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
Replies
-
BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »
The keyword is "excessive". The problem with sugar is that it is currently so fashionable to vilify the product that people don't read that word while realising that absolutely everything is harmful and even deadly in excessive amounts, even water. That is what "excessive" means. It would be much more astonishing if we found something that was harmful/deadly when not used in excessive amounts, which is, of course, impossible, since that amount would then be the excessive amount ^_^saggynaggy65 wrote: »
I see this whole thing as a kind of a repeat of Hahnemann's attempt to vilify coffee. He did not succeed, and then came up with homœopathy, which was more successful but also essentially dead until its relatively recent revival.
What would be your estimate for the amount of sugar to be considered excessive.1 -
saggynaggy65 wrote: »Ninerbuff...If you can eat sugar everyday and not lose control thats awesome. In my case I can't have sugar because I am one of those people that can not control it. Once I start I can't stop. Not EVERYONE gets addicted to sugar, just like not EVERYONE becomes an alcoholic or binge drinker. Some are fine with moderation ( having a drink or two, having a piece of chocolate), but some of us cannot moderate due of the addictive properties of the substance. I have tried several times to control the amount I take but I fail every time. If it's in the house it's gone. Not even baking chocolate chips are safe around here.
Many former alcoholics who quit drinking have huge sugar cravings to replace the "feel good" chemicals (dopamine hit) they got from alcohol. I know. I used to be one.
I'm the same. My husband will buy sweets (or chips etc) and leave them in the cupboard for "later". I keep telling him that for me it is like putting vodka in front of an alcoholic. Like if the man expects a chocolate bar (or worse a bag of chips) to still be there a week later - that is not gonna happen.2 -
saggynaggy65 wrote: »Ninerbuff...If you can eat sugar everyday and not lose control thats awesome. In my case I can't have sugar because I am one of those people that can not control it. Once I start I can't stop. Not EVERYONE gets addicted to sugar, just like not EVERYONE becomes an alcoholic or binge drinker. Some are fine with moderation ( having a drink or two, having a piece of chocolate), but some of us cannot moderate due of the addictive properties of the substance. I have tried several times to control the amount I take but I fail every time. If it's in the house it's gone. Not even baking chocolate chips are safe around here.
Many former alcoholics who quit drinking have huge sugar cravings to replace the "feel good" chemicals (dopamine hit) they got from alcohol. I know. I used to be one.
I'm the same. My husband will buy sweets (or chips etc) and leave them in the cupboard for "later". I keep telling him that for me it is like putting vodka in front of an alcoholic. Like if the man expects a chocolate bar (or worse a bag of chips) to still be there a week later - that is not gonna happen.
Well then, buy your husband a strong box with a big lock on it and give him the only key. Have him put all his goodies in there.1 -
snowflake954 wrote: »saggynaggy65 wrote: »Ninerbuff...If you can eat sugar everyday and not lose control thats awesome. In my case I can't have sugar because I am one of those people that can not control it. Once I start I can't stop. Not EVERYONE gets addicted to sugar, just like not EVERYONE becomes an alcoholic or binge drinker. Some are fine with moderation ( having a drink or two, having a piece of chocolate), but some of us cannot moderate due of the addictive properties of the substance. I have tried several times to control the amount I take but I fail every time. If it's in the house it's gone. Not even baking chocolate chips are safe around here.
Many former alcoholics who quit drinking have huge sugar cravings to replace the "feel good" chemicals (dopamine hit) they got from alcohol. I know. I used to be one.
I'm the same. My husband will buy sweets (or chips etc) and leave them in the cupboard for "later". I keep telling him that for me it is like putting vodka in front of an alcoholic. Like if the man expects a chocolate bar (or worse a bag of chips) to still be there a week later - that is not gonna happen.
Well then, buy your husband a strong box with a big lock on it and give him the only key. Have him put all his goodies in there.
And you are arguing that sugar isn't addictive?2 -
saggynaggy65 wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »saggynaggy65 wrote: »Ninerbuff...If you can eat sugar everyday and not lose control thats awesome. In my case I can't have sugar because I am one of those people that can not control it. Once I start I can't stop. Not EVERYONE gets addicted to sugar, just like not EVERYONE becomes an alcoholic or binge drinker. Some are fine with moderation ( having a drink or two, having a piece of chocolate), but some of us cannot moderate due of the addictive properties of the substance. I have tried several times to control the amount I take but I fail every time. If it's in the house it's gone. Not even baking chocolate chips are safe around here.
Many former alcoholics who quit drinking have huge sugar cravings to replace the "feel good" chemicals (dopamine hit) they got from alcohol. I know. I used to be one.
I'm the same. My husband will buy sweets (or chips etc) and leave them in the cupboard for "later". I keep telling him that for me it is like putting vodka in front of an alcoholic. Like if the man expects a chocolate bar (or worse a bag of chips) to still be there a week later - that is not gonna happen.
Well then, buy your husband a strong box with a big lock on it and give him the only key. Have him put all his goodies in there.
And you are arguing that sugar isn't addictive?
Understanding that some people have great personal difficulty in limiting or eliminating certain foods is not the same thing as believing that sugar is addictive in some universal, generic way.
Personally, I would be able to not eat other people's food (even my husband's food, even if food I craved, if I knew he planned it as his treat sooner or later). I understand that different couples have different expectations and relationships, and that people vary in their ability to moderate/ignore treats that are in their house. Humans vary.
I've seen some people here be able to ignore treats in their home by defining them as "someone else's food" (husband, kids, whatever). Some people can't. Sometimes putting them out of sight in a special spot helps them limit eating the treats themselves. If that doesn't work, a locked box/cupboard might. It's just problem solving tactics.
I have trouble moderating taco flavor doritos (not a joke), am inclined to eat the whole bag if they're in my house. I don't think they're addictive. Since there's no one else here who likes them, it works for me to not buy them. Otherwise, I'd be trying that other stuff.3 -
I've been a reader of MFP boards for years but rarely post. I have to say that I just don't understand this argument that sugar "addiction" is in any way remotely the same as drug and alcohol addiction. Both of my parents struggled with addictions (alcohol and heroine), with my mother dying of hers at the age of 38. When I was nine, my three siblings and I were ripped from her custody and the home we were living in was condemned due to the horrific conditions we were living in. After four years I saw my mom again for the first time and I watched as she vomited up blood, the result of her failing liver and pancreas (while she continued to drink a fifth of vodka a day). On another visit three years later, she had wasted away to 80-something pounds (she was 5'6"). When I was 19, my mom succumbed to her addiction. She was 38.
I think that if you are faced with even a fraction of any one of these circumstances--losing your four children and rarely ever seeing them, losing all semblance of health, becoming homeless, and risking death--you will find a way to resist eating the sugar. And this is the difference I am pointing out. I have had to live every day without my mom because of her struggles with addiction. With every one of life's milestones or events, however major or minor, I feel her absence and the loss all over again. She wasn't there to see me graduate, attend my wedding, be there when I earned my doctorate, or to help me through my pregnancies and meet her grandchildren. And as my children grow up and experience a normal life, I witness through them everything that I missed out on. I'm not presenting this as a sob story, but merely the facts. This is what addiction does. It destroys families. It destroys lives. I'm sorry, but sugar simply does not have the power to do that.
11 -
saggynaggy65 wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »saggynaggy65 wrote: »Ninerbuff...If you can eat sugar everyday and not lose control thats awesome. In my case I can't have sugar because I am one of those people that can not control it. Once I start I can't stop. Not EVERYONE gets addicted to sugar, just like not EVERYONE becomes an alcoholic or binge drinker. Some are fine with moderation ( having a drink or two, having a piece of chocolate), but some of us cannot moderate due of the addictive properties of the substance. I have tried several times to control the amount I take but I fail every time. If it's in the house it's gone. Not even baking chocolate chips are safe around here.
Many former alcoholics who quit drinking have huge sugar cravings to replace the "feel good" chemicals (dopamine hit) they got from alcohol. I know. I used to be one.
I'm the same. My husband will buy sweets (or chips etc) and leave them in the cupboard for "later". I keep telling him that for me it is like putting vodka in front of an alcoholic. Like if the man expects a chocolate bar (or worse a bag of chips) to still be there a week later - that is not gonna happen.
Well then, buy your husband a strong box with a big lock on it and give him the only key. Have him put all his goodies in there.
And you are arguing that sugar isn't addictive?
Understanding that some people have great personal difficulty in limiting or eliminating certain foods is not the same thing as believing that sugar is addictive in some universal, generic way.
Personally, I would be able to not eat other people's food (even my husband's food, even if food I craved, if I knew he planned it as his treat sooner or later). I understand that different couples have different expectations and relationships, and that people vary in their ability to moderate/ignore treats that are in their house. Humans vary.
I've seen some people here be able to ignore treats in their home by defining them as "someone else's food" (husband, kids, whatever). Some people can't. Sometimes putting them out of sight in a special spot helps them limit eating the treats themselves. If that doesn't work, a locked box/cupboard might. It's just problem solving tactics.
I have trouble moderating taco flavor doritos (not a joke), am inclined to eat the whole bag if they're in my house. I don't think they're addictive. Since there's no one else here who likes them, it works for me to not buy them. Otherwise, I'd be trying that other stuff.
I don't think many things are addictive in a universal, generic way. (idk maybe heroin and crack?) For example most people can moderate alcohol and it is generally accepted that it is addictive.
And just to clarify it's not that I ate my husbands food that he was saving for later. He does the shopping for both of us, I didn't mean that I took something that he was specifically saving for himself. More like he buys certain things and doesn't have a problem having them and ignoring them, but doesn't seem to understand that it can cause issues for me. He sees me eating certain things things, knows I enjoy them, so continues to buy them. I have tried to explain to him that not buying it is better for me.
2 -
saggynaggy65 wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »saggynaggy65 wrote: »Ninerbuff...If you can eat sugar everyday and not lose control thats awesome. In my case I can't have sugar because I am one of those people that can not control it. Once I start I can't stop. Not EVERYONE gets addicted to sugar, just like not EVERYONE becomes an alcoholic or binge drinker. Some are fine with moderation ( having a drink or two, having a piece of chocolate), but some of us cannot moderate due of the addictive properties of the substance. I have tried several times to control the amount I take but I fail every time. If it's in the house it's gone. Not even baking chocolate chips are safe around here.
Many former alcoholics who quit drinking have huge sugar cravings to replace the "feel good" chemicals (dopamine hit) they got from alcohol. I know. I used to be one.
I'm the same. My husband will buy sweets (or chips etc) and leave them in the cupboard for "later". I keep telling him that for me it is like putting vodka in front of an alcoholic. Like if the man expects a chocolate bar (or worse a bag of chips) to still be there a week later - that is not gonna happen.
Well then, buy your husband a strong box with a big lock on it and give him the only key. Have him put all his goodies in there.
And you are arguing that sugar isn't addictive?
This is just a possible solution to her problem....it's been suggested before in different ways on other threads. I also think that just because part of a couple cannot control themselves around certain foods, it's not fair to tell the other that they can't have their favorite treats. I also don't think that it's fair that they wave them under your nose and keep asking if you want some (my skinny, sugar loving
husband does this). I believe there's a way around every problem.
Oh, and for the record, I don't think sugar is addictive, see above post, now that's what a real addiction can do to a family. I do believe that people strongly "believe" they are addicted (hostility if someone else doesn't think so--have seen this a lot). I think there's a way to retrain a "sugar attraction", and limit it's damage. But as long as the media keeps pushing it, it'll be hard to change a mindset. THIS is JMO --for the record.4 -
Here is an interesting study on the subject.
And I know that someone will chime in with "we are not rats" - but I still think there is value to the findings which suggest there could be biological basis for what people have reported anecdotally and observationally.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2235907/0 -
saggynaggy65 wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »saggynaggy65 wrote: »Ninerbuff...If you can eat sugar everyday and not lose control thats awesome. In my case I can't have sugar because I am one of those people that can not control it. Once I start I can't stop. Not EVERYONE gets addicted to sugar, just like not EVERYONE becomes an alcoholic or binge drinker. Some are fine with moderation ( having a drink or two, having a piece of chocolate), but some of us cannot moderate due of the addictive properties of the substance. I have tried several times to control the amount I take but I fail every time. If it's in the house it's gone. Not even baking chocolate chips are safe around here.
Many former alcoholics who quit drinking have huge sugar cravings to replace the "feel good" chemicals (dopamine hit) they got from alcohol. I know. I used to be one.
I'm the same. My husband will buy sweets (or chips etc) and leave them in the cupboard for "later". I keep telling him that for me it is like putting vodka in front of an alcoholic. Like if the man expects a chocolate bar (or worse a bag of chips) to still be there a week later - that is not gonna happen.
Well then, buy your husband a strong box with a big lock on it and give him the only key. Have him put all his goodies in there.
And you are arguing that sugar isn't addictive?
Understanding that some people have great personal difficulty in limiting or eliminating certain foods is not the same thing as believing that sugar is addictive in some universal, generic way.
Personally, I would be able to not eat other people's food (even my husband's food, even if food I craved, if I knew he planned it as his treat sooner or later). I understand that different couples have different expectations and relationships, and that people vary in their ability to moderate/ignore treats that are in their house. Humans vary.
I've seen some people here be able to ignore treats in their home by defining them as "someone else's food" (husband, kids, whatever). Some people can't. Sometimes putting them out of sight in a special spot helps them limit eating the treats themselves. If that doesn't work, a locked box/cupboard might. It's just problem solving tactics.
I have trouble moderating taco flavor doritos (not a joke), am inclined to eat the whole bag if they're in my house. I don't think they're addictive. Since there's no one else here who likes them, it works for me to not buy them. Otherwise, I'd be trying that other stuff.
I don't think many things are addictive in a universal, generic way. (idk maybe heroin and crack?) For example most people can moderate alcohol and it is generally accepted that it is addictive.
And just to clarify it's not that I ate my husbands food that he was saving for later. He does the shopping for both of us, I didn't mean that I took something that he was specifically saving for himself. More like he buys certain things and doesn't have a problem having them and ignoring them, but doesn't seem to understand that it can cause issues for me. He sees me eating certain things things, knows I enjoy them, so continues to buy them. I have tried to explain to him that not buying it is better for me.
It doesn't matter. You can still lock up all the stuff you would be tempted to overindulge in. However, most people have to face this stuff sooner or later. Down the road moderation will keep weight loss successful.0 -
I've been a reader of MFP boards for years but rarely post. I have to say that I just don't understand this argument that sugar "addiction" is in any way remotely the same as drug and alcohol addiction. Both of my parents struggled with addictions (alcohol and heroine), with my mother dying of hers at the age of 38. When I was nine, my three siblings and I were ripped from her custody and the home we were living in was condemned due to the horrific conditions we were living in. After four years I saw my mom again for the first time and I watched as she vomited up blood, the result of her failing liver and pancreas (while she continued to drink a fifth of vodka a day). On another visit three years later, she had wasted away to 80-something pounds (she was 5'6"). When I was 19, my mom succumbed to her addiction. She was 38.
I think that if you are faced with even a fraction of any one of these circumstances--losing your four children and rarely ever seeing them, losing all semblance of health, becoming homeless, and risking death--you will find a way to resist eating the sugar. And this is the difference I am pointing out. I have had to live every day without my mom because of her struggles with addiction. With every one of life's milestones or events, however major or minor, I feel her absence and the loss all over again. She wasn't there to see me graduate, attend my wedding, be there when I earned my doctorate, or to help me through my pregnancies and meet her grandchildren. And as my children grow up and experience a normal life, I witness through them everything that I missed out on. I'm not presenting this as a sob story, but merely the facts. This is what addiction does. It destroys families. It destroys lives. I'm sorry, but sugar simply does not have the power to do that.
I see where you are coming from, and while it is true that alcohol does destroy lives, drawing the conclusion that because of that a substance must have the ability to destroy live to be addictive is, I believe, a false equivalence. Nicotine is one example of a substance that, while it does have long term health consequences, doesn't have the destructive potential of alcohol and other drugs.
Yes sugar/food addiction, and even nicotine addiction, is not the same as alcohol addiction, in that the consequences are not the same. And me stating up thread that it is like putting a bottle of vodka in front of me was unnecessary, and possibly triggering, hyperbole. Just because the consequence of the addictive behaviour is different for different substances, doesn't mean that the physiological and cognitive triggers can not be the same.
I also lost a family member (brother) to alcohol just 6 weeks ago, he made it to age 57. I've seen the effect it has on families, his children already lost him many years ago. It's tragic really.
And also for those reading my posts I am not claiming that I am addicted to sugar - maybe I just have no self control and am a glutton. I definitely have issues controlling my intake of certain foods. Maybe in my case it doesn't reach the level of an addiction. But that doesn't mean that I can't recognize that the potential is there. My own struggles with food have actually given me an insight and compassion into what my brother faced trying to get sober that I didn't have before.4 -
I've been a reader of MFP boards for years but rarely post. I have to say that I just don't understand this argument that sugar "addiction" is in any way remotely the same as drug and alcohol addiction. Both of my parents struggled with addictions (alcohol and heroine), with my mother dying of hers at the age of 38. When I was nine, my three siblings and I were ripped from her custody and the home we were living in was condemned due to the horrific conditions we were living in. After four years I saw my mom again for the first time and I watched as she vomited up blood, the result of her failing liver and pancreas (while she continued to drink a fifth of vodka a day). On another visit three years later, she had wasted away to 80-something pounds (she was 5'6"). When I was 19, my mom succumbed to her addiction. She was 38.
I think that if you are faced with even a fraction of any one of these circumstances--losing your four children and rarely ever seeing them, losing all semblance of health, becoming homeless, and risking death--you will find a way to resist eating the sugar. And this is the difference I am pointing out. I have had to live every day without my mom because of her struggles with addiction. With every one of life's milestones or events, however major or minor, I feel her absence and the loss all over again. She wasn't there to see me graduate, attend my wedding, be there when I earned my doctorate, or to help me through my pregnancies and meet her grandchildren. And as my children grow up and experience a normal life, I witness through them everything that I missed out on. I'm not presenting this as a sob story, but merely the facts. This is what addiction does. It destroys families. It destroys lives. I'm sorry, but sugar simply does not have the power to do that.
I see where you are coming from, and while it is true that alcohol does destroy lives, drawing the conclusion that because of that a substance must have the ability to destroy live to be addictive is, I believe, a false equivalence. Nicotine is one example of a substance that, while it does have long term health consequences, doesn't have the destructive potential of alcohol and other drugs.
Yes sugar/food addiction, and even nicotine addiction, is not the same as alcohol addiction, in that the consequences are not the same. And me stating up thread that it is like putting a bottle of vodka in front of me was unnecessary, and possibly triggering, hyperbole. Just because the consequence of the addictive behaviour is different for different substances, doesn't mean that the physiological and cognitive triggers can not be the same.
I also lost a family member (brother) to alcohol just 6 weeks ago, he made it to age 57. I've seen the effect it has on families, his children already lost him many years ago. It's tragic really.
And also for those reading my posts I am not claiming that I am addicted to sugar - maybe I just have no self control and am a glutton. I definitely have issues controlling my intake of certain foods. Maybe in my case it doesn't reach the level of an addiction. But that doesn't mean that I can't recognize that the potential is there. My own struggles with food have actually given me an insight and compassion into what my brother faced trying to get sober that I didn't have before.
I don't think you have anything to apologize for here: The terminology is common, whether it's accurate in the strictest way or not.
To me, the key fact is that you have difficulty moderating certain foods. My encouragement would be that you approach this with a problem-solving mindset, and at least some belief that there could possibly be a solution - maybe not an instant solution, but a long-term one. I think your posts show that you're thinking hard about these issues, how they may apply to you, and what room for action you may have. That's great, sincerely.
I hope no one thinks you need to be perfect, in terminology or behavior. (I don't think that.)
But I also don't think that you "have no self control" or are "a glutton". I'd bet that you exercise self control in other areas of your life, and that it's harder in some cases than others. But it's a skill you have, and you can continue to develop it. (I'm not saying it will always be easy, either!)
Self-definition, IMO, is extremely important. For myself, I make better progress on any personal challenge if I can find a self-definition that gives me a little cognitive wiggle-room, a self-definition that allows the possibility of change.
That's why I push back on things like "I am a glutton". It has no room for movement, in a sense. I'm an advocate of formulations that amount to "I have a problem, and I haven't found the solution yet". That might be "I have extreme difficulty avoiding treat foods when they're in the house, but I'm looking for some tactics to try." If a tactic doesn't work, you aren't "a failure", it was a positive learning experience about a thing that wasn't the right solution, and it opens up a path to try something else. Just keeping chipping away.
In effect, I'm suggesting that you give yourself compassion, as you did give your brother. You're a person with insights, skills, values, strengths . . . you're just looking for the right way to use them, in this situation.2 -
saggynaggy65 wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »saggynaggy65 wrote: »Ninerbuff...If you can eat sugar everyday and not lose control thats awesome. In my case I can't have sugar because I am one of those people that can not control it. Once I start I can't stop. Not EVERYONE gets addicted to sugar, just like not EVERYONE becomes an alcoholic or binge drinker. Some are fine with moderation ( having a drink or two, having a piece of chocolate), but some of us cannot moderate due of the addictive properties of the substance. I have tried several times to control the amount I take but I fail every time. If it's in the house it's gone. Not even baking chocolate chips are safe around here.
Many former alcoholics who quit drinking have huge sugar cravings to replace the "feel good" chemicals (dopamine hit) they got from alcohol. I know. I used to be one.
I'm the same. My husband will buy sweets (or chips etc) and leave them in the cupboard for "later". I keep telling him that for me it is like putting vodka in front of an alcoholic. Like if the man expects a chocolate bar (or worse a bag of chips) to still be there a week later - that is not gonna happen.
Well then, buy your husband a strong box with a big lock on it and give him the only key. Have him put all his goodies in there.
And you are arguing that sugar isn't addictive?
Understanding that some people have great personal difficulty in limiting or eliminating certain foods is not the same thing as believing that sugar is addictive in some universal, generic way.
Personally, I would be able to not eat other people's food (even my husband's food, even if food I craved, if I knew he planned it as his treat sooner or later). I understand that different couples have different expectations and relationships, and that people vary in their ability to moderate/ignore treats that are in their house. Humans vary.
I've seen some people here be able to ignore treats in their home by defining them as "someone else's food" (husband, kids, whatever). Some people can't. Sometimes putting them out of sight in a special spot helps them limit eating the treats themselves. If that doesn't work, a locked box/cupboard might. It's just problem solving tactics.
I have trouble moderating taco flavor doritos (not a joke), am inclined to eat the whole bag if they're in my house. I don't think they're addictive. Since there's no one else here who likes them, it works for me to not buy them. Otherwise, I'd be trying that other stuff.
I don't think many things are addictive in a universal, generic way. (idk maybe heroin and crack?) For example most people can moderate alcohol and it is generally accepted that it is addictive.
And just to clarify it's not that I ate my husbands food that he was saving for later. He does the shopping for both of us, I didn't mean that I took something that he was specifically saving for himself. More like he buys certain things and doesn't have a problem having them and ignoring them, but doesn't seem to understand that it can cause issues for me. He sees me eating certain things things, knows I enjoy them, so continues to buy them. I have tried to explain to him that not buying it is better for me.
I'd like to apologize for my PP, in the sense that I didn't intend to criticize you or assume that they were your husband's treats, although I agree that that would be one reasonable interpretation of what I wrote. I think you're working pretty hard to wrangle your way through this particular challenge, honestly.
Mostly, I was disputing the post I directly quoted, which seems to say that "sugar isn't addictive" and "a person could try locking the treats in a box" are mutually exclusive ideas. They're not.
Different people use different strategies in a situation like you've described. I've seen some people here write that they had improved results simply by convincing themselves that certain treats in their house were "not their food". I'm not sure I could convince myself that groceries bought as general food for the household were "not my food", TBH, but I fortunately haven't had to do that. The closest case I've ever had was with what I described, my husband having treats that were clearly "his". Some of my friends have said they'd eat the spouse's treats, in that situation. I wouldn't, unless he said I could. Relationships differ, people differ.1 -
@Ann__777
The interesting thing is that for me, the premise of "addiction", or at least a physiological basis for my behavioural issues around food, strikes me as a workable problem with a solution. (I think it was you who earlier asked about what benefit there would be to labeling it as such.)
For example a post up thread that stated "just because part of a couple cannot control themselves around certain foods" left me hugely triggered. That is was prompted my glutton comment. The implication that I am just a person who can't control myself, without any basis for it, makes me feel horrible about myself and somewhat powerless. Like I should be able to moderate my food, what the F is wrong with me that I can't?
On the other hand the idea that there is a physiological component to it, with strategies I can use to help with it, is more reassuring to me.
I think there is a lot of moral judgement around food and obesity. I guess the recognition of an addictive component might remove some of that.3 -
It is even worse. That "addiction" language is then used to vilify an entire industry even if that industry does nothing else but produce what people want.One of the things I dislike about "sugar is an addiction" is that it seems to imply that the person is completely powerless in the face of an uncontrollable force. That's a disservice.
He claims that diseases do not exist. For example in this blog post:neanderthin wrote: »BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »
I was trying to heed the comments I got before by not being specific, but it you want more information on this rather questionable indidividual, you'll find more here than I would be able to pen together in a day:neanderthin wrote: »BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »
Can you be more specific?
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/functional-medicine-in-practice/
Can you offer a specific example so that we all could understand better your statement about Dr. Hyman, thanks.
Source: https://drhyman.com/blog/2014/04/27/foreword-disease-delusion/
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.
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.
Sorry that you became upset with my post saying "when one of the partners cannot control themselves around certain foods", but it was a general statement and not particularly aimed at you. I never said or thought that you were a glutton. I truly hope that you are able to lose the weight you want and that it makes you happy and healthy.
I quoted your above post because you were talking about a loss of control.3 -
We are in debate section too - which means ideas can be challenged or debated - it isnt personal.
This got split from a posters personal thread elsewhere so that debate could continue without hijacking her personal situation thread.
I agree that expecting one person not to have any of whatever treats he/she enjoys in the house because the other person can't moderate is an unfair expectation.
In that situation I would be negotiating win win solutions - ie how can they have the treat there for themself but you avoid it ?
Locked box, keeping in a separate place, labelling it as theirs - possible solutions.
I do not agree that sugar is addictive in the physical sense like alcohol, morphine, codiene, nicotine etc - of course many people can take those things in moderate or only required amounts - but that doesnt change the physical addiction thing which sugar does not have.
In a debate I think it is important to have correct terminology -in everyday life, not so much.
so people say figure of speech things like I'm addicted to these chocolates, chips etc - or non food items, Ive said silly things like I'm addicted to the daily wordle.
But obviously not the same as a real addiction.3 -
neanderthin wrote: »BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »
I was trying to heed the comments I got before by not being specific, but it you want more information on this rather questionable indidividual, you'll find more here than I would be able to pen together in a day:neanderthin wrote: »BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »
Can you be more specific?
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/functional-medicine-in-practice/
Can you offer a specific example so that we all could understand better your statement about Dr. Hyman, thanks.He claims that diseases do not exist. For example in this blog post:
Source: https://drhyman.com/blog/2014/04/27/foreword-disease-delusion/
Sometimes headlines get people's attention, it got yours. But alas, that isn't what that piece is about.
Chronic diseases affect one in two Americans and account for 80 percent of our health care costs. Heart disease, diabetes, cancer, autoimmune diseases, digestive disorders, dementia, allergies, asthma, arthritis, depression, ADD, autism, Parkinson’s disease, hormonal problems and more — they cause endless suffering and drain our financial resources.
Clearly, what we are doing is not working. We need a different paradigm, a different model of diagnosing and treating illness that can match and beat this new epidemic of chronic disease.0 -
I would have called it bait-switching, but it really isn't. While his title is nonsense, the rest of his post is not any better. In short, look at what Hyman says, and ask yourself where his evidence is.neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »
I was trying to heed the comments I got before by not being specific, but it you want more information on this rather questionable indidividual, you'll find more here than I would be able to pen together in a day:neanderthin wrote: »BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »
Can you be more specific?
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/functional-medicine-in-practice/
Can you offer a specific example so that we all could understand better your statement about Dr. Hyman, thanks.He claims that diseases do not exist. For example in this blog post:
Source: https://drhyman.com/blog/2014/04/27/foreword-disease-delusion/
Sometimes headlines get people's attention, it got yours. But alas, that isn't what that piece is about.
Chronic diseases affect one in two Americans and account for 80 percent of our health care costs. Heart disease, diabetes, cancer, autoimmune diseases, digestive disorders, dementia, allergies, asthma, arthritis, depression, ADD, autism, Parkinson’s disease, hormonal problems and more — they cause endless suffering and drain our financial resources.
Clearly, what we are doing is not working. We need a different paradigm, a different model of diagnosing and treating illness that can match and beat this new epidemic of chronic disease.
Nobody is claiming that medicine has all the answers. If it did, there would no longer be any need for medical research. As I write all the time, medicine is a new science. When I went to med school there was still a lot of "magic" in medicine, even the names "evidence-based medicine" and "science-based medicine" did not exist yet. No sane person will dispute that.
That said, just because modern medicine does not have all the answers yet, does not mean that quackery and wishful thinking as promoted by Hyman do, and that is the point. At the very least, we have numerous therapies that either improve quality of life or prolong it, or both. What we are doing IS working. It is just not working perfectly and at least some part of the problem is caused by reality denial.
Never ever forget, that science is the study of reality, not the final solution of the problems caused by reality. That study may lead us to find solutions, and we know it occasionally does, even when humans are slow to accept it. Obesity is arguably one of the most clear-cut examples. We know how to prevent it, we know how to solve it. Yet, a large part of the population flat out refuses it. That does not mean that what we are doing isn't working, we don't need "new paradigms", it simply means that people have to learn to accept reality instead of fantasy. That is another discussion, which happens to be one of my favourite subjects, but that is not the subject here.
2 -
BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »
I would have called it bait-switching, but it really isn't. While his title is nonsense, the rest of his post is not any better. In short, look at what Hyman says, and ask yourself where his evidence is.neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »
I was trying to heed the comments I got before by not being specific, but it you want more information on this rather questionable indidividual, you'll find more here than I would be able to pen together in a day:neanderthin wrote: »BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »
Can you be more specific?
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/functional-medicine-in-practice/
Can you offer a specific example so that we all could understand better your statement about Dr. Hyman, thanks.He claims that diseases do not exist. For example in this blog post:
Source: https://drhyman.com/blog/2014/04/27/foreword-disease-delusion/
Sometimes headlines get people's attention, it got yours. But alas, that isn't what that piece is about.
Chronic diseases affect one in two Americans and account for 80 percent of our health care costs. Heart disease, diabetes, cancer, autoimmune diseases, digestive disorders, dementia, allergies, asthma, arthritis, depression, ADD, autism, Parkinson’s disease, hormonal problems and more — they cause endless suffering and drain our financial resources.
Clearly, what we are doing is not working. We need a different paradigm, a different model of diagnosing and treating illness that can match and beat this new epidemic of chronic disease.
Nobody is claiming that medicine has all the answers. If it did, there would no longer be any need for medical research. As I write all the time, medicine is a new science. When I went to med school there was still a lot of "magic" in medicine, even the names "evidence-based medicine" and "science-based medicine" did not exist yet. No sane person will dispute that.
That said, just because modern medicine does not have all the answers yet, does not mean that quackery and wishful thinking as promoted by Hyman do, and that is the point. At the very least, we have numerous therapies that either improve quality of life or prolong it, or both. What we are doing IS working. It is just not working perfectly and at least some part of the problem is caused by reality denial.
Never ever forget, that science is the study of reality, not the final solution of the problems caused by reality. That study may lead us to find solutions, and we know it occasionally does, even when humans are slow to accept it. Obesity is arguably one of the most clear-cut examples. We know how to prevent it, we know how to solve it. Yet, a large part of the population flat out refuses it. That does not mean that what we are doing isn't working, we don't need "new paradigms", it simply means that people have to learn to accept reality instead of fantasy. That is another discussion, which happens to be one of my favourite subjects, but that is not the subject here.
Again, please give a specific example. For you to use this language I suspect there must be numerous examples.1 -
neanderthin wrote: »BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »
I would have called it bait-switching, but it really isn't. While his title is nonsense, the rest of his post is not any better. In short, look at what Hyman says, and ask yourself where his evidence is.neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »
I was trying to heed the comments I got before by not being specific, but it you want more information on this rather questionable indidividual, you'll find more here than I would be able to pen together in a day:neanderthin wrote: »BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »
Can you be more specific?
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/functional-medicine-in-practice/
Can you offer a specific example so that we all could understand better your statement about Dr. Hyman, thanks.He claims that diseases do not exist. For example in this blog post:
Source: https://drhyman.com/blog/2014/04/27/foreword-disease-delusion/
Sometimes headlines get people's attention, it got yours. But alas, that isn't what that piece is about.
Chronic diseases affect one in two Americans and account for 80 percent of our health care costs. Heart disease, diabetes, cancer, autoimmune diseases, digestive disorders, dementia, allergies, asthma, arthritis, depression, ADD, autism, Parkinson’s disease, hormonal problems and more — they cause endless suffering and drain our financial resources.
Clearly, what we are doing is not working. We need a different paradigm, a different model of diagnosing and treating illness that can match and beat this new epidemic of chronic disease.
Nobody is claiming that medicine has all the answers. If it did, there would no longer be any need for medical research. As I write all the time, medicine is a new science. When I went to med school there was still a lot of "magic" in medicine, even the names "evidence-based medicine" and "science-based medicine" did not exist yet. No sane person will dispute that.
That said, just because modern medicine does not have all the answers yet, does not mean that quackery and wishful thinking as promoted by Hyman do, and that is the point. At the very least, we have numerous therapies that either improve quality of life or prolong it, or both. What we are doing IS working. It is just not working perfectly and at least some part of the problem is caused by reality denial.
Never ever forget, that science is the study of reality, not the final solution of the problems caused by reality. That study may lead us to find solutions, and we know it occasionally does, even when humans are slow to accept it. Obesity is arguably one of the most clear-cut examples. We know how to prevent it, we know how to solve it. Yet, a large part of the population flat out refuses it. That does not mean that what we are doing isn't working, we don't need "new paradigms", it simply means that people have to learn to accept reality instead of fantasy. That is another discussion, which happens to be one of my favourite subjects, but that is not the subject here.
Again, please give a specific example. For you to use this language I suspect there must be numerous examples.
There are more than you can shake a stick at.
Here is one example:
https://drhyman.com/short-guide-10-day-detox-diet/
And while I was there, the website pushed this:
That is as nonsensical as saying that gasoline repairs cars.
We need food. It keeps us alive, at least for a while. The only repairs food is ever going to accomplish is the replenishment of nutritional deficiencies caused by lack of consumption. Vitamin C is not a medicine for scurvy. Scurvy is caused by a lack of vitamin C. As long as people do not understand the difference, we will have people becoming sick and dying from diseases that they should never have in the first place.0 -
BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »
I would have called it bait-switching, but it really isn't. While his title is nonsense, the rest of his post is not any better. In short, look at what Hyman says, and ask yourself where his evidence is.neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »
I was trying to heed the comments I got before by not being specific, but it you want more information on this rather questionable indidividual, you'll find more here than I would be able to pen together in a day:neanderthin wrote: »BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »
Can you be more specific?
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/functional-medicine-in-practice/
Can you offer a specific example so that we all could understand better your statement about Dr. Hyman, thanks.He claims that diseases do not exist. For example in this blog post:
Source: https://drhyman.com/blog/2014/04/27/foreword-disease-delusion/
Sometimes headlines get people's attention, it got yours. But alas, that isn't what that piece is about.
Chronic diseases affect one in two Americans and account for 80 percent of our health care costs. Heart disease, diabetes, cancer, autoimmune diseases, digestive disorders, dementia, allergies, asthma, arthritis, depression, ADD, autism, Parkinson’s disease, hormonal problems and more — they cause endless suffering and drain our financial resources.
Clearly, what we are doing is not working. We need a different paradigm, a different model of diagnosing and treating illness that can match and beat this new epidemic of chronic disease.
Nobody is claiming that medicine has all the answers. If it did, there would no longer be any need for medical research. As I write all the time, medicine is a new science. When I went to med school there was still a lot of "magic" in medicine, even the names "evidence-based medicine" and "science-based medicine" did not exist yet. No sane person will dispute that.
That said, just because modern medicine does not have all the answers yet, does not mean that quackery and wishful thinking as promoted by Hyman do, and that is the point. At the very least, we have numerous therapies that either improve quality of life or prolong it, or both. What we are doing IS working. It is just not working perfectly and at least some part of the problem is caused by reality denial.
Never ever forget, that science is the study of reality, not the final solution of the problems caused by reality. That study may lead us to find solutions, and we know it occasionally does, even when humans are slow to accept it. Obesity is arguably one of the most clear-cut examples. We know how to prevent it, we know how to solve it. Yet, a large part of the population flat out refuses it. That does not mean that what we are doing isn't working, we don't need "new paradigms", it simply means that people have to learn to accept reality instead of fantasy. That is another discussion, which happens to be one of my favourite subjects, but that is not the subject here.
Again, please give a specific example. For you to use this language I suspect there must be numerous examples.
There are more than you can shake a stick at.
Here is one example:
https://drhyman.com/short-guide-10-day-detox-diet/
And while I was there, the website pushed this:
That is as nonsensical as saying that gasoline repairs cars.
We need food. It keeps us alive, at least for a while. The only repairs food is ever going to accomplish is the replenishment of nutritional deficiencies caused by lack of consumption. Vitamin C is not a medicine for scurvy. Scurvy is caused by a lack of vitamin C. As long as people do not understand the difference, we will have people becoming sick and dying from diseases that they should never have in the first place.
Well, it certainly appears nonsense is open to interpretation.3 -
I haven't read through all 5 pages of comments, so forgive me if I'm repeating something anyone else has already posted. But there's an absolutely fantastic article on the idea of sugar addiction by Dr. James Kreiger; unfortunately it's behind a paywall so I can't link the full text here. However, I'm gonna copy/paste a few of the interesting studies cited in the article:
Sugar addiction: the state of the science
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5174153/
Food craving and food "addiction": a critical review of the evidence from a biopsychosocial perspective
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10837838/
SUCROSE TASTE THRESHOLDS OF RATS AND HUMANS
https://journals.physiology.org/doi/abs/10.1152/ajplegacy.1939.128.2.291
The role of T1r3 and Trpm5 in carbohydrate-induced obesity in mice
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22683548/
Studies in normal and obese subjects with a monitored food dispensing device
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/5216999/
A satiety index of common foods
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7498104/
The Influence of Palatable Diets in Reward System Activation: A Mini Review
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27087806/
3 -
..0
-
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.
Sorry that you became upset with my post saying "when one of the partners cannot control themselves around certain foods", but it was a general statement and not particularly aimed at you. I never said or thought that you were a glutton. I truly hope that you are able to lose the weight you want and that it makes you happy and healthy.
I quoted your above post because you were talking about a loss of control.
No need to apologize, my triggers are not your fault. There was nothing objectively wrong with the language you used. I was just using it as an example to illustrate my point.1 -
Even the 'experts'-neurologists, nutritionists, medical doctors, researchers of addictions/addictive behaviors-are in conflict as to whether the term 'addiction' should be used with out-of-control behavior when consuming simple sugars. But, from what I have read/heard, they all recognize that the same craving and reward centers/chemicals are activated with behavioral addictions, chemical addictions, and-for some people-simple sugars.
And yes, to those who asked if there are people who eat granulated sugar by the spoonful when candy is not readily available, and yes, there are folks who eat cough drops (mentholated or not) and/or toothpaste and mouthwash (Artificial sweeteners), when it is the only thing they can find when a craving for sweets occurs. I have seen/heard of folks who eat too-old cake after removing mold on frosting, and many have admitted to doing the Seinfeld thing of pulling a sweet goodie out of trash if they think it is not contaminated.
One of the difference in sugar issues IME is that after a period of not having sugar (added or simple) in the diet, the desire for it is reduced and the sensitivity to it is increased. So that after a period of time of no added/simple sugar intake, the individual may believe that they can drink a soda or eat a frosted cupcake 'every once in awhile', like average people do. Some can. (But then, some folks can use drugs in a recreational fashion a time or two and not become addicted.) Even when fruits and sweeter veg have been a part of regular consumption so that there is no 'deprivation' of sweet things in their diet, the simpler sugar products not only do not taste as good as they did before, but sometimes they may actually taste bad. At this point, the individual in question has a 'choice' to make-stop eating/drinking the now-bad tasting item or continue. Weird thing is, some people 'choose' to continue. IME with people who return to rehab multiple times, theirs is a similar 'choice'. They get 'clean', are successful, and believe they can have 'just one' drink, or 'just one' snort of coke or whatever. The ones who did 'choose' to stop after this 'just once'-no matter how hard it was- and decide to stay away, do well, but are continually making the 'choice' to stay away from drugs. Those who find it impossible to stay away, wind up back in rehab or on the streets or dead. Seems to be a correlation to those who have issues with simple sugars as well.
Two other very interesting things to me-1). Often those who have abused drugs begin to abuse sugar during rehab and after. 2). Those who seem to have the hardest time making the choice to stay away from addictions-chemical, behavioral, (and sugar use), are those who have used the longest and the heaviest. Lots of correlations made by even the experts who disagree. The food scientists seem to know the answer-all semantics aside. I anticipate that in the next 20 years, they will all be in agreement -that sugar can indeed be addictive to those predisposed. But I could be wrong...
1 -
It is, and that is precisely the reason that nonsense, superstition and quackery persist. One can almost never *prove* that something does not exist. One can only point out that there is no credible evidence for a quack claim.neanderthin wrote: »Well, it certainly appears nonsense is open to interpretation.
Canadians should be aware of that, their government spent millions in studying "liberation therapy", a blatant quack therapy that shamelessly exploits/exploited the despair of very vulnerable patients, only to conclude that no evidence could be found in its favour. Was liberation therapy ever *disproved*? No. You can't. And that is also not scientist's task. It is up to the claimant to provide credible evidence for her/his claims, not the unbelievers and disbelievers to prove the claim is false.
Anyone claiming otherwise, can begin by *proving* that Santa Claus does not exist and anyone claiming otherwise would do well watching the US senate hearings of TV charlatan Dr. Oz where he had to admit that he was unable to provide evidence for his nonsensical claims. That is how science advances. It is how we know that Newton was right, but only up to a point. It is how we know that Einstein was right, but only up to a point, and it is how we know there is a lot more we don't know yet. And sometimes, but only sometimes, we can provide at least a test of sorts that would provide solid evidence that something is not true, such Einstein and the perihelium of mercury or Haldane and the rabbits in the Precambrian.
Sometimes, it is harder. The problem with bloodletting comes to mind. We have treated numberless humans with bloodletting, until someone made the effort of actually checking, and what was discovered? That bloodletting killed people, it did not cure them.
It is the misunderstanding of how evidence works that allows religions such as homœopathy and chiropractic to continue to exist: they exploit the impossibility to disprove them. It is how quacks can continue to claim that energy (calories) has nothing to do with weight gain...
This is not an unimportant besides-the-point sideshow. It is this lack of understanding that feeds much of the weight loss industry, the supplement industry and others that prey on people's lack of understanding. It is despicable, but unless legislation changes, there is preciously little we can do against it and it is very unlikely such legislation will come to fruition. I blame a misunderstanding of the freedom of religion for that, at least in part: the freedom to believe anything one wants to believe should not receive unreasonable protection by denying all citizens easy access to learning how critical thinking works.0 -
Do they though? Or are they simply a bit more refined than the restaurant cook who tries to come up with dishes that her/his customers will want to eat again? To make an unlikely comparison: are medical scales evil because they are more accurate and precise than junky drugstore scales? Is that not what food scientists who work for food companies do: trying to be more precise and more predictable a.k.a. more reliable?g2renew wrote:The food scientists seem to know the answer-all semantics aside.
I am asking, because there seems to be a big element of hypocrisy in claims surrounding the food industry. Let's be clear: no sane person will ever claim that they are sweet angels but, is a food company evil because it uses, say, E260 while a restaurant cook is great because he/she uses vinegar?0 -
BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »
It is, and that is precisely the reason that nonsense, superstition and quackery persist. One can almost never *prove* that something does not exist. One can only point out that there is no credible evidence for a quack claim.neanderthin wrote: »Well, it certainly appears nonsense is open to interpretation.
Canadians should be aware of that, their government spent millions in studying "liberation therapy", a blatant quack therapy that shamelessly exploits/exploited the despair of very vulnerable patients, only to conclude that no evidence could be found in its favour. Was liberation therapy ever *disproved*? No. You can't. And that is also not scientist's task. It is up to the claimant to provide credible evidence for her/his claims, not the unbelievers and disbelievers to prove the claim is false.
Anyone claiming otherwise, can begin by *proving* that Santa Claus does not exist and anyone claiming otherwise would do well watching the US senate hearings of TV charlatan Dr. Oz where he had to admit that he was unable to provide evidence for his nonsensical claims. That is how science advances. It is how we know that Newton was right, but only up to a point. It is how we know that Einstein was right, but only up to a point, and it is how we know there is a lot more we don't know yet. And sometimes, but only sometimes, we can provide at least a test of sorts that would provide solid evidence that something is not true, such Einstein and the perihelium of mercury or Haldane and the rabbits in the Precambrian.
Sometimes, it is harder. The problem with bloodletting comes to mind. We have treated numberless humans with bloodletting, until someone made the effort of actually checking, and what was discovered? That bloodletting killed people, it did not cure them.
It is the misunderstanding of how evidence works that allows religions such as homœopathy and chiropractic to continue to exist: they exploit the impossibility to disprove them. It is how quacks can continue to claim that energy (calories) has nothing to do with weight gain...
This is not an unimportant besides-the-point sideshow. It is this lack of understanding that feeds much of the weight loss industry, the supplement industry and others that prey on people's lack of understanding. It is despicable, but unless legislation changes, there is preciously little we can do against it and it is very unlikely such legislation will come to fruition. I blame a misunderstanding of the freedom of religion for that, at least in part: the freedom to believe anything one wants to believe should not receive unreasonable protection by denying all citizens easy access to learning how critical thinking works.
I love readying your strawman arguments. Cheers1 -
50 % of all Americans are diabetic or pre-diabetic. Have you looked at children lately? They are getting fatter and fatter with their parents continuing to shove a candy bar or a fast food sandwich and a couple Cokes in their face to keep them happy. Sugar is a poison that is highly addictive. It makes you want it more and more once you begin eating it.
As far as glucose goes…you could avoid all forms of cane sugar, honey and other manufactured sweeteners for the rest of your life, only eating whole food and you would not suffer from lack of glucose. You do not require added sugar.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.2K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 421 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions