy when I cut out added, processed sugar (possibly the T2DM, possibly a physical withdrawal, possibly behavioral dependence.) I do know that there is some evidence that binging can lead to the same "high" that people get with cocaine - the evidence is the CT scans done of the brain when in that state. Most binge eaters prefer sweet, high fat foods:
https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/30234/0000628.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4613-1221-5_5
https://academic.oup.com/abm/article/9/4/23/4617068
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3144277/
http://www.foodaddictionsummit.org/docs/11Noble.pdf

This just leads me to believe that we need more research.

As I've stated many times: None of this is an excuse to eat bags of sugar or dozens of donuts or gallons of ice cream at a time. In fact, anyone feeling like they have an addiction to pure sugar would be best served to a) get support from an actual support community (you won't find it here on MFP); b) cut out or cut down on the added sugar to see if that helps; c) figure out why you needed all of the added sugar in the first place and work on that problem in tandem with cutting down/out added sugar.