Sugar is the New Tobacco

[aliceBB]

Cyclone, unless you are working from a different definition of 'addiction' from me, I think it can be argued that added, refined sugar is addictive because of the repeated sugar 'rush/spike/crash' phenomenon it can create in the body (which is as I understand it, connected with insulin production and onset of Type 2 diabetes). For many people this becomes a type of physiological, as well as psychological dependence, without which they feel unhappy and deprived. There are people trying to 'diet' who have gone without biscuits, cake, etc., for less than a day before they start to feel very unhappy, energy-starved and crave that sugar rush. Some of them would commit acts of minor violence to get it. I'd call that addiction.

 

Essentially, the more unnecessary sugar we consume, the more we want. We are not satiated by it, except for an hour or so. Then our blood sugar levels fall lower than is good for us and we crave more. We knock back a couple of Mars Bard or a can of Fanta and we feel good again. I agree there's an evolutionary basis to to, but we have fallen out of kilter with that, in an age where we can so readily access such concentrated amounts of glucose-based calories, so cheaply.

 

If people have the will power to wean themselves off added sugar (or even do it 'cold turkey' fashion), they can get to a point where the naturally occurring sugars in unrefined carbohydrates are ample for energy needs. This is not as difficult as fighting heroin or alcohol dependency, but it is the same process - withdrawing a substance from our body which our body has come to rely on, even if it is destructive of health.

 

I'd say fat was addictive in the same way - wouldn't you?

[Cyclone]

I'm working from the medical one, have you invented a new one?

 

You can't withdraw glucose from the body, as I mentioned before, it's what all the carbs you eat are digested into.

 

Fat is also not addictive.

[gimp27]

I'm working from the medical one, have you invented a new one?

 

You can't withdraw glucose from the body, as I mentioned before, it's what all the carbs you eat are digested into.

 

Fat is also not addictive.

 

Fat is addictive. I love a block of lard for cooking. Yes, its wrong, but nice.

[Dromedary]

Cyclone, unless you are working from a different definition of 'addiction' from me, I think it can be argued that added, refined sugar is addictive because of the repeated sugar 'rush/spike/crash' phenomenon it can create in the body (which is as I understand it, connected with insulin production and onset of Type 2 diabetes).

 

 

It has been proven many times that there is no such thing as a sugar rush/spike/crash and also that refined sugar or fructose is the same when consumed. It may affect insulin production but that's if too much is consumed or people are subject to insulin problems.

 

I use sugar, caffeine and alcohol but am not addicted to them. I also use use butter and lard/animal fats for cooking. I do not use cooking oil in any form as I will rather the product its from be used for food instead.

 

As I have already stated its about diet and excessive consumption and people should stop blaming others and listening to misguided information that abounds.

[aliceBB]

It has been proven many times that there is no such thing as a sugar rush/spike/crash and also that refined sugar or fructose is the same when consumed. It may affect insulin production but that's if too much is consumed or people are subject to insulin problems.

By whom?

 

I use sugar, caffeine and alcohol but am not addicted to them. I also use use butter and lard/animal fats for cooking. I do not use cooking oil in any form as I will rather the product its from be used for food instead.

So what?

 

As I have already stated its about diet and excessive consumption and people should stop blaming others and listening to misguided information that abounds

.I do not think we disagree about that. The problem seems to be that some people do not understand the connection between overconsumption of certain types of food and their weight gain.

[poppet2]

You understand that caffeine is NOT add to tea and coffee, it's there already, in the tea leaf and in the coffee bean.

 

I am well aware of that

If caffeine free coffee is available, it's not much of a conspiracy by Nescafe is it!

 

Who said anything about a conspiracy theory? Also, why are you singling out Nescafe?

 

Also, caffeine doesn't create any kind of high.

 

Yes it does, which is why caffeine and sugary fizzy drinks are so popular. The fizzy drinks are marketed as 'Energy' drinks. Several cans of this and the effects are the same as coffee, insomnia and dilated pupils, resulting in side effects of shaking. Why else do people drink this rubbish?

 

Re:Sugar, I've just explained why people crave sweet things, it has an evolutionary background, it is precisely to do with maximum calories for minimum effort.

 

And as I have explained earlier, people crave a sweet desert even After they have consummed a perfectly large healthy savoury meal. They aren't hungry, they just crave sugar.

 

 

Sugar is not addictive, repeating yourself won't make it true.

 

Sugar is addictive.

 

Have you ever wondered about digestion, every carbohydrate you eat gets converted in glucose, and it's even possible for proteins to be converted into glucose if required (although not the normal pathway). Your entire body runs off glucose, without glucose you would die, pretty much on the spot.

That's why people like the taste, it's an energy rich source of calories in a form that's very easy to consume.

 

You obviously didn't read my post 12.

[Cyclone]

Fat is addictive. I love a block of lard for cooking. Yes, its wrong, but nice.

 

The fact that something tastes nice does not mean it's addictive.

 

---------- Post added 16-01-2014 at 07:34 ----------

 

I am well aware of that

 

 

Who said anything about a conspiracy theory? Also, why are you singling out Nescafe?

Just a popular brand of instant coffee, replace it with coffee of your choice.

 

 

Yes it does, which is why caffeine and sugary fizzy drinks are so popular. The fizzy drinks are marketed as 'Energy' drinks. Several cans of this and the effects are the same as coffee, insomnia and dilated pupils, resulting in side effects of shaking. Why else do people drink this rubbish?

1 can of caffeinated beverage and the effects are the same as coffee. Which don't include the things you've listed unless you have a severe reaction or drink multiple drinks.

 

 

 

And as I have explained earlier, people crave a sweet desert even After they have consummed a perfectly large healthy savoury meal. They aren't hungry, they just crave sugar.

There is no physical addiction. At best you are describing a psychological addiction. Go back a page, I quite clearly said it's not physically addictive.

 

 

 

Sugar is addictive.

If that is so then please provide actual evidence to support the assertion.

 

 

 

You obviously didn't read my post 12.

Yes I did.

 

---------- Post added 16-01-2014 at 07:35 ----------

 

There is no need to eat any sugar.

All carbs naturally turn into Sugar and we get natural sugar from fruit and many vegetables.

 

But I'll read it again to keep you happy.

 

Given that we agree on this, it would make it impossible to avoid the addiction (if such existed) because we cannot help but have glucose entering our system from our digestive tract).

[poppet2]

The difference is the natural sugars that we get from carbs and fruit are not noticeable to us as a form of sugar intake, because there is no immediate high and therefore no craving.

 

Carbs and fruit which contain natural sugar have a slow unnoticeable effect on the system which provides all the sugar our body naturally needs. We do not need cheap, easily accessible, high caloried junk like sugar, which the food industry use, purely to manipulate our taste buds and with its addictive quality, leaves us wanting more. I substitute all my cooking that requires sugar, with honey. I wish they would just ban sugar, then at least the nation's teeth would improve as well as their weight.

[aliceBB]

The difference is the natural sugars that we get from carbs and fruit are not noticeable to us as a form of sugar intake, because there is no immediate high and therefore no craving.

 

Carbs and fruit which contain natural sugar have a slow unnoticeable effect on the system which provides all the sugar our body naturally needs. We do not need cheap, easily accessible, high caloried junk like sugar, which the food industry use, purely to manipulate our taste buds and with its addictive quality, leaves us wanting more. I substitute all my cooking that requires sugar, with honey. I wish they would just ban sugar, then at least the nation's teeth would improve as well as their weight.

Perhaps it would be useful not to use the word 'sugar' so loosely.

 

I think we are all agreed that the body needs glucose; as Cyclone has said, this is produced when carbohydrates of any kind (whether cabbage, or cupcakes) are ingested and broken down by the body. The difference is the 'concentration' if you like - the amount of glucose produced from a given weight of any particular foodstuff. Refined sugar products have way too much sugar, even in a single portion, for health and when much of someone's daily intake consists of processed, sugar-rich foods, it plays havoc with their insulin production system. Plus, they are also unlikely to be getting the fibre, vitamins and minerals they need; in some cases (esp. children) they may even not be getting enough protein (not usually a problem in Western diets), as the sugary foods create a temporary sense of satiety (followed by hunger pangs) which encourages snacking through the day rather than eating a protein-based meal every four to five hours (which is less highly glycaemic and would satisfy for longer).

 

Until about 100 years ago, very few people risked developing diabetes from their diets because the kind of intensely sugar-rich foods and drinks consumed so widely today, were not available, or not to most people, anyway. Throughout the 20th century Western diets changed to the point where we started to take in more calories than we expended in exercise/daily living/working. Sugar is cheap and it preserves food, making it profitable to produce and store sweet foods in bulk. We're walking blindlfold into huge overconsumption of sugar, partly because it is made so easy for us. Food and beverage manufacturers (through design or accident?) starting packing more and more refined sugar into products, even promoting it as 'healthy', 'energy-giving'(Lucozade, etc). It is undeniably energy-giving, but not all sources of energy in the diet are equally health-giving. Energy or glucose (from food) is not something we need an uncontrolled source of. Individuals must of course take more responsibility for what they eat, but the manufacturers need to be responsible, too. For some people in some parts of the country, it is difficult to buy affordable fresh, whole food all the time. Processed food could have a part to play - but the big food manufacturers need to help wean the population off its craving for added, refined sugar.

 

As for the 'addictive'/sugar rush and crash properties of high-sugar foods and drinks - just watch a teenager who's had no breakfast be listless and grumpy Lesson 1 and 2, consume a can of fizz and a chocolate bar at breaktime become hyper and silly in the next 2 lessons, then crash at about 1 pm...after all the real food has been sold/put away in the canteen. He then goes to the shop for another two cans and a packet of crisps, and the whole process starts again. Shudder!

 

The scenario above was typical of many of my former pupils in a rural comprehensive school, until the school had the sense to ban fizzy drinks completely and the consumption of confectionery (cakes, sweets) unless as a dessert after a protein-based meal. The problem (poor concentration and behaviour) largely disappeared.

 

Don't tell me there's no such thing as a sugar rush! I've seen it too often.

[onewheeldave]

 

The scenario above was typical of many of my former pupils in a rural comprehensive school, until the school had the sense to ban fizzy drinks completely and the consumption of confectionery (cakes, sweets) unless as a dessert after a protein-based meal. The problem (poor concentration and behaviour) largely disappeared.

 

Don't tell me there's no such thing as a sugar rush! I've seen it too often.

 

Bear in mind that the actions of children after drinking fizzy drinks can't be necessarily atributed to the sugar content, as most fizzy drinks contain caffeine, which, unlike sugar, has been shown conclusively to trigger such behaviour, as it is a stimulant.

 

Whereas several studies have indicated that the 'sugar rush' is a myth.

 

The other thing is that most junk foods do not just contain sugar- they also have fat as an ingredient, so, again, harm attributed to sugar could in fact be down to the fat.