Getting off the sweets split

Sugar is not addictive. Some people have trouble moderating it and if you feel you cannot have it at all and that works for you then fine. But many people can moderate it. For me reducing the amounts of sweets (but not restricting the altogether) works. I lost ~80 pounds by just limiting my calorie intake. I eat desserts every day. And I don't crave desserts either. But often my dessert is fruit. Sometimes it is candy, cake or ice cream. You have to do what works best for you. But you can lose weight incorporating sweets into your diet. You just have to decide if you are happier eating a small amount of a higher calorie food, or cutting it out completely.

33gail33 wrote: »

kgirlhart wrote: »

Sugar is not addictive.

The British Medical Journal disagrees with you.

I can moderate my alcohol use. That doesn't mean alcohol isn't addictive.

Review
Sugar addiction: is it real? A narrative review
James J DiNicolantonio1, James H O’Keefe1, William L Wilson2
Author affiliations


Abstract
In animal studies, sugar has been found to produce more symptoms than is required to be considered an addictive substance. Animal data has shown significant overlap between the consumption of added sugars and drug-like effects, including bingeing, craving, tolerance, withdrawal, cross-sensitisation, cross-tolerance, cross-dependence, reward and opioid effects. Sugar addiction seems to be dependence to the natural endogenous opioids that get released upon sugar intake. In both animals and humans, the evidence in the literature shows substantial parallels and overlap between drugs of abuse and sugar, from the standpoint of brain neurochemistry as well as behaviour.


http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2017-097971

And absolutely zero of those effects have ever carried over from rat studies to humans.

ccrdragon wrote: »

33gail33 wrote: »

kgirlhart wrote: »

Sugar is not addictive.

The British Medical Journal disagrees with you.

I can moderate my alcohol use. That doesn't mean alcohol isn't addictive.

Review
Sugar addiction: is it real? A narrative review
James J DiNicolantonio1, James H O’Keefe1, William L Wilson2
Author affiliations


Abstract
In animal studies, sugar has been found to produce more symptoms than is required to be considered an addictive substance. Animal data has shown significant overlap between the consumption of added sugars and drug-like effects, including bingeing, craving, tolerance, withdrawal, cross-sensitisation, cross-tolerance, cross-dependence, reward and opioid effects. Sugar addiction seems to be dependence to the natural endogenous opioids that get released upon sugar intake. In both animals and humans, the evidence in the literature shows substantial parallels and overlap between drugs of abuse and sugar, from the standpoint of brain neurochemistry as well as behaviour.


http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2017-097971

And absolutely zero of those effects have ever carried over from rat studies to humans.

Yes I know. My point was not to prove that sugar IS addictive. My point was that the science on it is not yet settled, and there is disagreement even in the scientific community about it. The evidence at this point points more towards a psychological addiction than physical.

So coming to a public forum and declaring that "sugar is not addictive" is a bit bold no?

I think even the most sceptical among us would agree that the question is not settled enough to make that declaration.

(Edit: How is posting abstract from a respected peer reviewed journal getting me woo'd? I honestly don't understand you people.)

33gail33 wrote: »

ccrdragon wrote: »

33gail33 wrote: »

kgirlhart wrote: »

Sugar is not addictive.

The British Medical Journal disagrees with you.

I can moderate my alcohol use. That doesn't mean alcohol isn't addictive.

Review
Sugar addiction: is it real? A narrative review
James J DiNicolantonio1, James H O’Keefe1, William L Wilson2
Author affiliations


Abstract
In animal studies, sugar has been found to produce more symptoms than is required to be considered an addictive substance. Animal data has shown significant overlap between the consumption of added sugars and drug-like effects, including bingeing, craving, tolerance, withdrawal, cross-sensitisation, cross-tolerance, cross-dependence, reward and opioid effects. Sugar addiction seems to be dependence to the natural endogenous opioids that get released upon sugar intake. In both animals and humans, the evidence in the literature shows substantial parallels and overlap between drugs of abuse and sugar, from the standpoint of brain neurochemistry as well as behaviour.


http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2017-097971

And absolutely zero of those effects have ever carried over from rat studies to humans.

Yes I know. My point was not to prove that sugar IS addictive. My point was that the science on it is not yet settled, and there is disagreement even in the scientific community about it. The evidence at this point points more towards a psychological addiction than physical.

So coming to a public forum and declaring that "sugar is not addictive" is a bit bold no?

I think even the most sceptical among us would agree that the question is not settled enough to make that declaration.

(Edit: How is posting abstract from a respected peer reviewed journal getting me woo'd? I honestly don't understand you people.)

I didn't "woo" you, but it could be because you're using a single review of animal studies from a sub-publication of the BMJ to make the claim that the BMJ, as a whole, has decided that sugar is addictive.

janejellyroll wrote: »

33gail33 wrote: »

ccrdragon wrote: »

33gail33 wrote: »

kgirlhart wrote: »

Sugar is not addictive.

The British Medical Journal disagrees with you.

I can moderate my alcohol use. That doesn't mean alcohol isn't addictive.

Review
Sugar addiction: is it real? A narrative review
James J DiNicolantonio1, James H O’Keefe1, William L Wilson2
Author affiliations


Abstract
In animal studies, sugar has been found to produce more symptoms than is required to be considered an addictive substance. Animal data has shown significant overlap between the consumption of added sugars and drug-like effects, including bingeing, craving, tolerance, withdrawal, cross-sensitisation, cross-tolerance, cross-dependence, reward and opioid effects. Sugar addiction seems to be dependence to the natural endogenous opioids that get released upon sugar intake. In both animals and humans, the evidence in the literature shows substantial parallels and overlap between drugs of abuse and sugar, from the standpoint of brain neurochemistry as well as behaviour.


http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2017-097971

And absolutely zero of those effects have ever carried over from rat studies to humans.

Yes I know. My point was not to prove that sugar IS addictive. My point was that the science on it is not yet settled, and there is disagreement even in the scientific community about it. The evidence at this point points more towards a psychological addiction than physical.

So coming to a public forum and declaring that "sugar is not addictive" is a bit bold no?

I think even the most sceptical among us would agree that the question is not settled enough to make that declaration.

(Edit: How is posting abstract from a respected peer reviewed journal getting me woo'd? I honestly don't understand you people.)

I didn't "woo" you, but it could be because you're using a single review of animal studies from a sub-publication of the BMJ to make the claim that the BMJ, as a whole, has decided that sugar is addictive.

Not sure if what I am saying here makes sense or not. I think the reason so many people are convinced that Sugar is addictive is because of all of the hype. Look it up anywhere on the internet and you will get a bunch of hits back saying it is addictive, and sugar cravings are real, and people need to go through detox to get clean. And here I have just the cure, and of course they are selling the cure. And often there are links taking you to this study or that study. I just looked at one done out of California but only 20 people for two weeks. Um hello that is not a study I am going to seriously believe tells me anything of value. See if they can say an addiction it makes it somewhat not totally their fault. Me I know it was my fault, and I decided how I was going to deal with less sweets as a whole.

One last note to add on the sugar addiction discussion: people use hyperbole or figures of speech to help describe what they are experiencing. I don't claim to have first-hand experience with any sort of recognized addiction, but I have seen its effects on my family. Anecdotal evidence suggests that sugar "feels" like an addiction even to those who have experienced other types of addictions.

Because something is not your experience doesn't make it untrue for other folks. I don't claim to have as much of an "addiction" to sugar like I used to, but it definitely makes me feel a certain way when other people who don't seem to understand what my struggle is just write off my experience altogether

I understand that folks are seeking to address the root problem, which may or may not be sugar itself, but that doesn't look the same for everyone. Along the same line, I realize that without being addicted to other substances, it might look like calling sugar an addictive substance might be "cheapening" abuse issues for those struggling with other substances.

What I'm trying to say here is let's remember that every single one of us has a battle that the other has no idea about. Let's try support first and foremost and let the semantics/technical discussion play a very small role in what we are trying to achieve, which is support for our fellow MFPers.

I thought I was “addicted” to sugar, I eat dessert after every meal (sometimes just a small piece of chocolate or cookie, but you can bet it’s usually something), I experimented and cut it out cold turkey for a month and experienced no with draw symptoms lol. It wasn’t hard, but it wasn’t worth it either to me. I love my sweets. So did my great grammy and she lived to almost 100 years old. I enjoy them and im considered healthy so I don’t see a need to cut them out. Unless you just can’t control yourself just fit them into your everyday calorie allowance. I will note they make it difficult for me to meet my macro goals (protein), so that’s always something to consider...

callmecarina wrote: »

I see that there are two camps here: one that states that sugar is an addiction and the best way to deal with it is to quit cold turkey. The other states that sugar is not addictive and you should be able to control the urges if you deal with it as you would any other food: in moderation.

I think both have merits for the two types of people out there. It's really a matter of "choose what works best for you." I'd love to see both strategies being discussed here, and both strategies encouraged when someone decides whatever is best for them. Hugs to you all.

My sugar cravings come the worst at night right before sleep, and right before my cycle. I have read that carbs will do the trick for menstrual/hormonal cravings and my go-to snack is whole wheat flax toast from TJ's and some jam. It does WONDERS for those cravings.

I agree that it would be nice if we could find a way to support each other, wherever we happen to be in the process right now, without getting deep into terminological side trips.

Still, I think this "two kinds of people" idea is a bit of an oversimplification. Many of us have difficulty moderating something, but it isn't always sugar. (For example, I have difficulty moderating Doritos Taco chips (the old school ones), and one kind of potato chips (specifically Kroger Private Selections Gouda/Roasted Garlic). Quite a few people who are "addicted to sugar" turn out to actually be "addicted" to certain specific foods or food categories, often foods that combine sugar, fats, and other forms of evolution-fostered tastiness, never to simply sit and eat table sugar by the spoonful. (I've occasionally seen people say they will just eat sugar, but that doesn't seem to be the common case.)

Consuming any foods we deeply enjoy will make the pleasure centers in our brains light up, in exactly the way that some of the blogosphere says indicates sugar is adctive. I get the "addiction as metaphor" explanation, but I have trouble taking it literally. As others have said, I see that specific example all the time in blogs and magazines, and rarely other foods that may be difficult to moderate. A good share of the time, someone is trying to sell something (books, diet plans, supplements, etc.).

Also, I agree with those who say that at least some people use it as an excuse for not taking responsibility but rather being powerless. How one defines herself, even in her head, is really important in changing behavior.

Talking about being "addicted" to sugar in a metaphorical sense, on a site like MFP, is going to attract some who dispute the idea, if only because unpacking that metaphor is part of figuring out what the practical solutions are. Both extremes do tend to take the terminology argument alone and run with it, sometimes, though.

I get that some people are more inclined to succeed as moderators, others by eliminating problem foods. That's a legit part of how to talk about this, and support people.

I missed the first part of this discussion, so may be missing some of the context, but will give my longwinded response anyway.

I will say that I do not consider sugar addictive, but I don't really care if others use the term (although I think it's often in a casual, or even sloppy, way). I also don't mind if people say they are addicted to shoes or pizza, meaning it jokingly and with no plan to change their behavior.

What I do notice is that often people are reacting to OTHERS telling them they are addicted and so must follow a program, which often is intended to make them follow a particular diet or even pay money (the Brightlines woman does this, and her program -- which seems to be basically follow these bright line rules about what never to eat and when never to eat -- costs a crazy amount, and others are similar). I find this problematic.

I also think that the purpose of calling it "addictive" is to say that you should or can never eat it again, and that idea is counterproductive for many. I do better never snacking and limiting certain foods (including sweets, although I often have a little something immediately after dinner), and yet that doesn't mean that snacks are addictive for me, even though I really feel like when I get in the habit of snacking regularly it becomes uncontrollable for me. Many people who say they are "addicted" to sweets decide they can never eat something and then when they do the day or week is ruined and they will stop again on Monday, but in the meantime they will eat and eat and eat and then feel guilty for having binged and end up in a cycle that actually makes them feel MORE out of control. Others find it easier to abstain from certain foods, but I think focusing on the effect of eating the food or why you would want to eliminate it, find it easier, is probably better than blaming the ingredients.

Related to that -- and since this thread is about semantics -- my #1 objection to the "sugar addiction" thing is that for the VAST majority of people who claim addiction, they don't have that issue with straight sugar or with very sugary fruits (i.e., pineapple or dates), but usually with extra tasty foods made with sugar and other ingredients, like butter, cinnamon, etc. There is a current trend that says "carbs" and specifically "artificial sugar" (which your body does not see as different than other sugars," and so when you eat something and have a hard time not continuing to eat, people tend to just blame the sugar, without thinking, when it's more likely a reaction to historical memories of a specific food item or a taste preference or just palatability. Some people have a huge sweet tooth, whereas others of us may find the choice between a cookie and some Indian curry or, say, some cheese (best dessert ever!) super easy, and never go for the sugar, but that doesn't mean we don't have the same difficulties in controlling intake.

That all aside, I think there are similarities and differences between what I'd call a true addiction (where I'd put my personal and family issues with alcohol, for example) and the issues I have with food, but they are related in some ways and on a continuum, and it has nothing to do with physical or not, because the hard part of quitting drinking wasn't physical addiction. If that were the case people on drugs would be free and clear when the withdrawal was over, and that's not so. For me, a true addition basically means the substance becomes the center of your life, such that you'd sacrifice everything else to it, and will always put it first, to the point of sacrificing the kind of person you think you should be, values, morals, etc. It also messes with your mind to the point of you doing things you don't know you are doing, you actually can blot yourself out. My dad on his dad (some time after my own dad stopped drinking): "I knew he loved me, but I knew he loved the booze more." I don't think that means the struggle with alcohol is more noble, I think drunks (including myself back in the day) are typically a word I cannot say on MFP, but I seriously doubt that people struggling with overeating cookies are really going to choose those over loved ones or a job or basic values.

I think there are lots of ways people (maybe especially people prone to addictive behavior) use other things to stuff feelings or self sooth, and eating is up there. I know when I quit drinking I pretty openly used food in that way, because it made it easier to not drink and did not have any of the negative effects really except for being fat (and eventually feeling out of control messed with mood). I could overeat and not think it prevented me from being an authentic, honest, basically good person who could live by my values and be a good friend and family member. So I think it is different.

That said, I don't care (as I said) if people use the term, and I think there is a relationship and a small percentage of people can be truly addicted to food/eating in the way I described "true addiction", for example the My 600 Lb Life types -- that to me seems really similar in many cases. But it's not just sugar or my very favorite cookies or whatnot then.

So to the extent I argue about sugar addiction, it's just about the fact that I don't think there's any evidence that it's the sugar that most people are reacting to vs. "palatable foods" or "foods I particularly have trouble controlling." (I will note that I'm sure there are people who just love sugar in all forms and for whom it is the sugar, but if the issue is brownies and ice cream and you don't overeat the sugar in the bowl, I think it's palatable foods, and would note that usually we are talking about the fat/sugar combo.)