Sugar is 8 X more addictive than cocaine.

[dimreepr]

 

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.

 

 

The lack of citations aside, are you really trying to argue, that, because starvation kills more children than obesity, we should ignore the obesity problem?

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

 

 

If obesity is so easily remedied why does bariatric surgery so often fail?

Maybe someone has done you a disservice, MonDie, but the minus one speaks volumes.

Edited August 6, 2015 by dimreepr

[Fuzzwood]

 

 

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).

 

Not trying to be off topic (as I do see merits in your posts), I think one of the related issues can be found in this youtube vid:

 

To summarize: Jamie Oliver shows a selection of vegetables to small childern. Hardly any of the products are recognized. Not sure how the supermarkets in the US are stocked, but this is how a vegetable rack looks like in the Netherlands:

 

 

So if there are only processed foods available in the US and contain either too much fats or sugars, or worse both, then you indeed have a point.

[dimreepr]

 

 

So if there are only processed foods available in the US and contain either too much fats or sugars, or worse both, then you indeed have a point.

 

 

Of the 600,000 or so food products currently available in the US, apparently, roughly 80% contains added sugar.

[MonDie]

In the USA, nicer grocers have vegetable racks for about one-fifth the store, plus a frozen veggies isle. Walmart and Target have little beyond the frozen veggies, but they supply more than food.

Edited August 6, 2015 by MonDie

[dimreepr]

In the USA, nicer grocers have vegetable racks for about one-fifth the store, plus a frozen veggies isle. Walmart and Target have little beyond the frozen veggies, but they supply more than food.

 

 

http://michelle-maclean.com/the-sugar-facts/

[MonDie]

 

 

http://michelle-maclean.com/the-sugar-facts/

 

I can't determine whether it's safe. I usually check for safety and trustworthiness in the MyWOT comments section.

Remember that we should be able to participate without following links.

Edited August 6, 2015 by MonDie

[iNow]

Remember that we should be able to participate without following links.

Agree completely that it's a good idea to quote a few relevant snippets from our link to convey the relevant points, but encourage caution when lambasting others with harshness, especially in context of your own posts #21 and #25 above.

[Phi for All]

 

Remember that we should be able to participate without following links.

 

!

Moderator Note

Perhaps we need to re-word that rule, but it's intended to stop opening posts from taking us offsite to look at concepts for discussion, or videos which are difficult to skim for relevance. We encourage links to supportive evidence when assertions are made during the discussions, and appreciate it when the links show some rigor, especially when also linked to peer-reviewed studies.

[MonDie]

Agree completely that it's a good idea to quote a few relevant snippets from our link to convey the relevant points, but encourage caution when lambasting others with harshness, especially in context of your own posts #21 and #25 above.

The edit window remains open.

[dimreepr]

 

I can't determine whether it's safe. I usually check for safety and trustworthiness in the MyWOT comments section.

Remember that we should be able to participate without following links.

 

 

Oh please, I made this statement in post #28:

 

“Of the 600,000 or so food products currently available in the US, apparently, roughly 80% contains added sugar”

 

You’re reply in post #29 seemed to argue that point, so I provided a link to support my claim in post #30 (clear for all to see in the 2^nd section 3^rd bullet point is the above quote) did I really need to re-quote or have you just run out of ideas?

[MarcoSciFor]

Having posted a sugar related topic, I thought I'd contribute:

 

I personally question the blanket proposition that sugar is inherently addictive.

 

Typically you'll find that there are people who drink their tea sans sugar, yet drinking coffee with sugar (me for example).

 

If sugar was inherently addictive, one would expect to see the dosage of sugar increasing in ones chosen sweetened drink.

Yet we all know that isn't true.

 

People are either a 'one spoon' person, or a 'two spoon' person (sometimes more, but less so as the qty. rises).

 

People tend to remain a one spoon person throughout their life....... or decide to ditch sugar due to published opinion.

Either way........ this behaviour doesn't align to the concept of addiction.

 

I would suggest that the weird scenario of people filling their shopping baskets with litres of fizzy pop (seen it)..... is far more related to consumerism linked to the susceptible nature of humans, being open to a projected 'business driven (advertised) life style'.

Ie. When my kids are thirsty, I give them fizzy drinks instead of water..... because that is the standard of living that I aspire to (obv not me).

 

The kids then grow up believing that, when they are thirsty they drink fizzy drinks (which happen to contain what..... 30 spoons of sugar per litre or worse).

 

Therefore, I would suggest that the sugar consumption epidemic is due to advertising/aspirational life style, far more than addiction (if addiction at all).

 

But at a fundamental level...... if sugar was truly addictive, we would never be able to stay as a 'one spoon' person.

 

Is that a QED?

Probably not...... but it's pretty close.

[dimreepr]

Is that a QED?

Probably not...... but it's pretty close.

 

 

Evidence would help support that.

[MarcoSciFor]

 

 

Evidence would help support that.

 

Oh Cmon!..........

I'm not lodging this theory with 'Nature'.

 

Are you suggesting that people have gradually migrated from a 'one spoon policy' to: supersaturated 'crystals spinning' (action of the spoon)?

 

Let's take that as the range.

Zero sugar....... to crystals spinning (a la Egypt/Sudan).

 

How many people do you know (outside of the territory types mentioned above), that have started using a spoon of sugar, and (through implication of addiction) have moved to 'crystals spinning'?

My guess is none.

 

While that statement is entirely unscientific vis a vis standard protocols.......... we have all lived life, and drunk beverages with at least hundreds of people.

 

So let's make it more scientific..... and eliminate all those people who we have met, that have grown up with the 'normality of spinning sugar crystals'.

 

We are left with a pretty average bunch, because I can think of two instances of people who took 3 spoons of sugar ...... and even then.... why did they stay at only 3?

Depending upon cup size obv, but you could go for another 3 spoons........ try it

 

But how many people do you know, have gone from one spoon, to two spoons to three spoons....... to six or seven spoons of sugar?..... because that is the question.

 

Even if you know one person..... it means nothing (sample extremes are always eliminated in a good study eh?)

 

If most of the people you have met in your life, had progressively increased their 'direct' sugar dosage, then we'd all assume that the cause may be due to it's addictive qualities.

 

But no......... I know you can't tell me different......... and nobody is going to say different.

 

I think a repositioning is necessary.... and a QED should be stated.... only more text is required.

.... because you could say that the 'addictive need' is satisfied by increasing the sugar intake, through other means.

 

This avenue will always offer an avenue to challenge QED...... let's just accept that.

 

However.... if we include cakes etc. there are too many variables....... fats, a feeling of being full, flavours. etc.

Challenge away..... but these sugar sources create too much noise.

 

While less so.... we have to be careful of fizzy drinks.

So many are laced with synthesised sweeteners....... the very fact that these became successful indicate that the 'sugar addiction premise' is a non-starter (different molecules completely).

 

Therefore, while fizzy drinks tend to confirm the statement: "sugar is not addictive"........ we can focus on the one area, where sugar consumption is within our control, and it is relevant to a large proportion of of the population of the western industrialised nations.

 

That area is tea & coffee.... and it is entirely acceptable to put sugar in either drink.

 

Given that sugar is addictive, and is cheap, and control of consumption is in our hands (ie. have as much as you want, because there is no cost implication)........ if it is truly addictive, then everybody who takes sugar in their drinks, would have gradually increased their sugar dose.

 

In fact, this is not the case.

So yes..... I think I can say:

 

Sugar is not addictive.......... QED

 

PS. I don't know about you, but in the past two decades, I've noticed that less and less people take two spoons of sugar....... whereas when I was younger, it was fairly normal.

I didn't want to introduce this into the argument...... but if others have found that few people now take two spoons......it's another nail, in the already screwed down coffin lid of sugar addiction.

 

However, I await 'fair challenge' with an open mind.

 

[Bill Angel]

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).

There is a line of ice cream made by Edy's carried in the local supermarket.

The label states "No Sugar Added" and "1/3 fewer calories than regular ice cream", and 1/2 the fat of regular ice cream. The label also reveals that there are 110 calories per serving (1/2) cup,as well as 17g of carbohydrates, which the label states is 6% of the recommended daily value based on a 2000 calorie diet. Of those 17g of carbohydrate 3g is sugar and 7g sugar alcohol.

The label of this line of products seems to be rather informative.

[dimreepr]

 

Oh Cmon!..........

I'm not lodging this theory with 'Nature'.

 

Are you suggesting that people have gradually migrated from a 'one spoon policy' to: supersaturated 'crystals spinning' (action of the spoon)?

 

Let's take that as the range.

Zero sugar....... to crystals spinning (a la Egypt/Sudan).

 

How many people do you know (outside of the territory types mentioned above), that have started using a spoon of sugar, and (through implication of addiction) have moved to 'crystals spinning'?

My guess is none.

 

While that statement is entirely unscientific vis a vis standard protocols.......... we have all lived life, and drunk beverages with at least hundreds of people.

 

So let's make it more scientific..... and eliminate all those people who we have met, that have grown up with the 'normality of spinning sugar crystals'.

 

We are left with a pretty average bunch, because I can think of two instances of people who took 3 spoons of sugar ...... and even then.... why did they stay at only 3?

Depending upon cup size obv, but you could go for another 3 spoons........ try it

 

But how many people do you know, have gone from one spoon, to two spoons to three spoons....... to six or seven spoons of sugar?..... because that is the question.

 

Even if you know one person..... it means nothing (sample extremes are always eliminated in a good study eh?)

 

If most of the people you have met in your life, had progressively increased their 'direct' sugar dosage, then we'd all assume that the cause may be due to it's addictive qualities.

 

But no......... I know you can't tell me different......... and nobody is going to say different.

 

I think a repositioning is necessary.... and a QED should be stated.... only more text is required.

.... because you could say that the 'addictive need' is satisfied by increasing the sugar intake, through other means.

 

This avenue will always offer an avenue to challenge QED...... let's just accept that.

 

However.... if we include cakes etc. there are too many variables....... fats, a feeling of being full, flavours. etc.

Challenge away..... but these sugar sources create too much noise.

 

While less so.... we have to be careful of fizzy drinks.

So many are laced with synthesised sweeteners....... the very fact that these became successful indicate that the 'sugar addiction premise' is a non-starter (different molecules completely).

 

Therefore, while fizzy drinks tend to confirm the statement: "sugar is not addictive"........ we can focus on the one area, where sugar consumption is within our control, and it is relevant to a large proportion of of the population of the western industrialised nations.

 

That area is tea & coffee.... and it is entirely acceptable to put sugar in either drink.

 

Given that sugar is addictive, and is cheap, and control of consumption is in our hands (ie. have as much as you want, because there is no cost implication)........ if it is truly addictive, then everybody who takes sugar in their drinks, would have gradually increased their sugar dose.

 

In fact, this is not the case.

So yes..... I think I can say:

 

Sugar is not addictive.......... QED

 

PS. I don't know about you, but in the past two decades, I've noticed that less and less people take two spoons of sugar....... whereas when I was younger, it was fairly normal.

I didn't want to introduce this into the argument...... but if others have found that few people now take two spoons......it's another nail, in the already screwed down coffin lid of sugar addiction.

 

However, I await 'fair challenge' with an open mind.

 

 

 

 

Just out of curiosity have you read this thread rather than just the title?

 

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4361030/

 

“There is more to food addiction than food restriction and bingeing. The type of nutrient that the animal ingests is also important. Our studies of food addiction have largely focused on sugar (sucrose or glucose). The positive results may relate to sugar as a special nutrient. It has its own receptor system in the tongue,^51,52the intestines,^53,54 the liver,⁵⁵ pancreas,⁵⁵ and brain.⁵⁶ Glucoreceptors provide life-saving information to the ingestive behavior system and its associated learning, emotion, and motivational systems. In all probability, sugar addiction in rats is engendered by excessive, repeated activation of this pervasive sugar sensory system.”

 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763407000589

 

This review summarizes evidence of sugar dependence in an animal model. Four components of addiction are analyzed. “Bingeing,” “withdrawal,” “craving” and “cross-sensitization” are each given operational definitions and demonstrated behaviorally with sugar bingeing as the reinforcer. These behaviors are then related to neurochemical changes in the brain that also occur with addictive drugs.

 

http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2015/01/07/sugar-health-research

 

“When you look at animal studies comparing sugar to cocaine,” DiNicolantonio told Here & Now’s Lisa Mullins, “even when you get the rats hooked on IV cocaine, once you

introduce sugar, almost all of them switch to the sugar.”

 

But in the spirit of fair play here’s one that backs up your view

 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261561409002398

There is a line of ice cream made by Edy's carried in the local supermarket.

The label states "No Sugar Added" and "1/3 fewer calories than regular ice cream", and 1/2 the fat of regular ice cream. The label also reveals that there are 110 calories per serving (1/2) cup,as well as 17g of carbohydrates, which the label states is 6% of the recommended daily value based on a 2000 calorie diet. Of those 17g of carbohydrate 3g is sugar and 7g sugar alcohol.

The label of this line of products seems to be rather informative.

 

 

Sorry Bill that was an American reference I apologise for not making that clear.

[MarcoSciFor]

 

Just out of curiosity have you read this thread rather than just the title?

 

 

No you are right..... there was too much, to read it all, vis a vis available time.

But that shouldn't detract from the argument that I presented.... primarily because that argument was based around common knowledge.

 

Clearly there are complex issues at stake here.

However, I believe that the 'angle' that I took was valid to the thread, and the logic I used was solid.

 

The argument didn't need to reference studies, because the use of sugar in beverages is something that we all see on a day to day basis, and the range of consumption was broad enough for us all to make a judgement.

 

The fact that certain societies consume more sugar in tea, than others, is a clear indication that this is a lifestyle choice.

 

If we compare this to alcohol consumption: while it is evident that some people can drink a small quantity.... we see with our own eyes that a good proportion of drinkers increase their drinking to the 'supersaturated level'.

 

We just don't see this with sugar.

There will surely be a small minority of people who gradually increase the sugar they add to tea........ but this is insignificant, compared to behaviour with alcohol.

 

Therefore I believe that the argument of 'lifestyle choice' versus 'addiction' is valid.

 

Anyway..... I thought that this perspective was a useful addition to the thread.

 

No harm done I presume

[iNow]

While your logic is sound, your underlying/foundational premises are flawed, hence any conclusions drawn from them correct only by accident.

 

Sugar is much more of a challenge than you seem to personally believe and is far more serious than your dismissive tone suggests based on a small handful of anecdotes, and the evidence is abundantly clear on this.

 

Summarized: We're talking about much more than one lump versus two (or zero) in ones tea. Read the thread and recognize that your personal opinion means little if it's unsupported by evidence.

[MarcoSciFor]

While your logic is sound, your underlying/foundational premises are flawed, hence any conclusions drawn from them correct only by accident.

 

Sugar is much more of a challenge than you seem to personally believe and is far more serious than your dismissive tone suggests based on a small handful of anecdotes, and the evidence is abundantly clear on this.

 

Summarized: We're talking about much more than one lump versus two (or zero) in ones tea. Read the thread and recognize that your personal opinion means little if it's unsupported by evidence.

 

Personally I feel that mentioning 'dismissive tone' is an incorrect assessment of my posts.

I posted in a jocular challenging manner, not to be dismissive, but to present a confident forthright argument (as a contribution to the thread).

 

I clearly can't refer to any study supporting my argument...... so what?..... should I not have posted this perspective?

Everybody is well aware of what constitutes the principals of a scientifically sound study (but let's not go there, because we've all seen unsound scientific studies being published)

 

So let's be clear..... I didn't post my contribution, sitting on a high horse....... and absolutely didn't post it to be dismissive (because that sounds derogatory to me).

Challenging yes..... but with a friendly smile.

 

Sorry if that came across badly - clearly my unintended fault.

 

What do you want me to do?...... retire gracefully?

Fine.

But it was just a contribution to the discussion, and I still think it was well outlined.

 

Honestly, I was expecting a far more specific challenge to the argument, perhaps explaining why cafe's now provide a smaller quantity of sugar with the coffee, than in previous times.

 

Anecdotal ....... yes,... but that is just the reality of life.

Cafe's reduced the sugar left with coffee, because people just weren't using it all (I assume).

 

Also, some explanation as to why when somebody has the addictive substance almost freely available...... why they don't pile in?

Pointing at studies of other elements of the debate, just doesn't cut it.

 

When it comes to addiction; people surely just can't get enough....... or if they haven't got their required dose, they would get it through (any) other means eg. more spoons of sugar.

Only we don't see it.

 

[iNow]

I clearly can't refer to any study supporting my argument...... so what?.....

It's a requirement in this community, one to which you agreed when registering your account.

 

What do you want me to do?...... retire gracefully?

Ensure your premises are grounded in reality and supported by evidence. It's not difficult, and you're not being singled out.

 

When it comes to addiction; people surely just can't get enough

You appear to be using a nonstandard definition, one that is different from most others here and in the literature. Perhaps this is part of the problem.

 

EDIT: More here if you need a primer: http://www.scribd.com/doc/2431227/The-Psychological-Science-of-Addiction#scribd

 

I was expecting a far more specific challenge to the argument, perhaps explaining why cafe's now provide a smaller quantity of sugar with the coffee, than in previous times.

Citation needed. Edited August 24, 2015 by iNow

[MarcoSciFor]

It's a requirement in this community, one to which you agreed when registering your account.

 

Ensure your premises are grounded in reality and supported by evidence. It's not difficult, and you're not being singled out.

 

You appear to be using a nonstandard definition, one that is different from most others here and in the literature. Perhaps this is part of the problem.

Citation needed.

 

It's a requirement in this community, one to which you agreed when registering your account.

 

Checkmate.

 

Ensure your premises are grounded in reality and supported by evidence. It's not difficult, and you're not being singled out.

 

Grounded in reality.... I don't think that was a problem.

 

supported by evidence. It's not difficult,

 

I have no chance of supporting this by clinical evidence, so it was not just difficult...... it was impossible.

However, I guess that everyone reading this thread, and read my contribution, is aware that they do not see the vast majority of people taking tea with spinning sugar crystals.

The Sudan/Egypt element is a bit harder.

 

Google 'sugar in tea in Sudan'

and you'll get a whole list of tea articles.

here's one...... the crap thing is that it's just anecdotal

http://www.tomokogoto.com/blog/sudanese-tea-culture-and-tea-ladies/

 

"The most crucial ingredient of all is sugar. The sugar jar was the biggest vessel on the tea lady’s counter. It can be served separately on request, or the tea lady just puts in big heaps of sugar, almost reaching half the volume of a tiny glass."

 

 

Bizarrely, searching for sugar in tea in the uk, produces no sensible results!!!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/food/0/22026753

 

Apparently

"25% choose to add sugar, reports Kantar Word Panel"

 

Who are they?

 

You appear to be using a nonstandard definition, one that is different from most others here and in the literature. Perhaps this is part of the problem.

 

This was the top result, and it happens to match my premise....... is this fair enough?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/addiction

addiction in Science

addiction

(ə-dĭk'shən)

A physical or psychological need for a habit-forming substance, such as a drug or alcohol. In physical addiction, the body adapts to the substance being used and gradually requires increased amounts to reproduce the effects originally produced by smaller doses.

addiction in Medicine

addiction ad·dic·tion (ə-dĭk'shən)

n.

Habitual psychological and physiological dependence on a substance or practice beyond one's voluntary control.

 

Citation needed.

 

Sadly none available, I just guess we've all noticed that the paper wrapped sugar on the saucer, is now smaller than it used to be.

However, do bear in mind that I was leaving a 'parting shot'.

It wasn't part of my argument..... it was just another brick in the wall.

 

The primary point was that people, certainly in France and the UK do not use 6 or 7 spoons of sugar in their beverages.

But no citation I'm afraid.

So no matter how true the statement is.... we must exclude this from the discussion.

 

Overall:

Obviously I understand the need for hard data.

However, if I say "There are no zombies in existence a la Walking Dead"....... must I really provide a Citation for this?

 

Similarly do I really need to provide a citation to back up the claim that say people in the UK and France, do not dose their tea to the point where no more sugar will dissolve.

We just know that it is the case.

It would be ridiculous to suggest otherwise.

 

Citations yes..... but there surely must be limits?

 

Hmmm!

Good point?

or not?

 

[iNow]

I guess that everyone reading this thread, and read my contribution, is aware that they do not see the vast majority of people taking tea with spinning sugar crystals.

How people take their tea has little bearing on the conversation regarding sugar addiction. Further, if you're going to claim how the "vast majority of people take their tea," then you'll need evidence in support of that assertion, as well. I'm trying to help you understand what's expected here.

 

here's one...... the crap thing is that it's just anecdotal

Hence, does not address the request put to you.

 

This was the top result, and it happens to match my premise....... is this fair enough?

Since when is "dictionary.com" used as the relevant baseline against which scientific usage of terms is determined? You should note that I even shared a link in my previous post to help you on this specific point, but you seem to have ignored it.

 

Citation needed.

 

Sadly none available

In which case, something you asserted as fact is actually just your personal, anecdotal, and frankly baseless opinion so again has no relevance here. You said cafes provide less sugar today than they have in the past. You were either making that up or lying given your concession here that no citations supporting such a claim are available.

 

I just guess we've all noticed that the paper wrapped sugar on the saucer, is now smaller than it used to be.

I haven't noticed that. I'm sure others haven't noticed that. You should try to avoid generalizing your personal observations as if they apply to the world as a whole.

 

The primary point was that people, certainly in France and the UK do not use 6 or 7 spoons of sugar in their beverages.

But no citation I'm afraid.

It doesn't really matter since it's completely irrelevant to the actual discussion taking place.

 

Obviously I understand the need for hard data.

Given the exchange here, it would be a bit of a stretch to suggest it's "obvious," but I will stipulate that it is good to see you at least acknowledge it here in this most recent post.

 

It wasn't part of my argument..... it was just another brick in the wall.

Well, if ya don't eat yer meat, you can't have any pudding (FYI - thought that was a better selection than simply telling you, "Wrong! Do it again!"). Edited August 25, 2015 by iNow

[MarcoSciFor]

Thanks for the response.... but the statement of checkmate was primary.

The rest was pointing out the difficulty of meeting the requirements.

Don't think for one minute I don't understand your position.

[dimreepr]

 

No you are right..... there was too much, to read it all, vis a vis available time.

But that shouldn't detract from the argument that I presented.... primarily because that argument was based around common knowledge.

 

Clearly there are complex issues at stake here.

However, I believe that the 'angle' that I took was valid to the thread, and the logic I used was solid.

 

 

It’s naive and a little arrogant to think your simplistic observation can make a valid contribution to a thread nearing its third page by reading the thread title.

 

I to have noticed a cultural trend towards less sugar (the white stuff one spoons) in hot beverages but that doesn’t equate to our intake of sugar being reduced, since sugar has many different names and many different hiding places.

[Fuzzwood]

Contents listings can be misleading, but aren't all foods supposed to have a table listing things like total energy, fats, carbohydrates, salts, etc as well? Something like this should be clear as day: carbohydrates 76g of which 17 g are sugars.

 

[dimreepr]

The WHO’s recommended daily sugar intake should be no more than 10% (ideally less than 5%) of added sugar.

 

For a 2.000 calorie diet, 5% equals 25 grams, so a 100 gram serving of whatever that contains 17% sugar and is less than 20% of said diet should be ringing a few alarm bells.

 

http://www.sugarscience.org/the-growing-concern-of-overconsumption/#.VdxA_flVhBc

The AHA recommends 6 – 9 teaspoons of sugar per day...