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.
Sugar Addiction Debate
Options
Replies
-
/qsnowflake954 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »sollyn23l2 wrote: »People use language to convey their experience. If I say "I really enjoy food", you'll have one understanding of what that means. If I say "I'm addicted to food" then you have a different, perhap more accurate, understanding of my experience. Using the term addicted generally intimates that the individual is unable to moderate their use of that particular thing. And yes, being addicted to sugar is a very real experience. And nobody should deny the op her experience. If she feels addicted to sugar, then she feels addicted to sugar. All of your guy's semantics are useless and devaluing the op's experience, whether you like what she said or not.
I can never understand this problem. You'd think people would be overjoyed to learn that they are not "addicted" to something. The thing I've always liked about MFP is that it has the courage to correct misinformation.
Well, I'm sure as the word gets out to all the people that feel addicted and now find out they aren't, and it's all in their heads, they'll be very grateful. lol Cheers
Ha! Talking about sugar, to be clear. You have to admit there is a certain drama to "I am addicted to sugar" rather than "I tend to overeat sweets".
Well, if those 2 statements are the only 2 realities, then yes, what remains would be "certain drama". The 1st reality is a person feels hopelessly a slave to a sweet taste while the second reality would dictate that they could take it or leave it.
Here's another reality. When we consume sugar it travels down the limbic system to our brain which also controls neurochemical messaging but also has an effect on our behavior and when someone has a problem with sugar, brain scans show that the same pathways that cocaine and other drugs use and produce similar events, and studies show that sugar not only can replace the "hit" people get from drugs but that it even has a greater initial "hit" effect.
Basically it's a nuanced conversation that normally gets squashed with the conventional bias or beliefs because sugar isn't a substance that in the strictest definition, is not addicting.
OK. Because I always respect your posts, what do you think should be done differently with someone who has a sugar addiction verses someone who tends to overeat and is very over weight and needs to lose?
How would the approach differ? Can a sugar addiction be cured? Or, is it abstinence forever?
Well, first off, I have my own biases so I will, as I generally do, try and keep that out of this conversation, but suspect some of that will creep in.
The problem with overeating and obesity is, it's multifaceted so there isn't a blanket recommendation that will fit all circumstances, and some may have nothing to do with sugar "addiction". But sugar does loom large in this demographic, no doubt about it.
The road I've lately been going down thinking about this is to try and find a root cause as opposed to trying to find ways to finger *kitten* it and tell people to take responsibility to eat less and move more, because as we know, that been a total failure and actually the numbers only go higher.
Without getting into the weeds and sighting literature I believe if we focused more on our fasting insulin sensitivity as opposed to blood sugar that medical advice would have been more focused at a much earlier age, at childhood for example as opposed to 2, 3 or 4 decades later where insulin resistance started to steadily increase and with dietary habits well entrenched by then which makes it very difficult for change and generally evolving into diabetes and of course diabetes is prevelant in the obese population along with many other health issues.
If we took fasting insulin levels from the get go it would have become very clear that higher levels of insulin in the blood were the result from the consumption of a diet with a higher percentage coming from ultra processed and to a lesser degree processed foods. Basically, a chronically elevated level of insulin ensures blood sugars are kept low but over time the pancreas just can't continue to pump out insulin at that elevated rate indefinitely. What happens is blood sugars creep up because insulin can't keep up. Basically the Y asis of blood sugar that held steady for many years starts to go up while the X axis of insulin begins to go down and worst case scenario is people with diabetes are given insulin injections after yrs on metformin because of this simple fact so yeah, finding the root cause is paramount imo.
Anyway sugar lol. I think we all have a pretty good idea that consuming large amounts, which the US population does of ultra and processed foods that it's not good for our health. Anyway the early fasting insulin blood testing would have put these foods directly at the bullseye and possibly the advice to remove and go to a more whole food diet when we were still kids might have changed to some degree what people eat, or at least I'm believing that would have had some influence. Would this have affected how many people have a problem with sugar now, I'm betting it would have. Kinda late though.
Saying all that, a more of a whole food diet and a low carb diet for people that have a sugar "addiction" would be my recommendations. Keep in mind that people that have no problem managing their energy balance and are of normal weight this hypothesis is not applicable, even though I would suggest getting fasting insulin testing going forward. Losing weight and being close to a normal BMI with a regularly monitored normal energy balance is a good place to be, obviously.
See I didn't get into too many weeds lol. Cheers
3 -
"Feeling" addicted isn't the same as "physically" relying on a substance. Sorry, but I deal with this with many clients and yes I deny them this out. Because it's NOT addictive. When people get into that mindset, then they believe they have no chance to have sugar at all. Like I stated, you CAN'T moderate an addiction. You quit it altogether or you'll be stuck on whatever substance you're addicted to. People "addicted" to sugar won't steal from family, rob people, do "side jobs" to just get money to attain it, nor lick or scoop sugar off the ground, drink mouthwash, etc. That's devaluing people who truly are addicted to substances. So I emphatically believe it's not semantics but the correct use of the word. Hyper palability is the correct phrase to use. And since this is a public forum, whether you want to agree or not, I believe it's right to make sure people know the correct definition. Don't believe me? How many people end up in a rehab clinic for "sugar addiction"?sollyn23l2 wrote: »People use language to convey their experience. If I say "I really enjoy food", you'll have one understanding of what that means. If I say "I'm addicted to food" then you have a different, perhap more accurate, understanding of my experience. Using the term addicted generally intimates that the individual is unable to moderate their use of that particular thing. And yes, being addicted to sugar is a very real experience. And nobody should deny the op her experience. If she feels addicted to sugar, then she feels addicted to sugar. All of your guy's semantics are useless and devaluing the op's experience, whether you like what she said or not.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Re: the first bolded, would you disagree that people can become addicted to gambling?
Re: the second bolded, would you argue that "functional alcoholics" are not addicts?
Re: the third bolded, I'm going to replace "sugar addiction" with "food addiction" and ask if you have ever watched My 600 Pound Life.5 -
neanderthin wrote: »/qsnowflake954 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »sollyn23l2 wrote: »People use language to convey their experience. If I say "I really enjoy food", you'll have one understanding of what that means. If I say "I'm addicted to food" then you have a different, perhap more accurate, understanding of my experience. Using the term addicted generally intimates that the individual is unable to moderate their use of that particular thing. And yes, being addicted to sugar is a very real experience. And nobody should deny the op her experience. If she feels addicted to sugar, then she feels addicted to sugar. All of your guy's semantics are useless and devaluing the op's experience, whether you like what she said or not.
I can never understand this problem. You'd think people would be overjoyed to learn that they are not "addicted" to something. The thing I've always liked about MFP is that it has the courage to correct misinformation.
Well, I'm sure as the word gets out to all the people that feel addicted and now find out they aren't, and it's all in their heads, they'll be very grateful. lol Cheers
Ha! Talking about sugar, to be clear. You have to admit there is a certain drama to "I am addicted to sugar" rather than "I tend to overeat sweets".
Well, if those 2 statements are the only 2 realities, then yes, what remains would be "certain drama". The 1st reality is a person feels hopelessly a slave to a sweet taste while the second reality would dictate that they could take it or leave it.
Here's another reality. When we consume sugar it travels down the limbic system to our brain which also controls neurochemical messaging but also has an effect on our behavior and when someone has a problem with sugar, brain scans show that the same pathways that cocaine and other drugs use and produce similar events, and studies show that sugar not only can replace the "hit" people get from drugs but that it even has a greater initial "hit" effect.
Basically it's a nuanced conversation that normally gets squashed with the conventional bias or beliefs because sugar isn't a substance that in the strictest definition, is not addicting.
OK. Because I always respect your posts, what do you think should be done differently with someone who has a sugar addiction verses someone who tends to overeat and is very over weight and needs to lose?
How would the approach differ? Can a sugar addiction be cured? Or, is it abstinence forever?
Well, first off, I have my own biases so I will, as I generally do, try and keep that out of this conversation, but suspect some of that will creep in.
The problem with overeating and obesity is, it's multifaceted so there isn't a blanket recommendation that will fit all circumstances, and some may have nothing to do with sugar "addiction". But sugar does loom large in this demographic, no doubt about it.
The road I've lately been going down thinking about this is to try and find a root cause as opposed to trying to find ways to finger *kitten* it and tell people to take responsibility to eat less and move more, because as we know, that been a total failure and actually the numbers only go higher.
Without getting into the weeds and sighting literature I believe if we focused more on our fasting insulin sensitivity as opposed to blood sugar that medical advice would have been more focused at a much earlier age, at childhood for example as opposed to 2, 3 or 4 decades later where insulin resistance started to steadily increase and with dietary habits well entrenched by then which makes it very difficult for change and generally evolving into diabetes and of course diabetes is prevelant in the obese population along with many other health issues.
If we took fasting insulin levels from the get go it would have become very clear that higher levels of insulin in the blood were the result from the consumption of a diet with a higher percentage coming from ultra processed and to a lesser degree processed foods. Basically, a chronically elevated level of insulin ensures blood sugars are kept low but over time the pancreas just can't continue to pump out insulin at that elevated rate indefinitely. What happens is blood sugars creep up because insulin can't keep up. Basically the Y asis of blood sugar that held steady for many years starts to go up while the X axis of insulin begins to go down and worst case scenario is people with diabetes are given insulin injections after yrs on metformin because of this simple fact so yeah, finding the root cause is paramount imo.
Anyway sugar lol. I think we all have a pretty good idea that consuming large amounts, which the US population does of ultra and processed foods that it's not good for our health. Anyway the early fasting insulin blood testing would have put these foods directly at the bullseye and possibly the advice to remove and go to a more whole food diet when we were still kids might have changed to some degree what people eat, or at least I'm believing that would have had some influence. Would this have affected how many people have a problem with sugar now, I'm betting it would have. Kinda late though.
Saying all that, a more of a whole food diet and a low carb diet for people that have a sugar "addiction" would be my recommendations. Keep in mind that people that have no problem managing their energy balance and are of normal weight this hypothesis is not applicable, even though I would suggest getting fasting insulin testing going forward. Losing weight and being close to a normal BMI with a regularly monitored normal energy balance is a good place to be, obviously.
See I didn't get into too many weeds lol. Cheers
Anyway--back to my question. A whole food, low carb diet would be your recommendation for a "sugar addict" to lose weight. But then what recommendation would you give a very over weight person, who is not addicted to sugar, and needs to lose? Would your approach be different and why?
This is never addressed in the debates on sugar addiction.0 -
snowflake954 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »/qsnowflake954 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »sollyn23l2 wrote: »People use language to convey their experience. If I say "I really enjoy food", you'll have one understanding of what that means. If I say "I'm addicted to food" then you have a different, perhap more accurate, understanding of my experience. Using the term addicted generally intimates that the individual is unable to moderate their use of that particular thing. And yes, being addicted to sugar is a very real experience. And nobody should deny the op her experience. If she feels addicted to sugar, then she feels addicted to sugar. All of your guy's semantics are useless and devaluing the op's experience, whether you like what she said or not.
I can never understand this problem. You'd think people would be overjoyed to learn that they are not "addicted" to something. The thing I've always liked about MFP is that it has the courage to correct misinformation.
Well, I'm sure as the word gets out to all the people that feel addicted and now find out they aren't, and it's all in their heads, they'll be very grateful. lol Cheers
Ha! Talking about sugar, to be clear. You have to admit there is a certain drama to "I am addicted to sugar" rather than "I tend to overeat sweets".
Well, if those 2 statements are the only 2 realities, then yes, what remains would be "certain drama". The 1st reality is a person feels hopelessly a slave to a sweet taste while the second reality would dictate that they could take it or leave it.
Here's another reality. When we consume sugar it travels down the limbic system to our brain which also controls neurochemical messaging but also has an effect on our behavior and when someone has a problem with sugar, brain scans show that the same pathways that cocaine and other drugs use and produce similar events, and studies show that sugar not only can replace the "hit" people get from drugs but that it even has a greater initial "hit" effect.
Basically it's a nuanced conversation that normally gets squashed with the conventional bias or beliefs because sugar isn't a substance that in the strictest definition, is not addicting.
OK. Because I always respect your posts, what do you think should be done differently with someone who has a sugar addiction verses someone who tends to overeat and is very over weight and needs to lose?
How would the approach differ? Can a sugar addiction be cured? Or, is it abstinence forever?
Well, first off, I have my own biases so I will, as I generally do, try and keep that out of this conversation, but suspect some of that will creep in.
The problem with overeating and obesity is, it's multifaceted so there isn't a blanket recommendation that will fit all circumstances, and some may have nothing to do with sugar "addiction". But sugar does loom large in this demographic, no doubt about it.
The road I've lately been going down thinking about this is to try and find a root cause as opposed to trying to find ways to finger *kitten* it and tell people to take responsibility to eat less and move more, because as we know, that been a total failure and actually the numbers only go higher.
Without getting into the weeds and sighting literature I believe if we focused more on our fasting insulin sensitivity as opposed to blood sugar that medical advice would have been more focused at a much earlier age, at childhood for example as opposed to 2, 3 or 4 decades later where insulin resistance started to steadily increase and with dietary habits well entrenched by then which makes it very difficult for change and generally evolving into diabetes and of course diabetes is prevelant in the obese population along with many other health issues.
If we took fasting insulin levels from the get go it would have become very clear that higher levels of insulin in the blood were the result from the consumption of a diet with a higher percentage coming from ultra processed and to a lesser degree processed foods. Basically, a chronically elevated level of insulin ensures blood sugars are kept low but over time the pancreas just can't continue to pump out insulin at that elevated rate indefinitely. What happens is blood sugars creep up because insulin can't keep up. Basically the Y asis of blood sugar that held steady for many years starts to go up while the X axis of insulin begins to go down and worst case scenario is people with diabetes are given insulin injections after yrs on metformin because of this simple fact so yeah, finding the root cause is paramount imo.
Anyway sugar lol. I think we all have a pretty good idea that consuming large amounts, which the US population does of ultra and processed foods that it's not good for our health. Anyway the early fasting insulin blood testing would have put these foods directly at the bullseye and possibly the advice to remove and go to a more whole food diet when we were still kids might have changed to some degree what people eat, or at least I'm believing that would have had some influence. Would this have affected how many people have a problem with sugar now, I'm betting it would have. Kinda late though.
Saying all that, a more of a whole food diet and a low carb diet for people that have a sugar "addiction" would be my recommendations. Keep in mind that people that have no problem managing their energy balance and are of normal weight this hypothesis is not applicable, even though I would suggest getting fasting insulin testing going forward. Losing weight and being close to a normal BMI with a regularly monitored normal energy balance is a good place to be, obviously.
See I didn't get into too many weeds lol. Cheers
Anyway--back to my question. A whole food, low carb diet would be your recommendation for a "sugar addict" to lose weight. But then what recommendation would you give a very over weight person, who is not addicted to sugar, and needs to lose? Would your approach be different and why?
This is never addressed in the debates on sugar addiction.
Same recommendations. There is no magic and motivation is going to have to be paramount. Do people love to overeat to the point it affects every aspect of their lives including an early death, I can't answer that, but it looks like they do. Why is the mystery, and my above post kind of addresses it.
EDIT: My recommendations were for a whole food or a low carb, but low carb generally ends being a more whole food diet.0 -
Subjective point of view from me would be possibly. People get a rush from some physical things like holding a baby or petting a dog. But I don't those physical action become addictive or we'd have lawsuits all over the place with people who think they are addicted.kshama2001 wrote: »
"Feeling" addicted isn't the same as "physically" relying on a substance. Sorry, but I deal with this with many clients and yes I deny them this out. Because it's NOT addictive. When people get into that mindset, then they believe they have no chance to have sugar at all. Like I stated, you CAN'T moderate an addiction. You quit it altogether or you'll be stuck on whatever substance you're addicted to. People "addicted" to sugar won't steal from family, rob people, do "side jobs" to just get money to attain it, nor lick or scoop sugar off the ground, drink mouthwash, etc. That's devaluing people who truly are addicted to substances. So I emphatically believe it's not semantics but the correct use of the word. Hyper palability is the correct phrase to use. And since this is a public forum, whether you want to agree or not, I believe it's right to make sure people know the correct definition. Don't believe me? How many people end up in a rehab clinic for "sugar addiction"?sollyn23l2 wrote: »People use language to convey their experience. If I say "I really enjoy food", you'll have one understanding of what that means. If I say "I'm addicted to food" then you have a different, perhap more accurate, understanding of my experience. Using the term addicted generally intimates that the individual is unable to moderate their use of that particular thing. And yes, being addicted to sugar is a very real experience. And nobody should deny the op her experience. If she feels addicted to sugar, then she feels addicted to sugar. All of your guy's semantics are useless and devaluing the op's experience, whether you like what she said or not.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Re: the first bolded, would you disagree that people can become addicted to gambling?
They are addicts. Just because they can function while on it doesn't make them a non addict.Re: the second bolded, would you argue that "functional alcoholics" are not addicts?Re: the third bolded, I'm going to replace "sugar addiction" with "food addiction" and ask if you have ever watched My 600 Pound Life.
Yes and their eating is a disorder not really an addiction because you CAN'T stop eating if you want to live.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
Lol, try telling that to a competitive athlete. Having competed several times, the go to was keto for competition readiness. And any competitor will tell you that they are NO WHERE near energy output on keto when compared to carbing up.peggy_polenta wrote: »Glycogen is needed to energize muscles to work. Glycogen comes from glucose with comes mainly from the breaking down of sugars (carbs). It's natural to want sugar in the body because of how it fuels not only the body BUT THE BRAIN.
It's NOT AN ADDICTION. You don't moderate addiction and you need glucose to function properly. You don't moderate alcohol as an alcoholic, nor cocaine if you're a drug addict. The reason why people are so drawn to sugar is it's hyper palatable. Even animals are attracted to things that have sugar in them.
So just eat things that have sugar in them naturally like fruit. And don't be afraid to moderate eating things like candy or ice cream either but learn habitually how to limit how much you eat.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
you dont need carbohydrates to fuel or function properly. you can fuel on keytones perfectly fine and its a preferred source for brain function for certain medical cases. ie, epilepsy.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
2 -
neanderthin wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »/qsnowflake954 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »sollyn23l2 wrote: »People use language to convey their experience. If I say "I really enjoy food", you'll have one understanding of what that means. If I say "I'm addicted to food" then you have a different, perhap more accurate, understanding of my experience. Using the term addicted generally intimates that the individual is unable to moderate their use of that particular thing. And yes, being addicted to sugar is a very real experience. And nobody should deny the op her experience. If she feels addicted to sugar, then she feels addicted to sugar. All of your guy's semantics are useless and devaluing the op's experience, whether you like what she said or not.
I can never understand this problem. You'd think people would be overjoyed to learn that they are not "addicted" to something. The thing I've always liked about MFP is that it has the courage to correct misinformation.
Well, I'm sure as the word gets out to all the people that feel addicted and now find out they aren't, and it's all in their heads, they'll be very grateful. lol Cheers
Ha! Talking about sugar, to be clear. You have to admit there is a certain drama to "I am addicted to sugar" rather than "I tend to overeat sweets".
Well, if those 2 statements are the only 2 realities, then yes, what remains would be "certain drama". The 1st reality is a person feels hopelessly a slave to a sweet taste while the second reality would dictate that they could take it or leave it.
Here's another reality. When we consume sugar it travels down the limbic system to our brain which also controls neurochemical messaging but also has an effect on our behavior and when someone has a problem with sugar, brain scans show that the same pathways that cocaine and other drugs use and produce similar events, and studies show that sugar not only can replace the "hit" people get from drugs but that it even has a greater initial "hit" effect.
Basically it's a nuanced conversation that normally gets squashed with the conventional bias or beliefs because sugar isn't a substance that in the strictest definition, is not addicting.
OK. Because I always respect your posts, what do you think should be done differently with someone who has a sugar addiction verses someone who tends to overeat and is very over weight and needs to lose?
How would the approach differ? Can a sugar addiction be cured? Or, is it abstinence forever?
Well, first off, I have my own biases so I will, as I generally do, try and keep that out of this conversation, but suspect some of that will creep in.
The problem with overeating and obesity is, it's multifaceted so there isn't a blanket recommendation that will fit all circumstances, and some may have nothing to do with sugar "addiction". But sugar does loom large in this demographic, no doubt about it.
The road I've lately been going down thinking about this is to try and find a root cause as opposed to trying to find ways to finger *kitten* it and tell people to take responsibility to eat less and move more, because as we know, that been a total failure and actually the numbers only go higher.
Without getting into the weeds and sighting literature I believe if we focused more on our fasting insulin sensitivity as opposed to blood sugar that medical advice would have been more focused at a much earlier age, at childhood for example as opposed to 2, 3 or 4 decades later where insulin resistance started to steadily increase and with dietary habits well entrenched by then which makes it very difficult for change and generally evolving into diabetes and of course diabetes is prevelant in the obese population along with many other health issues.
If we took fasting insulin levels from the get go it would have become very clear that higher levels of insulin in the blood were the result from the consumption of a diet with a higher percentage coming from ultra processed and to a lesser degree processed foods. Basically, a chronically elevated level of insulin ensures blood sugars are kept low but over time the pancreas just can't continue to pump out insulin at that elevated rate indefinitely. What happens is blood sugars creep up because insulin can't keep up. Basically the Y asis of blood sugar that held steady for many years starts to go up while the X axis of insulin begins to go down and worst case scenario is people with diabetes are given insulin injections after yrs on metformin because of this simple fact so yeah, finding the root cause is paramount imo.
Anyway sugar lol. I think we all have a pretty good idea that consuming large amounts, which the US population does of ultra and processed foods that it's not good for our health. Anyway the early fasting insulin blood testing would have put these foods directly at the bullseye and possibly the advice to remove and go to a more whole food diet when we were still kids might have changed to some degree what people eat, or at least I'm believing that would have had some influence. Would this have affected how many people have a problem with sugar now, I'm betting it would have. Kinda late though.
Saying all that, a more of a whole food diet and a low carb diet for people that have a sugar "addiction" would be my recommendations. Keep in mind that people that have no problem managing their energy balance and are of normal weight this hypothesis is not applicable, even though I would suggest getting fasting insulin testing going forward. Losing weight and being close to a normal BMI with a regularly monitored normal energy balance is a good place to be, obviously.
See I didn't get into too many weeds lol. Cheers
Anyway--back to my question. A whole food, low carb diet would be your recommendation for a "sugar addict" to lose weight. But then what recommendation would you give a very over weight person, who is not addicted to sugar, and needs to lose? Would your approach be different and why?
This is never addressed in the debates on sugar addiction.
Same recommendations. There is no magic and motivation is going to have to be paramount. Do people love to overeat to the point it affects every aspect of their lives including an early death, I can't answer that, but it looks like they do. Why is the mystery, and my above post kind of addresses it.
Well, I would think that addiction would be handled in a different way since it's overwhelming, taking away all self control.
And I have a question for your mystery. As I've mentioned before, I've lived in Rome, Italy for 37 years. Strange, but I've never heard "sugar addiction" mentioned here. Reading the papers, magazines, TV--zip, nulla, doesn't exist for the Italians. Now this is VERY strange because this is carb heaven. We also have many beloved pastry shops with long lines of skinny people waiting to enter and buy sweets. Wouldn't they turn into "sugar addicts" and develop obesity problems consuming all those carbs and that sugar? I don't know if the rest of Europe is also free of this addiction. Why would some countries have it and others not? We're all human with the same problems more or less.
That is basically my problem when this discussion comes up. I'd prefer you'd call it something else.2 -
snowflake954 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »/qsnowflake954 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »sollyn23l2 wrote: »People use language to convey their experience. If I say "I really enjoy food", you'll have one understanding of what that means. If I say "I'm addicted to food" then you have a different, perhap more accurate, understanding of my experience. Using the term addicted generally intimates that the individual is unable to moderate their use of that particular thing. And yes, being addicted to sugar is a very real experience. And nobody should deny the op her experience. If she feels addicted to sugar, then she feels addicted to sugar. All of your guy's semantics are useless and devaluing the op's experience, whether you like what she said or not.
I can never understand this problem. You'd think people would be overjoyed to learn that they are not "addicted" to something. The thing I've always liked about MFP is that it has the courage to correct misinformation.
Well, I'm sure as the word gets out to all the people that feel addicted and now find out they aren't, and it's all in their heads, they'll be very grateful. lol Cheers
Ha! Talking about sugar, to be clear. You have to admit there is a certain drama to "I am addicted to sugar" rather than "I tend to overeat sweets".
Well, if those 2 statements are the only 2 realities, then yes, what remains would be "certain drama". The 1st reality is a person feels hopelessly a slave to a sweet taste while the second reality would dictate that they could take it or leave it.
Here's another reality. When we consume sugar it travels down the limbic system to our brain which also controls neurochemical messaging but also has an effect on our behavior and when someone has a problem with sugar, brain scans show that the same pathways that cocaine and other drugs use and produce similar events, and studies show that sugar not only can replace the "hit" people get from drugs but that it even has a greater initial "hit" effect.
Basically it's a nuanced conversation that normally gets squashed with the conventional bias or beliefs because sugar isn't a substance that in the strictest definition, is not addicting.
OK. Because I always respect your posts, what do you think should be done differently with someone who has a sugar addiction verses someone who tends to overeat and is very over weight and needs to lose?
How would the approach differ? Can a sugar addiction be cured? Or, is it abstinence forever?
Well, first off, I have my own biases so I will, as I generally do, try and keep that out of this conversation, but suspect some of that will creep in.
The problem with overeating and obesity is, it's multifaceted so there isn't a blanket recommendation that will fit all circumstances, and some may have nothing to do with sugar "addiction". But sugar does loom large in this demographic, no doubt about it.
The road I've lately been going down thinking about this is to try and find a root cause as opposed to trying to find ways to finger *kitten* it and tell people to take responsibility to eat less and move more, because as we know, that been a total failure and actually the numbers only go higher.
Without getting into the weeds and sighting literature I believe if we focused more on our fasting insulin sensitivity as opposed to blood sugar that medical advice would have been more focused at a much earlier age, at childhood for example as opposed to 2, 3 or 4 decades later where insulin resistance started to steadily increase and with dietary habits well entrenched by then which makes it very difficult for change and generally evolving into diabetes and of course diabetes is prevelant in the obese population along with many other health issues.
If we took fasting insulin levels from the get go it would have become very clear that higher levels of insulin in the blood were the result from the consumption of a diet with a higher percentage coming from ultra processed and to a lesser degree processed foods. Basically, a chronically elevated level of insulin ensures blood sugars are kept low but over time the pancreas just can't continue to pump out insulin at that elevated rate indefinitely. What happens is blood sugars creep up because insulin can't keep up. Basically the Y asis of blood sugar that held steady for many years starts to go up while the X axis of insulin begins to go down and worst case scenario is people with diabetes are given insulin injections after yrs on metformin because of this simple fact so yeah, finding the root cause is paramount imo.
Anyway sugar lol. I think we all have a pretty good idea that consuming large amounts, which the US population does of ultra and processed foods that it's not good for our health. Anyway the early fasting insulin blood testing would have put these foods directly at the bullseye and possibly the advice to remove and go to a more whole food diet when we were still kids might have changed to some degree what people eat, or at least I'm believing that would have had some influence. Would this have affected how many people have a problem with sugar now, I'm betting it would have. Kinda late though.
Saying all that, a more of a whole food diet and a low carb diet for people that have a sugar "addiction" would be my recommendations. Keep in mind that people that have no problem managing their energy balance and are of normal weight this hypothesis is not applicable, even though I would suggest getting fasting insulin testing going forward. Losing weight and being close to a normal BMI with a regularly monitored normal energy balance is a good place to be, obviously.
See I didn't get into too many weeds lol. Cheers
Anyway--back to my question. A whole food, low carb diet would be your recommendation for a "sugar addict" to lose weight. But then what recommendation would you give a very over weight person, who is not addicted to sugar, and needs to lose? Would your approach be different and why?
This is never addressed in the debates on sugar addiction.
Same recommendations. There is no magic and motivation is going to have to be paramount. Do people love to overeat to the point it affects every aspect of their lives including an early death, I can't answer that, but it looks like they do. Why is the mystery, and my above post kind of addresses it.
Well, I would think that addiction would be handled in a different way since it's overwhelming, taking away all self control.
And I have a question for your mystery. As I've mentioned before, I've lived in Rome, Italy for 37 years. Strange, but I've never heard "sugar addiction" mentioned here. Reading the papers, magazines, TV--zip, nulla, doesn't exist for the Italians. Now this is VERY strange because this is carb heaven. We also have many beloved pastry shops with long lines of skinny people waiting to enter and buy sweets. Wouldn't they turn into "sugar addicts" and develop obesity problems consuming all those carbs and that sugar? I don't know if the rest of Europe is also free of this addiction. Why would some countries have it and others not? We're all human with the same problems more or less.
That is basically my problem when this discussion comes up. I'd prefer you'd call it something else.
I really couldn't say why. I travelled throughout Europe in the 70's and like here in Canada obesity and any nutritional focus were pretty much nonexistent. I think Italy still has a fairly low obesity rate and I suspect the focus or obsession on weight or nutrition is probably not as prevalent. I suspect that Italian family values and customs are still alive and well for the most part. It seems like until we were told what we were eating was wrong, along with a paradigm shift occurring with direction from gov't and health agencies to a low fat diet and all that that entailed seems to have had some repercussions that weren't expected and one being a steady rise in obesity and chronic diseases. That era also saw the steady increase in alternative processed foods. When you remove one macronutrient and replace it with another while at the same time consuming more calories, it's difficult to blame protein. Again, a correlation but one that is believed to be fairly accurate.
2 -
I'm just here to add that while sugar overconsumption is definitely a huge problem in America, it's also the simple fact that we have an overconsumption problem, period. We simply eat too much. Too many calories in too large portions, and eat too often, for too many different reasons. Could this be oversimplified by calling it a mindset of gluttony? I think it's pretty accurate, for the most part.5
-
kshama2001 wrote: »
"Feeling" addicted isn't the same as "physically" relying on a substance. Sorry, but I deal with this with many clients and yes I deny them this out. Because it's NOT addictive. When people get into that mindset, then they believe they have no chance to have sugar at all. Like I stated, you CAN'T moderate an addiction. You quit it altogether or you'll be stuck on whatever substance you're addicted to. People "addicted" to sugar won't steal from family, rob people, do "side jobs" to just get money to attain it, nor lick or scoop sugar off the ground, drink mouthwash, etc. That's devaluing people who truly are addicted to substances. So I emphatically believe it's not semantics but the correct use of the word. Hyper palability is the correct phrase to use. And since this is a public forum, whether you want to agree or not, I believe it's right to make sure people know the correct definition. Don't believe me? How many people end up in a rehab clinic for "sugar addiction"?sollyn23l2 wrote: »People use language to convey their experience. If I say "I really enjoy food", you'll have one understanding of what that means. If I say "I'm addicted to food" then you have a different, perhap more accurate, understanding of my experience. Using the term addicted generally intimates that the individual is unable to moderate their use of that particular thing. And yes, being addicted to sugar is a very real experience. And nobody should deny the op her experience. If she feels addicted to sugar, then she feels addicted to sugar. All of your guy's semantics are useless and devaluing the op's experience, whether you like what she said or not.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Re: the first bolded, would you disagree that people can become addicted to gambling?
Re: the second bolded, would you argue that "functional alcoholics" are not addicts?
Re: the third bolded, I'm going to replace "sugar addiction" with "food addiction" and ask if you have ever watched My 600 Pound Life.
Gambling is an interesting one because it is considered a behavioral disorder and it is currently the only behavioral disorder to be recognized in DSM-5 as a non-substance addiction.
Alcohol is the one I'm most familiar with as it has been something I've been dealing with for the last couple of years and, at least diagnostic wise, there is a distinction between alcohol abuser and alcoholic, with abuser being a behavioral issue and alcoholic or AUD being someone who is physically addicted to alcohol and can't function normally without it. Roughly 95% of alcohol abusers don't fit the diagnostic criteria of AUD or "alcoholic" (the latter term being less commonly used these days due to stigma). I was actually quite relieved when I started treatment and they told me I had a behavioral problem and a bad habit but not an addiction (yet). It was empowering for me I guess as I had plenty of experience altering behavior to get fit and lose weight and I felt like it was something I could control more so than "addiction"...maybe that was just psychological, IDK. It is one of the reasons that I personally don't really like to talk about food or sugar as "addiction"...it just gives off this energy of powerlessness.
I was a functioning abuser but had no physical withdrawal from alcohol and only drank in the evenings (heavily most of the time). Most of my treatment was along the lines of CBT and just looking at my behavior and why I was engaging in that behavior...lots of journaling, etc. The hardest thing for me was just adopting a new routine as alcohol had been a primary form of entertainment for awhile. My biggest obstacle was just adopting a new routine and accepting some boredom from time to time, which isn't the case for addicts that I've known.
On the other hand, I once had a boss who was a functioning alcoholic. He kept a bottle of vodka in his desk drawer and would take a shot every hour or two throughout the day just to stave off the shakes and be able to function at work. He drank all day, everyday and ultimately had to go through medically supervised detox. I also had a buddy who was a heroine addict and that was just god awful to witness.
As for My 600 Lb life, I've never seen it but my immediate inclination would be eating disorder, just opposite of what we usually think of when we think of an eating disorder. In general, I'm of the opinion that there are many things which can be abused and behaviors that can be disordered that don't actually rise to the level of addiction and that most don't rise to the level of medical diagnostic addiction...and that in general, the term is often used very loosely to describe any kind of behavioral pattern or habit that is difficult to break.6 -
"Feeling" addicted isn't the same as "physically" relying on a substance. Sorry, but I deal with this with many clients and yes I deny them this out. Because it's NOT addictive. When people get into that mindset, then they believe they have no chance to have sugar at all. Like I stated, you CAN'T moderate an addiction. You quit it altogether or you'll be stuck on whatever substance you're addicted to. People "addicted" to sugar won't steal from family, rob people, do "side jobs" to just get money to attain it, nor lick or scoop sugar off the ground, drink mouthwash, etc. That's devaluing people who truly are addicted to substances. So I emphatically believe it's not semantics but the correct use of the word. Hyper palability is the correct phrase to use. And since this is a public forum, whether you want to agree or not, I believe it's right to make sure people know the correct definition. Don't believe me? How many people end up in a rehab clinic for "sugar addiction"?sollyn23l2 wrote: »People use language to convey their experience. If I say "I really enjoy food", you'll have one understanding of what that means. If I say "I'm addicted to food" then you have a different, perhap more accurate, understanding of my experience. Using the term addicted generally intimates that the individual is unable to moderate their use of that particular thing. And yes, being addicted to sugar is a very real experience. And nobody should deny the op her experience. If she feels addicted to sugar, then she feels addicted to sugar. All of your guy's semantics are useless and devaluing the op's experience, whether you like what she said or not.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Addiction can occur without physical dependency.
Subjective point of view from me would be possibly. People get a rush from some physical things like holding a baby or petting a dog. But I don't those physical action become addictive or we'd have lawsuits all over the place with people who think they are addicted.kshama2001 wrote: »
"Feeling" addicted isn't the same as "physically" relying on a substance. Sorry, but I deal with this with many clients and yes I deny them this out. Because it's NOT addictive. When people get into that mindset, then they believe they have no chance to have sugar at all. Like I stated, you CAN'T moderate an addiction. You quit it altogether or you'll be stuck on whatever substance you're addicted to. People "addicted" to sugar won't steal from family, rob people, do "side jobs" to just get money to attain it, nor lick or scoop sugar off the ground, drink mouthwash, etc. That's devaluing people who truly are addicted to substances. So I emphatically believe it's not semantics but the correct use of the word. Hyper palability is the correct phrase to use. And since this is a public forum, whether you want to agree or not, I believe it's right to make sure people know the correct definition. Don't believe me? How many people end up in a rehab clinic for "sugar addiction"?sollyn23l2 wrote: »People use language to convey their experience. If I say "I really enjoy food", you'll have one understanding of what that means. If I say "I'm addicted to food" then you have a different, perhap more accurate, understanding of my experience. Using the term addicted generally intimates that the individual is unable to moderate their use of that particular thing. And yes, being addicted to sugar is a very real experience. And nobody should deny the op her experience. If she feels addicted to sugar, then she feels addicted to sugar. All of your guy's semantics are useless and devaluing the op's experience, whether you like what she said or not.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Re: the first bolded, would you disagree that people can become addicted to gambling?
They are addicts. Just because they can function while on it doesn't make them a non addict.Re: the second bolded, would you argue that "functional alcoholics" are not addicts?Re: the third bolded, I'm going to replace "sugar addiction" with "food addiction" and ask if you have ever watched My 600 Pound Life.
Yes and their eating is a disorder not really an addiction because you CAN'T stop eating if you want to live.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Your premise seems to be that because one needs food to survive that being addicted to food (or any component of food) is impossible? That is an interesting theory and I'd like to know the scientific basis for it.
That's not really how addiction works, it's overly simplistic. There is much more to addiction than simply physical dependence. It does make food a somewhat unique addiction given that I guess we are all addicted to food in a way - we need it to survive - and obviously crave it and are driven to obtain if we don't have it for a period of time.
I do believe that foods, or certain foods, can be addictive. And by that I mean behavioral and impulse based addictions, not physical addictions. Anything that triggers a pleasure/reward response can be. Even with alcohol, which can be physically addictive, there is also a lot of overlap between that and the behavioral/impulse control side of addiction, especially early in the course of the illness. Alcoholics don't start out with physiological dependence from the get go.
So it really depends whether you are talking strictly about a physiological addiction to a substance, and discounting behavioral and psychological addictions. But that is a very narrow definition of addiction.2 -
snowflake954 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »/qsnowflake954 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »sollyn23l2 wrote: »People use language to convey their experience. If I say "I really enjoy food", you'll have one understanding of what that means. If I say "I'm addicted to food" then you have a different, perhap more accurate, understanding of my experience. Using the term addicted generally intimates that the individual is unable to moderate their use of that particular thing. And yes, being addicted to sugar is a very real experience. And nobody should deny the op her experience. If she feels addicted to sugar, then she feels addicted to sugar. All of your guy's semantics are useless and devaluing the op's experience, whether you like what she said or not.
I can never understand this problem. You'd think people would be overjoyed to learn that they are not "addicted" to something. The thing I've always liked about MFP is that it has the courage to correct misinformation.
Well, I'm sure as the word gets out to all the people that feel addicted and now find out they aren't, and it's all in their heads, they'll be very grateful. lol Cheers
Ha! Talking about sugar, to be clear. You have to admit there is a certain drama to "I am addicted to sugar" rather than "I tend to overeat sweets".
Well, if those 2 statements are the only 2 realities, then yes, what remains would be "certain drama". The 1st reality is a person feels hopelessly a slave to a sweet taste while the second reality would dictate that they could take it or leave it.
Here's another reality. When we consume sugar it travels down the limbic system to our brain which also controls neurochemical messaging but also has an effect on our behavior and when someone has a problem with sugar, brain scans show that the same pathways that cocaine and other drugs use and produce similar events, and studies show that sugar not only can replace the "hit" people get from drugs but that it even has a greater initial "hit" effect.
Basically it's a nuanced conversation that normally gets squashed with the conventional bias or beliefs because sugar isn't a substance that in the strictest definition, is not addicting.
OK. Because I always respect your posts, what do you think should be done differently with someone who has a sugar addiction verses someone who tends to overeat and is very over weight and needs to lose?
How would the approach differ? Can a sugar addiction be cured? Or, is it abstinence forever?
Well, first off, I have my own biases so I will, as I generally do, try and keep that out of this conversation, but suspect some of that will creep in.
The problem with overeating and obesity is, it's multifaceted so there isn't a blanket recommendation that will fit all circumstances, and some may have nothing to do with sugar "addiction". But sugar does loom large in this demographic, no doubt about it.
The road I've lately been going down thinking about this is to try and find a root cause as opposed to trying to find ways to finger *kitten* it and tell people to take responsibility to eat less and move more, because as we know, that been a total failure and actually the numbers only go higher.
Without getting into the weeds and sighting literature I believe if we focused more on our fasting insulin sensitivity as opposed to blood sugar that medical advice would have been more focused at a much earlier age, at childhood for example as opposed to 2, 3 or 4 decades later where insulin resistance started to steadily increase and with dietary habits well entrenched by then which makes it very difficult for change and generally evolving into diabetes and of course diabetes is prevelant in the obese population along with many other health issues.
If we took fasting insulin levels from the get go it would have become very clear that higher levels of insulin in the blood were the result from the consumption of a diet with a higher percentage coming from ultra processed and to a lesser degree processed foods. Basically, a chronically elevated level of insulin ensures blood sugars are kept low but over time the pancreas just can't continue to pump out insulin at that elevated rate indefinitely. What happens is blood sugars creep up because insulin can't keep up. Basically the Y asis of blood sugar that held steady for many years starts to go up while the X axis of insulin begins to go down and worst case scenario is people with diabetes are given insulin injections after yrs on metformin because of this simple fact so yeah, finding the root cause is paramount imo.
Anyway sugar lol. I think we all have a pretty good idea that consuming large amounts, which the US population does of ultra and processed foods that it's not good for our health. Anyway the early fasting insulin blood testing would have put these foods directly at the bullseye and possibly the advice to remove and go to a more whole food diet when we were still kids might have changed to some degree what people eat, or at least I'm believing that would have had some influence. Would this have affected how many people have a problem with sugar now, I'm betting it would have. Kinda late though.
Saying all that, a more of a whole food diet and a low carb diet for people that have a sugar "addiction" would be my recommendations. Keep in mind that people that have no problem managing their energy balance and are of normal weight this hypothesis is not applicable, even though I would suggest getting fasting insulin testing going forward. Losing weight and being close to a normal BMI with a regularly monitored normal energy balance is a good place to be, obviously.
See I didn't get into too many weeds lol. Cheers
Anyway--back to my question. A whole food, low carb diet would be your recommendation for a "sugar addict" to lose weight. But then what recommendation would you give a very over weight person, who is not addicted to sugar, and needs to lose? Would your approach be different and why?
This is never addressed in the debates on sugar addiction.
This wasn't addressed to me but, imo, the difference would be whether the person can include certain foods in moderation, or not. Some people are able to moderate, and even do better with compliance when they allow themselves a small amount of sugary "treats". It makes them feel satisfied.
I would say that the person who puts themselves in the addicted category would be triggered, rather than satisfied, by the same small sugary "treat". And it could lead to a feeling of loss of control, and perhaps a sugar binge.3 -
snowflake954 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »/qsnowflake954 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »sollyn23l2 wrote: »People use language to convey their experience. If I say "I really enjoy food", you'll have one understanding of what that means. If I say "I'm addicted to food" then you have a different, perhap more accurate, understanding of my experience. Using the term addicted generally intimates that the individual is unable to moderate their use of that particular thing. And yes, being addicted to sugar is a very real experience. And nobody should deny the op her experience. If she feels addicted to sugar, then she feels addicted to sugar. All of your guy's semantics are useless and devaluing the op's experience, whether you like what she said or not.
I can never understand this problem. You'd think people would be overjoyed to learn that they are not "addicted" to something. The thing I've always liked about MFP is that it has the courage to correct misinformation.
Well, I'm sure as the word gets out to all the people that feel addicted and now find out they aren't, and it's all in their heads, they'll be very grateful. lol Cheers
Ha! Talking about sugar, to be clear. You have to admit there is a certain drama to "I am addicted to sugar" rather than "I tend to overeat sweets".
Well, if those 2 statements are the only 2 realities, then yes, what remains would be "certain drama". The 1st reality is a person feels hopelessly a slave to a sweet taste while the second reality would dictate that they could take it or leave it.
Here's another reality. When we consume sugar it travels down the limbic system to our brain which also controls neurochemical messaging but also has an effect on our behavior and when someone has a problem with sugar, brain scans show that the same pathways that cocaine and other drugs use and produce similar events, and studies show that sugar not only can replace the "hit" people get from drugs but that it even has a greater initial "hit" effect.
Basically it's a nuanced conversation that normally gets squashed with the conventional bias or beliefs because sugar isn't a substance that in the strictest definition, is not addicting.
OK. Because I always respect your posts, what do you think should be done differently with someone who has a sugar addiction verses someone who tends to overeat and is very over weight and needs to lose?
How would the approach differ? Can a sugar addiction be cured? Or, is it abstinence forever?
Well, first off, I have my own biases so I will, as I generally do, try and keep that out of this conversation, but suspect some of that will creep in.
The problem with overeating and obesity is, it's multifaceted so there isn't a blanket recommendation that will fit all circumstances, and some may have nothing to do with sugar "addiction". But sugar does loom large in this demographic, no doubt about it.
The road I've lately been going down thinking about this is to try and find a root cause as opposed to trying to find ways to finger *kitten* it and tell people to take responsibility to eat less and move more, because as we know, that been a total failure and actually the numbers only go higher.
Without getting into the weeds and sighting literature I believe if we focused more on our fasting insulin sensitivity as opposed to blood sugar that medical advice would have been more focused at a much earlier age, at childhood for example as opposed to 2, 3 or 4 decades later where insulin resistance started to steadily increase and with dietary habits well entrenched by then which makes it very difficult for change and generally evolving into diabetes and of course diabetes is prevelant in the obese population along with many other health issues.
If we took fasting insulin levels from the get go it would have become very clear that higher levels of insulin in the blood were the result from the consumption of a diet with a higher percentage coming from ultra processed and to a lesser degree processed foods. Basically, a chronically elevated level of insulin ensures blood sugars are kept low but over time the pancreas just can't continue to pump out insulin at that elevated rate indefinitely. What happens is blood sugars creep up because insulin can't keep up. Basically the Y asis of blood sugar that held steady for many years starts to go up while the X axis of insulin begins to go down and worst case scenario is people with diabetes are given insulin injections after yrs on metformin because of this simple fact so yeah, finding the root cause is paramount imo.
Anyway sugar lol. I think we all have a pretty good idea that consuming large amounts, which the US population does of ultra and processed foods that it's not good for our health. Anyway the early fasting insulin blood testing would have put these foods directly at the bullseye and possibly the advice to remove and go to a more whole food diet when we were still kids might have changed to some degree what people eat, or at least I'm believing that would have had some influence. Would this have affected how many people have a problem with sugar now, I'm betting it would have. Kinda late though.
Saying all that, a more of a whole food diet and a low carb diet for people that have a sugar "addiction" would be my recommendations. Keep in mind that people that have no problem managing their energy balance and are of normal weight this hypothesis is not applicable, even though I would suggest getting fasting insulin testing going forward. Losing weight and being close to a normal BMI with a regularly monitored normal energy balance is a good place to be, obviously.
See I didn't get into too many weeds lol. Cheers
Anyway--back to my question. A whole food, low carb diet would be your recommendation for a "sugar addict" to lose weight. But then what recommendation would you give a very over weight person, who is not addicted to sugar, and needs to lose? Would your approach be different and why?
This is never addressed in the debates on sugar addiction.
This wasn't addressed to me but, imo, the difference would be whether the person can include certain foods in moderation, or not. Some people are able to moderate, and even do better with compliance when they allow themselves a small amount of sugary "treats". It makes them feel satisfied.
I would say that the person who puts themselves in the addicted category would be triggered, rather than satisfied, by the same small sugary "treat". And it could lead to a feeling of loss of control, and perhaps a sugar binge.
And so my question is: how do you cure the "sugar addict"? That's what's so sad about this discussion. If there's no cure, then these people have to avoid sugar for the rest of their lives. It just seems impossible and most won't even try. As mentioned before, in Italy this addiction is never even mentioned. We have few obese, even fewer morbidly obese, and a number (10-15%) of overweight. Italians eat carbs and sweets.
We do have a good number of drug addicts, and gambling addicts, so it's not like addiction doesn't exist in the population. It just seems like the more sugar addiction is used in the media in the States, the more people have it.2 -
snowflake954 wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »/qsnowflake954 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »sollyn23l2 wrote: »People use language to convey their experience. If I say "I really enjoy food", you'll have one understanding of what that means. If I say "I'm addicted to food" then you have a different, perhap more accurate, understanding of my experience. Using the term addicted generally intimates that the individual is unable to moderate their use of that particular thing. And yes, being addicted to sugar is a very real experience. And nobody should deny the op her experience. If she feels addicted to sugar, then she feels addicted to sugar. All of your guy's semantics are useless and devaluing the op's experience, whether you like what she said or not.
I can never understand this problem. You'd think people would be overjoyed to learn that they are not "addicted" to something. The thing I've always liked about MFP is that it has the courage to correct misinformation.
Well, I'm sure as the word gets out to all the people that feel addicted and now find out they aren't, and it's all in their heads, they'll be very grateful. lol Cheers
Ha! Talking about sugar, to be clear. You have to admit there is a certain drama to "I am addicted to sugar" rather than "I tend to overeat sweets".
Well, if those 2 statements are the only 2 realities, then yes, what remains would be "certain drama". The 1st reality is a person feels hopelessly a slave to a sweet taste while the second reality would dictate that they could take it or leave it.
Here's another reality. When we consume sugar it travels down the limbic system to our brain which also controls neurochemical messaging but also has an effect on our behavior and when someone has a problem with sugar, brain scans show that the same pathways that cocaine and other drugs use and produce similar events, and studies show that sugar not only can replace the "hit" people get from drugs but that it even has a greater initial "hit" effect.
Basically it's a nuanced conversation that normally gets squashed with the conventional bias or beliefs because sugar isn't a substance that in the strictest definition, is not addicting.
OK. Because I always respect your posts, what do you think should be done differently with someone who has a sugar addiction verses someone who tends to overeat and is very over weight and needs to lose?
How would the approach differ? Can a sugar addiction be cured? Or, is it abstinence forever?
Well, first off, I have my own biases so I will, as I generally do, try and keep that out of this conversation, but suspect some of that will creep in.
The problem with overeating and obesity is, it's multifaceted so there isn't a blanket recommendation that will fit all circumstances, and some may have nothing to do with sugar "addiction". But sugar does loom large in this demographic, no doubt about it.
The road I've lately been going down thinking about this is to try and find a root cause as opposed to trying to find ways to finger *kitten* it and tell people to take responsibility to eat less and move more, because as we know, that been a total failure and actually the numbers only go higher.
Without getting into the weeds and sighting literature I believe if we focused more on our fasting insulin sensitivity as opposed to blood sugar that medical advice would have been more focused at a much earlier age, at childhood for example as opposed to 2, 3 or 4 decades later where insulin resistance started to steadily increase and with dietary habits well entrenched by then which makes it very difficult for change and generally evolving into diabetes and of course diabetes is prevelant in the obese population along with many other health issues.
If we took fasting insulin levels from the get go it would have become very clear that higher levels of insulin in the blood were the result from the consumption of a diet with a higher percentage coming from ultra processed and to a lesser degree processed foods. Basically, a chronically elevated level of insulin ensures blood sugars are kept low but over time the pancreas just can't continue to pump out insulin at that elevated rate indefinitely. What happens is blood sugars creep up because insulin can't keep up. Basically the Y asis of blood sugar that held steady for many years starts to go up while the X axis of insulin begins to go down and worst case scenario is people with diabetes are given insulin injections after yrs on metformin because of this simple fact so yeah, finding the root cause is paramount imo.
Anyway sugar lol. I think we all have a pretty good idea that consuming large amounts, which the US population does of ultra and processed foods that it's not good for our health. Anyway the early fasting insulin blood testing would have put these foods directly at the bullseye and possibly the advice to remove and go to a more whole food diet when we were still kids might have changed to some degree what people eat, or at least I'm believing that would have had some influence. Would this have affected how many people have a problem with sugar now, I'm betting it would have. Kinda late though.
Saying all that, a more of a whole food diet and a low carb diet for people that have a sugar "addiction" would be my recommendations. Keep in mind that people that have no problem managing their energy balance and are of normal weight this hypothesis is not applicable, even though I would suggest getting fasting insulin testing going forward. Losing weight and being close to a normal BMI with a regularly monitored normal energy balance is a good place to be, obviously.
See I didn't get into too many weeds lol. Cheers
Anyway--back to my question. A whole food, low carb diet would be your recommendation for a "sugar addict" to lose weight. But then what recommendation would you give a very over weight person, who is not addicted to sugar, and needs to lose? Would your approach be different and why?
This is never addressed in the debates on sugar addiction.
This wasn't addressed to me but, imo, the difference would be whether the person can include certain foods in moderation, or not. Some people are able to moderate, and even do better with compliance when they allow themselves a small amount of sugary "treats". It makes them feel satisfied.
I would say that the person who puts themselves in the addicted category would be triggered, rather than satisfied, by the same small sugary "treat". And it could lead to a feeling of loss of control, and perhaps a sugar binge.
And so my question is: how do you cure the "sugar addict"? That's what's so sad about this discussion. If there's no cure, then these people have to avoid sugar for the rest of their lives. It just seems impossible and most won't even try. As mentioned before, in Italy this addiction is never even mentioned. We have few obese, even fewer morbidly obese, and a number (10-15%) of overweight. Italians eat carbs and sweets.
We do have a good number of drug addicts, and gambling addicts, so it's not like addiction doesn't exist in the population. It just seems like the more sugar addiction is used in the media in the States, the more people have it.
Why is that sad? I guess maybe it is because the chance of failure is high? It probably isn't that much different than those addicts who have to avoid alcohol for the rest of their lives. The success rate on that is actually pretty low as well.
Moderation is also an option once the pattern of behavior has been dealt with and modified. There are those who work in addiction who believe that can actually be more successful in some cases than complete abstinence even for alcoholism.
I've never been to Italy but I would guess the difference has to do with availability, culture and learned behaviors, that then become the basis for progression to addiction in some percentage of the population. For example I would imagine that alcoholism is pretty low in the middle east.1 -
snowflake954 wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »/qsnowflake954 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »sollyn23l2 wrote: »People use language to convey their experience. If I say "I really enjoy food", you'll have one understanding of what that means. If I say "I'm addicted to food" then you have a different, perhap more accurate, understanding of my experience. Using the term addicted generally intimates that the individual is unable to moderate their use of that particular thing. And yes, being addicted to sugar is a very real experience. And nobody should deny the op her experience. If she feels addicted to sugar, then she feels addicted to sugar. All of your guy's semantics are useless and devaluing the op's experience, whether you like what she said or not.
I can never understand this problem. You'd think people would be overjoyed to learn that they are not "addicted" to something. The thing I've always liked about MFP is that it has the courage to correct misinformation.
Well, I'm sure as the word gets out to all the people that feel addicted and now find out they aren't, and it's all in their heads, they'll be very grateful. lol Cheers
Ha! Talking about sugar, to be clear. You have to admit there is a certain drama to "I am addicted to sugar" rather than "I tend to overeat sweets".
Well, if those 2 statements are the only 2 realities, then yes, what remains would be "certain drama". The 1st reality is a person feels hopelessly a slave to a sweet taste while the second reality would dictate that they could take it or leave it.
Here's another reality. When we consume sugar it travels down the limbic system to our brain which also controls neurochemical messaging but also has an effect on our behavior and when someone has a problem with sugar, brain scans show that the same pathways that cocaine and other drugs use and produce similar events, and studies show that sugar not only can replace the "hit" people get from drugs but that it even has a greater initial "hit" effect.
Basically it's a nuanced conversation that normally gets squashed with the conventional bias or beliefs because sugar isn't a substance that in the strictest definition, is not addicting.
OK. Because I always respect your posts, what do you think should be done differently with someone who has a sugar addiction verses someone who tends to overeat and is very over weight and needs to lose?
How would the approach differ? Can a sugar addiction be cured? Or, is it abstinence forever?
Well, first off, I have my own biases so I will, as I generally do, try and keep that out of this conversation, but suspect some of that will creep in.
The problem with overeating and obesity is, it's multifaceted so there isn't a blanket recommendation that will fit all circumstances, and some may have nothing to do with sugar "addiction". But sugar does loom large in this demographic, no doubt about it.
The road I've lately been going down thinking about this is to try and find a root cause as opposed to trying to find ways to finger *kitten* it and tell people to take responsibility to eat less and move more, because as we know, that been a total failure and actually the numbers only go higher.
Without getting into the weeds and sighting literature I believe if we focused more on our fasting insulin sensitivity as opposed to blood sugar that medical advice would have been more focused at a much earlier age, at childhood for example as opposed to 2, 3 or 4 decades later where insulin resistance started to steadily increase and with dietary habits well entrenched by then which makes it very difficult for change and generally evolving into diabetes and of course diabetes is prevelant in the obese population along with many other health issues.
If we took fasting insulin levels from the get go it would have become very clear that higher levels of insulin in the blood were the result from the consumption of a diet with a higher percentage coming from ultra processed and to a lesser degree processed foods. Basically, a chronically elevated level of insulin ensures blood sugars are kept low but over time the pancreas just can't continue to pump out insulin at that elevated rate indefinitely. What happens is blood sugars creep up because insulin can't keep up. Basically the Y asis of blood sugar that held steady for many years starts to go up while the X axis of insulin begins to go down and worst case scenario is people with diabetes are given insulin injections after yrs on metformin because of this simple fact so yeah, finding the root cause is paramount imo.
Anyway sugar lol. I think we all have a pretty good idea that consuming large amounts, which the US population does of ultra and processed foods that it's not good for our health. Anyway the early fasting insulin blood testing would have put these foods directly at the bullseye and possibly the advice to remove and go to a more whole food diet when we were still kids might have changed to some degree what people eat, or at least I'm believing that would have had some influence. Would this have affected how many people have a problem with sugar now, I'm betting it would have. Kinda late though.
Saying all that, a more of a whole food diet and a low carb diet for people that have a sugar "addiction" would be my recommendations. Keep in mind that people that have no problem managing their energy balance and are of normal weight this hypothesis is not applicable, even though I would suggest getting fasting insulin testing going forward. Losing weight and being close to a normal BMI with a regularly monitored normal energy balance is a good place to be, obviously.
See I didn't get into too many weeds lol. Cheers
Anyway--back to my question. A whole food, low carb diet would be your recommendation for a "sugar addict" to lose weight. But then what recommendation would you give a very over weight person, who is not addicted to sugar, and needs to lose? Would your approach be different and why?
This is never addressed in the debates on sugar addiction.
This wasn't addressed to me but, imo, the difference would be whether the person can include certain foods in moderation, or not. Some people are able to moderate, and even do better with compliance when they allow themselves a small amount of sugary "treats". It makes them feel satisfied.
I would say that the person who puts themselves in the addicted category would be triggered, rather than satisfied, by the same small sugary "treat". And it could lead to a feeling of loss of control, and perhaps a sugar binge.
And so my question is: how do you cure the "sugar addict"? That's what's so sad about this discussion. If there's no cure, then these people have to avoid sugar for the rest of their lives. It just seems impossible and most won't even try. As mentioned before, in Italy this addiction is never even mentioned. We have few obese, even fewer morbidly obese, and a number (10-15%) of overweight. Italians eat carbs and sweets.
We do have a good number of drug addicts, and gambling addicts, so it's not like addiction doesn't exist in the population. It just seems like the more sugar addiction is used in the media in the States, the more people have it.
Why is that sad? I guess maybe it is because the chance of failure is high? It probably isn't that much different than those addicts who have to avoid alcohol for the rest of their lives. The success rate on that is actually pretty low as well.
Moderation is also an option once the pattern of behavior has been dealt with and modified. There are those who work in addiction who believe that can actually be more successful in some cases than complete abstinence even for alcoholism.
I've never been to Italy but I would guess the difference has to do with availability, culture and learned behaviors, that then become the basis for progression to addiction in some percentage of the population. For example I would imagine that alcoholism is pretty low in the middle east.
Our availability for sugar is high. I guess the sugar in Italy isn't addicting.
So, just come on over and eat our sugar---carb consumption is high too. If you've never been here, you should plan a trip. Seeing is believing. Check out the fabulous pastry shops with long lines of skinny people waiting to get in. 2 -
Our availability for sugar is high. I guess the sugar in Italy isn't addicting. So, just come on over and eat our sugar---carb consumption is high too. If you've never been here, you should plan a trip. Seeing is believing. Check out the fabulous pastry shops with long lines of skinny people waiting to get in.
It's not actually granular sugar that people seek out, not at all, and actually, most couldn't and don't just consume teaspoons of sugar or we would be hearing about it considered it's such a hot topic, yeah that basically isn't the situation and never has been.
That leaves food as the culprit.
Is it refined grains like all purpose flour? Don't see many people with their heads buried in flour bins, no that's not happening. The obvious choice then would be the sugar bombs we call fruit I would think, but as we know most Americans don't consume enough fruit according to the USDA, so it's not fruit, or sugar in this format. Ok, so it's got to be something else, another carbohydrate that converts in the body to sugar for example like rice, potatoes, beets and corn and I'm talking naked with absolutely no other ingredients added, no, in this context I don't see any evidence. We can assume then that granular sugar, refined carbohydrates and whole food carbs high in "sugar" are not "addicting" on their own in these forms. And the science bares this out, time and time again, to which I agree.
In order to be "addicted" to a substance we need to be motivated enough to engage over and over again with the result in the context of food, "overconsumption" taking place which none of the aforementioned are particularly attractive on their own for that to happen. Adding a fat and a salt makes most foods more attractive and palatable for consumption, generally speaking. How much more rice, potato and corn could a person eat if a fat like butter and salt were added? Try eating chocolate cake where the salt was omitted, most wouldn't be coming back for seconds.
Basically, processed food companies have that worked out for the general population is quantities that most people find attractive enough to make processed and highly processed foods about 70% of the total cost of food in the USA. When you consider the American population is also about 75% overweight and obese that a correlation could be drawn or at least the requirement for overconsumption has been met. I'll keep the chemical part of the equation out but leave these 2 studies for your entertainment.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21420985/
Moreover, a more complete understanding of the relationship between DA neurotransmission and insulin may help to uncover etiological bases for "food addiction" and the growing epidemic of obesity. This review focuses on the role of insulin signaling in regulating DA homeostasis and DA signaling, and the potential impact of impaired insulin signaling in obesity and psychostimulant abuse.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24238362/
Dopamine (DA) regulates emotional and motivational behavior through the mesolimbic dopaminergic pathway. Changes in DA signaling in mesolimbic neurotransmission are widely believed to modify reward-related behaviors and are therefore closely associated with drug addiction. This review focuses on the functions of the DA system, with specific focus on the physiological interpretation and the role of DA D2 receptor signaling in food addiction.
In my opinion in a population wide context, it's the chronic "overconsumption" that initiates the signaling within the body to become dysfunctional and not until then. We see populations that consume very high carbohydrates where this isn't happening but those countries or populations aren't overconsuming as it relates to their energy balance like India, China and most Asian countries and some EU countries like Italy for example. Again as soon as consumption exceeds energy balance bad things happen which for the most part are referred to as metabolic syndrome.
As far as Italy is concerned I suspect that the rates of obesity and people that are overweight which are less than half of the USA is that overconsumption hasn't hit critical mass. Statistics are funny, the USA and Canada for example had a similar obesity rate in the 70's as does Italy now, so you know what's coming if things aren't different, which I don't seem to think they are. I do see southern Italy's rise in obesity in the last decade especially in young people, and it always starts with the young will probably find a similar situation like the USA as other countries like Canada and the UK both with the same problems and on the rise.
There's just way too much money and politics to make changes and it'll be the perseverance of a grass roots movement by concerned Doctors and scientists and the general population that hopefully get the ship headed in a different direction. I don't blame the Doctors that are treating the general population because with their busy schedules there just isn't enough time in the day to research the latest data and then have the possible situation where they deviate from the legal issues of "standard of care" set out by the power that be and have their license's taken away, but until then it's medication for all. cheers.1 -
neanderthin wrote: »Our availability for sugar is high. I guess the sugar in Italy isn't addicting. So, just come on over and eat our sugar---carb consumption is high too. If you've never been here, you should plan a trip. Seeing is believing. Check out the fabulous pastry shops with long lines of skinny people waiting to get in.
It's not actually granular sugar that people seek out, not at all, and actually, most couldn't and don't just consume teaspoons of sugar or we would be hearing about it considered it's such a hot topic, yeah that basically isn't the situation and never has been.
That leaves food as the culprit.
Is it refined grains like all purpose flour? Don't see many people with their heads buried in flour bins, no that's not happening. The obvious choice then would be the sugar bombs we call fruit I would think, but as we know most Americans don't consume enough fruit according to the USDA, so it's not fruit, or sugar in this format. Ok, so it's got to be something else, another carbohydrate that converts in the body to sugar for example like rice, potatoes, beets and corn and I'm talking naked with absolutely no other ingredients added, no, in this context I don't see any evidence. We can assume then that granular sugar, refined carbohydrates and whole food carbs high in "sugar" are not "addicting" on their own in these forms. And the science bares this out, time and time again, to which I agree.
In order to be "addicted" to a substance we need to be motivated enough to engage over and over again with the result in the context of food, "overconsumption" taking place which none of the aforementioned are particularly attractive on their own for that to happen. Adding a fat and a salt makes most foods more attractive and palatable for consumption, generally speaking. How much more rice, potato and corn could a person eat if a fat like butter and salt were added? Try eating chocolate cake where the salt was omitted, most wouldn't be coming back for seconds.
Basically, processed food companies have that worked out for the general population is quantities that most people find attractive enough to make processed and highly processed foods about 70% of the total cost of food in the USA. When you consider the American population is also about 75% overweight and obese that a correlation could be drawn or at least the requirement for overconsumption has been met. I'll keep the chemical part of the equation out but leave these 2 studies for your entertainment.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21420985/
Moreover, a more complete understanding of the relationship between DA neurotransmission and insulin may help to uncover etiological bases for "food addiction" and the growing epidemic of obesity. This review focuses on the role of insulin signaling in regulating DA homeostasis and DA signaling, and the potential impact of impaired insulin signaling in obesity and psychostimulant abuse.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24238362/
Dopamine (DA) regulates emotional and motivational behavior through the mesolimbic dopaminergic pathway. Changes in DA signaling in mesolimbic neurotransmission are widely believed to modify reward-related behaviors and are therefore closely associated with drug addiction. This review focuses on the functions of the DA system, with specific focus on the physiological interpretation and the role of DA D2 receptor signaling in food addiction.
As far as Italy is concerned I suspect that the rates of obesity and people that are overweight which are less than half of the USA is that overconsumption hasn't hit critical mass. Statistics are funny, the USA and Canada for example had a similar obesity rate in the 70's as does Italy now, so you know what's coming if things aren't different, which I don't seem to think they are. I do see southern Italy's rise in obesity in the last decade especially in young people, and it always starts with the young will probably find a similar situation like the USA as other countries like Canada and the UK both with the same problems and on the rise.
There's just way too much money and politics to make changes and it'll be the perseverance of a grass roots movement by concerned Doctors and scientists and the general population that hopefully get the ship headed in a different direction. I don't blame the Doctors that are treating the general population because with their busy schedules there just isn't enough time in the day to research the latest data and then have the possible situation where they deviate from the legal issues of "standard of care" set out by the power that be and have their license's taken away, but until then it's medication for all. cheers.
I agree with you that things are changing, even here. Most on talk shows are pointing the finger at fast food places that have been cropping up in the past 5 years and the younger generation likes to go there. What's saving us so far is that there is no free refill on soda as there is in the States. People generally here drink less soda, although that is changing too. The few fast food places I've been to or steak houses, give large portions that Italians aren't used to. If that becomes a habit---that's all she wrote.
People don't eat sugar straight up. It's in something. Our breads have less added sugar, and our pastries are not heavily sweet, but they are wonderful.1 -
neanderthin wrote: »Our availability for sugar is high. I guess the sugar in Italy isn't addicting. So, just come on over and eat our sugar---carb consumption is high too. If you've never been here, you should plan a trip. Seeing is believing. Check out the fabulous pastry shops with long lines of skinny people waiting to get in.
It's not actually granular sugar that people seek out, not at all, and actually, most couldn't and don't just consume teaspoons of sugar or we would be hearing about it considered it's such a hot topic, yeah that basically isn't the situation and never has been.
That leaves food as the culprit.
Is it refined grains like all purpose flour? Don't see many people with their heads buried in flour bins, no that's not happening. The obvious choice then would be the sugar bombs we call fruit I would think, but as we know most Americans don't consume enough fruit according to the USDA, so it's not fruit, or sugar in this format. Ok, so it's got to be something else, another carbohydrate that converts in the body to sugar for example like rice, potatoes, beets and corn and I'm talking naked with absolutely no other ingredients added, no, in this context I don't see any evidence. We can assume then that granular sugar, refined carbohydrates and whole food carbs high in "sugar" are not "addicting" on their own in these forms. And the science bares this out, time and time again, to which I agree.
In order to be "addicted" to a substance we need to be motivated enough to engage over and over again with the result in the context of food, "overconsumption" taking place which none of the aforementioned are particularly attractive on their own for that to happen. Adding a fat and a salt makes most foods more attractive and palatable for consumption, generally speaking. How much more rice, potato and corn could a person eat if a fat like butter and salt were added? Try eating chocolate cake where the salt was omitted, most wouldn't be coming back for seconds.
Basically, processed food companies have that worked out for the general population is quantities that most people find attractive enough to make processed and highly processed foods about 70% of the total cost of food in the USA. When you consider the American population is also about 75% overweight and obese that a correlation could be drawn or at least the requirement for overconsumption has been met. I'll keep the chemical part of the equation out but leave these 2 studies for your entertainment.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21420985/
Moreover, a more complete understanding of the relationship between DA neurotransmission and insulin may help to uncover etiological bases for "food addiction" and the growing epidemic of obesity. This review focuses on the role of insulin signaling in regulating DA homeostasis and DA signaling, and the potential impact of impaired insulin signaling in obesity and psychostimulant abuse.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24238362/
Dopamine (DA) regulates emotional and motivational behavior through the mesolimbic dopaminergic pathway. Changes in DA signaling in mesolimbic neurotransmission are widely believed to modify reward-related behaviors and are therefore closely associated with drug addiction. This review focuses on the functions of the DA system, with specific focus on the physiological interpretation and the role of DA D2 receptor signaling in food addiction.
In my opinion in a population wide context, it's the chronic "overconsumption" that initiates the signaling within the body to become dysfunctional and not until then. We see populations that consume very high carbohydrates where this isn't happening but those countries or populations aren't overconsuming as it relates to their energy balance like India, China and most Asian countries and some EU countries like Italy for example. Again as soon as consumption exceeds energy balance bad things happen which for the most part are referred to as metabolic syndrome.
As far as Italy is concerned I suspect that the rates of obesity and people that are overweight which are less than half of the USA is that overconsumption hasn't hit critical mass. Statistics are funny, the USA and Canada for example had a similar obesity rate in the 70's as does Italy now, so you know what's coming if things aren't different, which I don't seem to think they are. I do see southern Italy's rise in obesity in the last decade especially in young people, and it always starts with the young will probably find a similar situation like the USA as other countries like Canada and the UK both with the same problems and on the rise.
There's just way too much money and politics to make changes and it'll be the perseverance of a grass roots movement by concerned Doctors and scientists and the general population that hopefully get the ship headed in a different direction. I don't blame the Doctors that are treating the general population because with their busy schedules there just isn't enough time in the day to research the latest data and then have the possible situation where they deviate from the legal issues of "standard of care" set out by the power that be and have their license's taken away, but until then it's medication for all. cheers.
Childhood obesity rates in Italy are much higher than adult rates - so I think you are correct that it just hasn't fully hit there yet.0 -
snowflake954 wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »/qsnowflake954 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »sollyn23l2 wrote: »People use language to convey their experience. If I say "I really enjoy food", you'll have one understanding of what that means. If I say "I'm addicted to food" then you have a different, perhap more accurate, understanding of my experience. Using the term addicted generally intimates that the individual is unable to moderate their use of that particular thing. And yes, being addicted to sugar is a very real experience. And nobody should deny the op her experience. If she feels addicted to sugar, then she feels addicted to sugar. All of your guy's semantics are useless and devaluing the op's experience, whether you like what she said or not.
I can never understand this problem. You'd think people would be overjoyed to learn that they are not "addicted" to something. The thing I've always liked about MFP is that it has the courage to correct misinformation.
Well, I'm sure as the word gets out to all the people that feel addicted and now find out they aren't, and it's all in their heads, they'll be very grateful. lol Cheers
Ha! Talking about sugar, to be clear. You have to admit there is a certain drama to "I am addicted to sugar" rather than "I tend to overeat sweets".
Well, if those 2 statements are the only 2 realities, then yes, what remains would be "certain drama". The 1st reality is a person feels hopelessly a slave to a sweet taste while the second reality would dictate that they could take it or leave it.
Here's another reality. When we consume sugar it travels down the limbic system to our brain which also controls neurochemical messaging but also has an effect on our behavior and when someone has a problem with sugar, brain scans show that the same pathways that cocaine and other drugs use and produce similar events, and studies show that sugar not only can replace the "hit" people get from drugs but that it even has a greater initial "hit" effect.
Basically it's a nuanced conversation that normally gets squashed with the conventional bias or beliefs because sugar isn't a substance that in the strictest definition, is not addicting.
OK. Because I always respect your posts, what do you think should be done differently with someone who has a sugar addiction verses someone who tends to overeat and is very over weight and needs to lose?
How would the approach differ? Can a sugar addiction be cured? Or, is it abstinence forever?
Well, first off, I have my own biases so I will, as I generally do, try and keep that out of this conversation, but suspect some of that will creep in.
The problem with overeating and obesity is, it's multifaceted so there isn't a blanket recommendation that will fit all circumstances, and some may have nothing to do with sugar "addiction". But sugar does loom large in this demographic, no doubt about it.
The road I've lately been going down thinking about this is to try and find a root cause as opposed to trying to find ways to finger *kitten* it and tell people to take responsibility to eat less and move more, because as we know, that been a total failure and actually the numbers only go higher.
Without getting into the weeds and sighting literature I believe if we focused more on our fasting insulin sensitivity as opposed to blood sugar that medical advice would have been more focused at a much earlier age, at childhood for example as opposed to 2, 3 or 4 decades later where insulin resistance started to steadily increase and with dietary habits well entrenched by then which makes it very difficult for change and generally evolving into diabetes and of course diabetes is prevelant in the obese population along with many other health issues.
If we took fasting insulin levels from the get go it would have become very clear that higher levels of insulin in the blood were the result from the consumption of a diet with a higher percentage coming from ultra processed and to a lesser degree processed foods. Basically, a chronically elevated level of insulin ensures blood sugars are kept low but over time the pancreas just can't continue to pump out insulin at that elevated rate indefinitely. What happens is blood sugars creep up because insulin can't keep up. Basically the Y asis of blood sugar that held steady for many years starts to go up while the X axis of insulin begins to go down and worst case scenario is people with diabetes are given insulin injections after yrs on metformin because of this simple fact so yeah, finding the root cause is paramount imo.
Anyway sugar lol. I think we all have a pretty good idea that consuming large amounts, which the US population does of ultra and processed foods that it's not good for our health. Anyway the early fasting insulin blood testing would have put these foods directly at the bullseye and possibly the advice to remove and go to a more whole food diet when we were still kids might have changed to some degree what people eat, or at least I'm believing that would have had some influence. Would this have affected how many people have a problem with sugar now, I'm betting it would have. Kinda late though.
Saying all that, a more of a whole food diet and a low carb diet for people that have a sugar "addiction" would be my recommendations. Keep in mind that people that have no problem managing their energy balance and are of normal weight this hypothesis is not applicable, even though I would suggest getting fasting insulin testing going forward. Losing weight and being close to a normal BMI with a regularly monitored normal energy balance is a good place to be, obviously.
See I didn't get into too many weeds lol. Cheers
Anyway--back to my question. A whole food, low carb diet would be your recommendation for a "sugar addict" to lose weight. But then what recommendation would you give a very over weight person, who is not addicted to sugar, and needs to lose? Would your approach be different and why?
This is never addressed in the debates on sugar addiction.
This wasn't addressed to me but, imo, the difference would be whether the person can include certain foods in moderation, or not. Some people are able to moderate, and even do better with compliance when they allow themselves a small amount of sugary "treats". It makes them feel satisfied.
I would say that the person who puts themselves in the addicted category would be triggered, rather than satisfied, by the same small sugary "treat". And it could lead to a feeling of loss of control, and perhaps a sugar binge.
And so my question is: how do you cure the "sugar addict"? That's what's so sad about this discussion. If there's no cure, then these people have to avoid sugar for the rest of their lives. It just seems impossible and most won't even try. As mentioned before, in Italy this addiction is never even mentioned. We have few obese, even fewer morbidly obese, and a number (10-15%) of overweight. Italians eat carbs and sweets.
We do have a good number of drug addicts, and gambling addicts, so it's not like addiction doesn't exist in the population. It just seems like the more sugar addiction is used in the media in the States, the more people have it.
Why is that sad? I guess maybe it is because the chance of failure is high? It probably isn't that much different than those addicts who have to avoid alcohol for the rest of their lives. The success rate on that is actually pretty low as well.
Moderation is also an option once the pattern of behavior has been dealt with and modified. There are those who work in addiction who believe that can actually be more successful in some cases than complete abstinence even for alcoholism.
I've never been to Italy but I would guess the difference has to do with availability, culture and learned behaviors, that then become the basis for progression to addiction in some percentage of the population. For example I would imagine that alcoholism is pretty low in the middle east.
Our availability for sugar is high. I guess the sugar in Italy isn't addicting. So, just come on over and eat our sugar---carb consumption is high too. If you've never been here, you should plan a trip. Seeing is believing. Check out the fabulous pastry shops with long lines of skinny people waiting to get in.
I think availability is part of it, but so is culture and learned behaviour. North America has a culture of over consumption that perhaps Italy doesn't.0 -
snowflake954 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »Our availability for sugar is high. I guess the sugar in Italy isn't addicting. So, just come on over and eat our sugar---carb consumption is high too. If you've never been here, you should plan a trip. Seeing is believing. Check out the fabulous pastry shops with long lines of skinny people waiting to get in.
It's not actually granular sugar that people seek out, not at all, and actually, most couldn't and don't just consume teaspoons of sugar or we would be hearing about it considered it's such a hot topic, yeah that basically isn't the situation and never has been.
That leaves food as the culprit.
Is it refined grains like all purpose flour? Don't see many people with their heads buried in flour bins, no that's not happening. The obvious choice then would be the sugar bombs we call fruit I would think, but as we know most Americans don't consume enough fruit according to the USDA, so it's not fruit, or sugar in this format. Ok, so it's got to be something else, another carbohydrate that converts in the body to sugar for example like rice, potatoes, beets and corn and I'm talking naked with absolutely no other ingredients added, no, in this context I don't see any evidence. We can assume then that granular sugar, refined carbohydrates and whole food carbs high in "sugar" are not "addicting" on their own in these forms. And the science bares this out, time and time again, to which I agree.
In order to be "addicted" to a substance we need to be motivated enough to engage over and over again with the result in the context of food, "overconsumption" taking place which none of the aforementioned are particularly attractive on their own for that to happen. Adding a fat and a salt makes most foods more attractive and palatable for consumption, generally speaking. How much more rice, potato and corn could a person eat if a fat like butter and salt were added? Try eating chocolate cake where the salt was omitted, most wouldn't be coming back for seconds.
Basically, processed food companies have that worked out for the general population is quantities that most people find attractive enough to make processed and highly processed foods about 70% of the total cost of food in the USA. When you consider the American population is also about 75% overweight and obese that a correlation could be drawn or at least the requirement for overconsumption has been met. I'll keep the chemical part of the equation out but leave these 2 studies for your entertainment.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21420985/
Moreover, a more complete understanding of the relationship between DA neurotransmission and insulin may help to uncover etiological bases for "food addiction" and the growing epidemic of obesity. This review focuses on the role of insulin signaling in regulating DA homeostasis and DA signaling, and the potential impact of impaired insulin signaling in obesity and psychostimulant abuse.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24238362/
Dopamine (DA) regulates emotional and motivational behavior through the mesolimbic dopaminergic pathway. Changes in DA signaling in mesolimbic neurotransmission are widely believed to modify reward-related behaviors and are therefore closely associated with drug addiction. This review focuses on the functions of the DA system, with specific focus on the physiological interpretation and the role of DA D2 receptor signaling in food addiction.
As far as Italy is concerned I suspect that the rates of obesity and people that are overweight which are less than half of the USA is that overconsumption hasn't hit critical mass. Statistics are funny, the USA and Canada for example had a similar obesity rate in the 70's as does Italy now, so you know what's coming if things aren't different, which I don't seem to think they are. I do see southern Italy's rise in obesity in the last decade especially in young people, and it always starts with the young will probably find a similar situation like the USA as other countries like Canada and the UK both with the same problems and on the rise.
There's just way too much money and politics to make changes and it'll be the perseverance of a grass roots movement by concerned Doctors and scientists and the general population that hopefully get the ship headed in a different direction. I don't blame the Doctors that are treating the general population because with their busy schedules there just isn't enough time in the day to research the latest data and then have the possible situation where they deviate from the legal issues of "standard of care" set out by the power that be and have their license's taken away, but until then it's medication for all. cheers.
I agree with you that things are changing, even here. Most on talk shows are pointing the finger at fast food places that have been cropping up in the past 5 years and the younger generation likes to go there. What's saving us so far is that there is no free refill on soda as there is in the States. People generally here drink less soda, although that is changing too. The few fast food places I've been to or steak houses, give large portions that Italians aren't used to. If that becomes a habit---that's all she wrote.
People don't eat sugar straight up. It's in something. Our breads have less added sugar, and our pastries are not heavily sweet, but they are wonderful.
Yeah, it's funny that in France the generic white bread from America and Canada for that matter can't be called bread legally, it has too much sugar and is classified as a pastry.
Are the young people getting away from the traditional family meal planning, preserving, daily trips for produce and breads or the differences in the rural and urban lifestyles that might erode some of the well know traditions that Italy is well known for. It breaks my heart as a chef if this is happening. It's happened here but there is also a resurgence in food and more focus on local and whole foods that wasn't as apparent a decade ago, so there is some hope. Cheers.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions