Sugar is 8 X more addictive than cocaine.

[dimreepr]

http://www.ecorazzi.com/2015/02/26/study-sugar-is-eight-times-more-addictive-than-cocaine/

 

And just, if not more, dangerous to our health, yet one is illegal and the other is freely advertised/promoted ubiquitously throughout the world.

 

Is the mighty dollar really so powerful as to seduce the world with such a drug and are we all equally culpable; given our collective need to accumulate imagined wealth?

Edited August 5, 2015 by dimreepr

[Fuzzwood]

Because glucose, fructose and other hexoses and pentoses are fuels for our body. I would like to see how long you last without those compounds. Don't put up a strawman to try to facilitate less socially accepted hobbys.

[John Cuthber]

That's obviously ridiculous; how do you put a number on "adictiveness"?

[dimreepr]

Because glucose, fructose and other hexoses and pentoses are fuels for our body. I would like to see how long you last without those compounds. Don't put up a strawman to try to facilitate less socially accepted hobbys.

 

 

“Sugar is a dose dependant chronic hepato toxin” so fuel yes but only in the right amount.

 

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/05/07/the-sweetener-that-is-more-dangerous-than-alcohol.aspx

 

http://imgur.com/gallery/qnMLBt2

That's obviously ridiculous; how do you put a number on "adictiveness"?

 

 

I’m not trying too (someone else did) I just use it for emphasis.

[sunshaker]

Because glucose, fructose and other hexoses and pentoses are fuels for our body. I would like to see how long you last without those compounds. Don't put up a strawman to try to facilitate less socially accepted hobbys.

 

That's obviously ridiculous; how do you put a number on "adictiveness"?

Why so negative dimreepr makes a valid point,

Most of us are addicted to sugar without even realising (until you try to diet).

Most of us have cannot go a day without our sugar fix,

 

My friend/companion has chronic fatigue syndrome she only weighs just over 6stone but she drinks gallons of coke, spoons full of sugar over everything, well beyond my sweetness levels, I cannot get her to stop drinking coke or cut down on sugar, which I believe is at least partly responsible for her illness.

 

Edit: I have tried sugar and cocaine(MANY YEARS AGO) but sugar is the one that I now "CRAVE"

Edited August 5, 2015 by sunshaker

[dimreepr]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/9742960/Obesity-killing-three-times-as-many-as-malnutrition.html

http://metro.co.uk/2011/09/22/world-now-has-more-people-dying-from-obesity-than-malnutrition-160264/

https://fullfact.org/factchecks/first_year_that_more_people_worldwide_died_obesity_malnutrition-28558

http://authoritynutrition.com/10-disturbing-reasons-why-sugar-is-bad/

[StringJunky]

I don't have a problem with sugar, as long as I get my 2k a week. It's not the substance that's the problem, it's the level of refinement applied to it.

[Endy0816]

I dislike some of the Sugar Industry's influence on the government, but realistically there are vastly sweeter substances out there.

[MonDie]

Air is even more addictive.

Are we talking saccharide sugars or cane sugar and beet sugar? Pure sucrose should be distinguished from the saccharides in your fruits and veggies.

Edited August 6, 2015 by MonDie

[John Cuthber]

 

 

 

I’m not trying too (someone else did) I just use it for emphasis.

So, you cited it, but you can't justify it.

 

That's not a very scientific stance.

Pure sucrose should be distinguished from the saccharides in your fruits and veggies.

Why?

It's still the same stuff once it's in the body.

[CaptainPanic]

Meh.

 

I argee with MonDie: Oxygen (O₂) is probably the most addictive compound in the universe. We can't go a second without it. Yet nobody has banned it.

[iNow]

Do folks at least agree regarding the negative health affects of sugar, the evidence for which is consistent and rapidly accumulating? It's added to the oddest of foods, in places it should not be (at least in processed and fast foods), and it's making us sick in ways that go far beyond mere obesity and its related consequences.

Edited August 6, 2015 by iNow

[dimreepr]

Do folks at least agree regarding the negative health affects of sugar, the evidence for which is consistent and rapidly accumulating? It's added to the oddest of foods, in places it should not be (at least in processed and fast foods), and it's making us sick in ways that go far beyond mere obesity and its related consequences.

 

 

On reflection/hindsight I realise the topic title was a mistake (my apologies), since my intention has been neatly captioned by iNow (thank you), a more appropriate title maybe “More people die from obesity than starvation”.

 

I struggle to understand why people are willing to allow industry to buy rewrites to important government documents like the McGovern report or be allowed to self regulate when, we all know, nothing will change (other than more child targeted adverts)?

Edited August 6, 2015 by dimreepr

[Fuzzwood]

Agree? Yes in the same way that eating too much arsene will kill you. It's the dose that matters and since no-one is really force feeding you sugar (ergo. look at the label before you toss a product in your cart) I see no problem

 

 

On reflection/hindsight I realise the topic title was a mistake (my apologies), since my intention has been neatly captioned by iNow (thank you), a more appropriate title maybe “More people die from obesity than starvation”.

A majority of Africa tends to disagree with you, at least those who survived last starvation wave.

Edited August 6, 2015 by Fuzzwood

[CaptainPanic]

Do folks at least agree regarding the negative health affects of sugar, the evidence for which is consistent and rapidly accumulating? It's added to the oddest of foods, in places it should not be (at least in processed and fast foods), and it's making us sick in ways that go far beyond mere obesity and its related consequences.

 

It's all in the dosage. (Same goes for oxygen, 20-21% is good, but both too high or too low can be dangerous).

 

We need sugar, and sugar is an essential part in our metabolism. Sugar (glucose) is vital to provide energy to our cells.

But too much of it, and we risk diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, etc.

Yes, I know that processed foods contain unnecessary amounts of sugar - it is added for taste (test groups will simply appreciate the food with sugar more than the food without), and sometimes as a preservative.

 

But we're not discussing either of those two points. We're discussing whether it is 8 times more addictive than cocaine. And I am not convinced yet that somethibg that is essential to our existance, and which we need on a continuous basis just to survive can be called addictive.

 

Sugars, just like some (all?) drugs trigger the reward system in our brains, and eating/drinking it makes us happy. I am simplifying things here, because I cannot be bothered to up the terminology. The main problem I have with this thread is that as we evolved all these reward systems were purposely set up to be triggered by sugars. It's the other drugs that sort of cheat our reward systems, and are addictive as a result. But we're supposed to feel happy eating sugars. Only since we started making large amounts of cheap processed food have we run into problems, because suddenly foods that shouldn't contain sugars start triggering this reward system... but that does not mean we can call sugars addictive.

 

Googling around for addiction and sugars, I do find some other sources, most of them connect the fact that our reward systems are triggered with sugar use... but I haven't found any credible source that really calls it addictive.

 

[edit] I noticed too late that dimreepr and Fuzzwood also posted. It took me a while (>1 hr) to write this post in between other tasks... I'm afraid I ignored their contributions in this reply.

[dimreepr]

Agree? Yes in the same way that eating too much arsene will kill you. It's the dose that matters and since no-one is really force feeding you sugar (ergo. look at the label before you toss a product in your cart) I see no problem

 

 

So it’s the addicts fault? Their moral fortitude is the problem rather than the advertising designed to get them hooked early and once hooked surround them with more advertising and product placement. In a free bar, they can't escape, how many alcoholics do you think would stay sober?

 

 

A majority of Africa tends to disagree with you, at least those who survived last starvation wave.

 

 

 

http://metro.co.uk/2011/09/22/world-now-has-more-people-dying-from-obesity-than-malnutrition-160264/

 

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/health/news/article3630642.ece

 

It's all in the dosage. (Same goes for oxygen, 20-21% is good, but both too high or too low can be dangerous).

 

We need sugar, and sugar is an essential part in our metabolism. Sugar (glucose) is vital to provide energy to our cells.

But too much of it, and we risk diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, etc.

Yes, I know that processed foods contain unnecessary amounts of sugar - it is added for taste (test groups will simply appreciate the food with sugar more than the food without), and sometimes as a preservative.

 

But we're not discussing either of those two points. We're discussing whether it is 8 times more addictive than cocaine. And I am not convinced yet that somethibg that is essential to our existance, and which we need on a continuous basis just to survive can be called addictive.

 

Sugars, just like some (all?) drugs trigger the reward system in our brains, and eating/drinking it makes us happy. I am simplifying things here, because I cannot be bothered to up the terminology. The main problem I have with this thread is that as we evolved all these reward systems were purposely set up to be triggered by sugars. It's the other drugs that sort of cheat our reward systems, and are addictive as a result. But we're supposed to feel happy eating sugars. Only since we started making large amounts of cheap processed food have we run into problems, because suddenly foods that shouldn't contain sugars start triggering this reward system... but that does not mean we can call sugars addictive.

 

Googling around for addiction and sugars, I do find some other sources, most of them connect the fact that our reward systems are triggered with sugar use... but I haven't found any credible source that really calls it addictive.

 

[edit] I noticed too late that dimreepr and Fuzzwood also posted. It took me a while (>1 hr) to write this post in between other tasks... I'm afraid I ignored their contributions in this reply.

 

 

It maybe unclear, that sugar is addictive, in your terms but it does seem a reasonable explanation for the obesity epidemic.

 

http://samples.sainsburysebooks.co.uk/9781134365654_sample_535837.pdf

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272523109000471

http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/WeightManagement/Obesity/Understanding-the-American-Obesity-Epidemic_UCM_461650_Article.jsp

http://www.theobesityepidemic.org/

Edited August 6, 2015 by dimreepr

[MonDie]

Why?

It's still the same stuff once it's in the body.

 

From your stomach's perspective, you can't get the apple's saccharides without digesting the apple flesh as a whole. From your tongue's perspective, the apple is what's delicious, and the sugar is merely what makes it delicious. You're eating the apple, not the sugar.

[dimreepr]

Agree? Yes in the same way that eating too much arsene will kill you. It's the dose that matters and since no-one is really force feeding you sugar (ergo. look at the label before you toss a product in your cart) I see no problem

 

 

On top of the advertising are the outright lies, like promoting lean products as healthy; when a product that contains half the fat, in order to make it palatable, also contains twice the sugar.

 

Also the label, due to lobbying, displays a percentage of recommended daily intake for everything other than sugar (ergo their trying to hoodwink).

Edited August 6, 2015 by dimreepr

[MonDie]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/9742960/Obesity-killing-three-times-as-many-as-malnutrition.html

http://metro.co.uk/2011/09/22/world-now-has-more-people-dying-from-obesity-than-malnutrition-160264/

https://fullfact.org/factchecks/first_year_that_more_people_worldwide_died_obesity_malnutrition-28558

http://authoritynutrition.com/10-disturbing-reasons-why-sugar-is-bad/

 

Aside from the quality of your sources, obesity only kills the aged. Starvation kills children. More life-years are lost.

[dimreepr]

 

Aside from the quality of your sources, obesity only kills the aged. Starvation kills children. More life-years are lost.

 

 

Are you sure about that?

 

I look forward to reading your citations.

 

 

edit. whatever the source.

Edited August 6, 2015 by dimreepr

[MonDie]

 

 

Are you sure about that?

 

I look forward to reading your citations.

 

 

edit. whatever the source.

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/11/17/italy.food.summit/

"UN Cheif: Hunger kills 17,000 kids daily" -- CNN

 

http://www.wfp.org/hunger/stats

World Food Programme "Hunger Statistics"

"Poor nutrition causes nearly half (45%) of deaths in children under five - 3.1 million each year"

Edited August 6, 2015 by MonDie

[dimreepr]

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/11/17/italy.food.summit/

#5

http://www.wfp.org/hunger/stats

 

 

I have no doubts that starvation kills children but that’s only one side of your claim.

 

“Obesity only kills the aged”

 

I also need a citation for this claim, along with another that supports:

 

“More live-years are lost.”

[MonDie]

Your telegraph article said, worldwide, more than three million lives per year. The World Food Programme article says 3.1 million children per year. If you do the math from the CNN article, it's apparently double that. Maybe they're defining "child" differently. Either way I sunk your battleship.

Edited August 6, 2015 by MonDie

[dimreepr]

Your telegraph article said, worldwide, more than three million lives per year. The World Food Programme article says 3.1 million children per year. If you do the math from the CNN article, it's apparently double that. Maybe they're defining "child" differently. Either way I sunk your battleship.

 

 

Nope that’s a miss please try again, maybe with a citation that actually supports your claim.

So far I have provided 13 links in support of my position (not all as dubious as the 4 you’ve picked out) you’ve provided 2 that only support a part of your claim (the only part of your claim BTW that I agree with).

 

If you want to sink a battleship you need to work much harder.

[MonDie]

Nope that’s a miss please try again, maybe with a citation that actually supports your claim.

 

So far I have provided 13 links in support of my position (not all as dubious as the 4 you’ve picked out) you’ve provided 2 that only support a part of your claim (the only part of your claim BTW that I agree with).

 

If you want to sink a battleship you need to work much harder.

 

Of course children die from obesity, but that's very rare. Deaths from obesity about equal deaths of children under 5 from starvation, thus more life-years, if not more people overall.

 

edit:

TheTimes isn't much better, and I can't find this December 2012 "study" it speaks of. I liked the ScienceDirect article, but it doesn't support the claim that obesity kills more.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272523109000471

Edited August 6, 2015 by MonDie