9 ms·
The Sugar Addiction Taboo
- Dirlewanger 13y agoAnother crutch for the general public's pathetic listlessness to bettering their diets. It's addictive in the way that marijuana is addictive: People are so used to it and therefore trick themselves into thinking they need that good feeling it provides; quitting overly-sugary stuff or marijuana cold turkey will not cause one's body to go into any sort of physiological distress (pulled that phrase out of my ass) as one would with heroin.
- angersock 13y agoIt can be surprisingly difficult to find food without lots of sugar or HFCS in it these days, especially if you are unable (for whatever reason) to cook from raw ingredients. It's a thorny issue.
- msluyter 13y agoIndeed, and you find sugar in all sorts of places you might not expect. For example, Sriracha hot sauce: would you have guessed that the second ingredient is sugar?
- nightski 13y agoYes but just about any other hot sauce is safe. It is actually really easy to avoid HFCS. My girlfriend & I were laughing the other day as we have been on keto for about a month and we rarely go into the center isles of the grocery store anymore. Produce -> Meat Dpt -> Dairy -> Sauces/Spices -> Done.
- angersock 13y agoInteresting heuristic...how do you handle canned vegetables, beans for instance? Or do you just soak them?
- nightski 13y agoUnfortunately for this particular diet beans are off limits (rather high in carbs). That does not mean they are unhealthy or anything, just that they do not work with this particular diet. We primarily only buy fresh vegetables. Lots of cabbage, spinach, lettuce, mushrooms, onions, peppers, asparagus).
- anigbrowl 13y agoIt's a tricky line. I cook a lot and I don't have a sweet tooth in general (though I have some particular favorite sweets, of course). I've come to realize that I'm actually deficient in knowing when I should use sugar as an ingredient; because I only think of it as a sweetener (and have little desire to sweeten the food I cook), I've become ignorant of when you need to use it (for texture, to offset an undesirable sour or bitter flavor, or for other chemical properties).
- ableal 13y ago> to offset an undesirable sour or bitter flavor It's better to err on the side you're on, because that justification covers quite a lot of ground. For instance, it's hard to find tomato without sugar in prepared food. Or anything else without sugar, actually. Seems that food companies are afraid of "tasting bad" and just throw sugar in there willy-nilly, with the consequences now in plain sight, to say the least.
- orbitur 13y agoYes, I would have guessed. Can people not taste how sweet it is?
- mixmastamyk 13y agoIf you use it in the suggested amounts I believe it is only a gram or two of extra sugar. Not enough to make much of a difference.
- sroerick 13y agoI don't think that this is entirely fair. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/10/01/dining/nacho-graphic.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/10/01/dining/nacho-g... You could probably argue convincingly that sugar and doritos are actually more compelling to the public, because they are specifically engineered to defeat our body's natural mechanisms for regulating diet.
- jamiecurle 13y agoAnecdotal warning, but I experienced really, really intense headaches for the first seven days after removing all forms of sugar from my diet. After that however it was really easy and right now I feel great and EVERYTHING tastes much, much sweeter. In total I went 8 weeks without any sugar. I have no plans to ever return to incorporating it into my diet. I consider this move to be one of the best things I've done since removing nicotine and alcohol completely from my life.
- scott_s 13y agoWhat do you mean by "all forms of sugar"? Do you mean you stopped eating foods that were mostly sugar, or had a disproportionate amount of sugar, or stopped using sugar as an additive? Because if taken literally, you couldn't eat any fruit, vegetables and most bread.
- nightski 13y agoWell I know personally I have switched to a "keto" diet, and continue to stay on it not due to weight loss but just the amazing concentration levels and feeling I get while on it. You are limited to essentially 20g of carbs a day total. This is enough to get a healthy dose of vegetables (not fruit of any kind - leafy greens) and that is about it. Maybe a dollup of sriracha. Either way, after being on the diet for a couple months I had one bite of a chocolate bar and let me tell you, the flavor was 1000x more intense and I felt no need for more after the first bite. Of course this is one person's experience, YMMV.
- a8da6b0c91d 13y agoPeople go on low carbohydrate or ketogenic diets and feel better because cortisol and adrenaline levels are boosted. It's like getting a cortisone shot. This affect can last a year or two. But then eventually stress hormone resistance develops and the whole thing falls apart with some ugly health consequences. People get crashed testosterone and thyroid levels and brain fog. Sustained low carb is a bad idea. You are mimicking the metabolism of starvation. For the most part you want to be operating with glycogen topped up.
- colechristensen 13y ago"general public's pathetic listlessness to bettering their diets" This is a terrible way to associate with and think about people. There is another rampant addiction going around, phycological dependance on the feeling of smug satisfaction in one's own superiority given by partaking in – and to a larger degree talking about – the latest fad in ( health | diet | environment | programming language | life ).
- mberning 13y agoSuch a lazy dismissal of a complex issue. It is entirely possible that there is a spectrum of susceptibility to fructose addiction. Just because it is easy for me to drink alcohol and not get addicted does not mean that it is equally easy for every person to not become addicted. I do not look down upon alcoholics and I certainly do not look down upon the obese. It is a medical problem that we need to figure out. If you entertain the idea that some but not all people have a susceptibility to fructose addiction and then consider that a very large portion of the food supply is 'supplemented' with sugar you can begin to imagine just one of the reasons why obesity has been on such a rise.
- maxmem 13y agoActually there are symptoms shown when one reduces sugar intake. Nothing quite like heroin or other opiates though.
- vezzy-fnord 13y agoI think that it's important for one to make a distinction between addiction and dependency. They're different. You can be addicted to a substance or activity, without having any physical dependence on it. Yet people often use addiction to describe both scenarios, making it ambiguous. One can get addicted to virtually anything imaginable.
- Stronico 13y agoHow would you define addiction then? Pure psychological withdrawal vs pure physical withdrawal? I'm asking - I use the terms a bit differently.
- vezzy-fnord 13y agoBoth physical and psychological withdrawals would constitute addictions, but the word "addiction" alone is ambiguous. Dependency specifically refers to physical withdrawal. Some addictions don't even have withdrawal symptoms at all, but are practiced largely due to inertia or some lack of motivation. Internet addiction is often one of these.
- bgentry 13y agoThe research cited by Dr. Lustig demonstrates that sugar causes both mental and physical addiction. It's more addictive than cocaine: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
- Groxx 13y agoWhere do you draw the line on "physical dependence" though? Arguably even the most-pure psychological addiction can even be crammed in there if given sufficient force, since you'll produce chemical imbalances if you're in withdrawal, like "I lack coffee. Bring it or someone dies." headaches. (serious question, btw. I'm not sure where I draw it, so it usually ends up subjective, which I would like to minimize.) There is of course the extreme, like with our physical dependence on vitamin C. Somewhere back in our evolution we lost the ability to synthesize it, probably because it was abundant in food. Now we die if we don't get it. I doubt you are referring to that, though.
- elnate 13y agoInteresting article. I'm just a little disappointed that they distinguished glucose and fructose early on then went on to using the ambiguous 'sugar'. It sounded like a lot of this only applies to the fructose when they said glucose is "not that much fun".
- penguindev 13y agoAgreed, they let glucose off the hook way, way too easily. If you are eating no 'sweet' sugar yet addicted to pretzels, pizza, bagels, and cereal with low fat milk - and thinking you're healthy because it's 'whole grain', like I was over a year ago, you may be killing yourself. Your body doesn't need to ingest any carbs at all to survive, only protein and fat are required, and you can tolerate a lot more energy from fat than protein. I count myself among the 33%-50% of the population that is carb intolerant and should avoid carbs at all cost. I've been on a wheat free, LCHF, close to ketogenic diet^H^H^Hlifestyle for a year and have been astounded at how well it works. Sure, some people can tolerate low fat high carb diets even as they get older. But they're making a lot of other people sick by pushing those diets on us.
- a8da6b0c91d 13y agoHigh fat diets boost endotoxin absorption and catecholamines. It's also very difficult to eat high fat without getting too much unsaturated fat, which accumulates over time causing inflammation and aging. High protein diets boost catecholamines. The long standing conventional wisdom that you want to be a sugar/carb burner is correct. Your cells function best on a steadily available supply of glucose backed with plenty of glycogen. Fructose is protective against stress, so a decent amount of sucrose is desirable.
- rickdale 13y agoActually science will challenge your beliefs on carbs. I won't go medical journal on you, but this guy will, referring to the doctor: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2c2Oq-Pi2o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2c2Oq-Pi2o
- 13y ago
- jp555 13y agoThe liver converts fructose into glucose. While glucose is not essential, energy is, and glucose is the preferred energy for cellular metabolism (glycogen). Outside being in a sustained energy-surplus fructose is of little consequence. Energy-balance (digested food calories - energy exerted living) is magnitudes more important than the macronutrient content of your diet.
- mberning 13y agoThat is a big oversimplification. You can go watch Lustig's 'Bitter Truth' video for the biochemical details. The TL;DR is that fructose has some special properties which allow it to permeate your cells and organs whether they want the fructose or not. There are also some very nasty byproducts from the metabolism of fructose that are not present when metabolizing glucose by itself.
- jp555 13y agoI've seen it. His data shows it's the increase of calorie consumption over time. This was mostly sugar (Honey, table sugar, HFCS are all around half fructose), but it was the sustained increase in energy intake over years that's the cause. Even if fructose has some special role in promoting more of a fat-storage bias in metabolism, it's due to eating too much, not due to the fructose; eating less (or scaling activity with food intake) solves both problems.
- sliverstorm 13y agoI know it's nit-picky of me, but this sort of stuff drives me nuts: Food should confer wellness, not illness. These sorts of platitudes that try to look "deep"... really put a bitter aftertaste on the tail end of articles that were serviceable otherwise.
- pge 13y agoThe author of this article is Robert Lustig, so there is a lot of relevant background out there about his views and the reception. Here is one of his well known youtube lectures about sugar: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM&list=TLQCIoJBjuT4eoj8RQ8tfHrOw8jn44Stb6 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM&list=TLQCIoJBjuT4.... Wikipedia has some background as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Lustig http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Lustig. In short, know the source here. His view is thought provoking but not without controversy, and not widely accepted in the medical community.
- run4_too 13y agoBased on wikipedia, he seems to have more knowledge of the subject that the "medical community" would have, to be honest, given he has the following qualifications: Robert H. Lustig, MD Nationality: American Education: MIT, Cornell University Medical College Medical career Profession: clinical medical practice, teaching and research Field: neuroendocrinology, pediatric endocrinology Institutions: University of California, San Francisco, UCSF Benioff Children's Hospital Specialism: childhood obesity Research: biochemical, neural, hormonal and genetic influences contributing to obesity I don't know too much about him, but I'm curious as to whether or not any of his detractors have similar specialties. On the surface, most of the data would seem to agree with Dr. Lustig.
- dekhn 13y agoIt's not impossible for a person to have stellar research credentials, yet be a terrible research MD. Could you point to the data which agrees with Lustig? can you vouch for its accuracy, compared to, say, some data people who don't agree with him? I've talked extensively with people in the Biochemistry dept at UCSF (my phd is from biophysics there) and they mostly seem to think he's a buffoon.
- run4_too 13y agohttp://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/4/537.full http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/4/537.full http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/106/4/523.full http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/106/4/523.full Admittedly, This isn't my area of expertise. However that's a 30 second google search compared to your "people I know say he's a buffoon" argument. Given you are an anonymous voice in the inter-webs who may not even know how to get to UCSF, I'm pretty comfortable with my current assessment. I can certainly be convinced otherwise, but "my buddies think he's a kook" is not exactly doing it for me. (I'm confused ~ downvotes? There is absolutely nothing beyond ad homenem provided against me by dekhn, and yet I'm downvoted? Am I missing something here?)
- dekhn 13y agoI would like to mention something very substantial and non-trivial. Robert Lustig is a research doctor. he works at UCSF (it's where my PhD in Biophysics is from), and sees patients there- highly obese, atypical patients. He promotes a particular position about metabolism and health. However - and this is the key thing - he has NOT published data which is convincing to reasonable scientists to support his position. At UCSF, he's generally considered a bit of a quack (personal comments from a number of professional scientists who work there). Here is a list of Lustig's publications. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&q=author:%22rh+lustig%22&scisbd=1 http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&q=author:... I, working with grad students at UCSF and elsewhere, have picked apart the materials and methods of his studies and found numerous statistical errors which make us doubt the validity of his conclusions. I won't claim that we have evidence he is being fraudful- it's more likely just an example of poor scientific behavior. I'll give Lustig credit for one thing. Sugar- the Bitter Truth is one of the finest examples of manipulative sophistry I've ever seen. After seeing that I realized that most scientists are doing an absurdly poor job manipulating the public.
- bollockitis 13y ago> I, working with grad students at UCSF and elsewhere, have picked apart the materials and methods of his studies and found numerous statistical errors which make us doubt the validity of his conclusions. Have you published your work anywhere? I'd like to read it.
- dekhn 13y agoSorry, nope. The content of discussions in journal clubs are generally considered confidential.
- vixen99 13y agoAnd the reference to those statistical or other errors or is this just ad hominem?
- dekhn 13y ago
- al2o3cr 13y ago(in re people with hereditary fructose intolerance) "And they’re among the healthiest people on the planet. " FFS, The Atlantic should be embarrassed to publish articles with "correlation is causation" fallacies of this magnitude in them. This is standard food woo thinking: "people who heavily scrutinized and evaluated everything they ate because they have a strong adverse reaction to X means that not eating X will make YOU healthy too!" Not considered: that maybe the simple act of THINKING before shoving whatever's handy into one's maw might be the health-inducing factor. See also: "It has been found that laboratory research causes cancer in rats." Which, as it turns out, may actually hold some non-snarky truth - http://www.nature.com/news/chilly-lab-mice-skew-cancer-studies-1.14190 http://www.nature.com/news/chilly-lab-mice-skew-cancer-studi...
- sliverstorm 13y agoPersonally I think it's an acceptable observation. Even if reduced levels of dietary fructose are not directly responsible for their health, it seems extremely feasible that an ordinary person could elect to follow the model of avoiding fructose, and expect to benefit, because they will replicate the patterns of fructose avoidance, healthy-food-selection and all. Do you see what I am saying? The two unique features of these people are fructose intolerance, and avoiding fructose. Unless fructose intolerance confers health, the act of avoiding fructose must aide in health. The precise reason for the improvement in health isn't important, if all you (on an individual basis) desire is to replicate their healthful results.
- solox3 13y agoObjectively speaking, that is unlikely a valid observation. Anyone with any dietary intolerance is more likely to read product labels, and thus more aware of what is in their food. It is not necessarily true, then, that avoiding fructose alone is making a label-conscious shopper healthier.
- sliverstorm 13y agoBut someone with a fructose intolerance reads labels to avoid fructose. If you are tolerant of fructose, but decide to eliminate it from your diet anyway, how would you not start reading labels and becoming conscious of the ingredients?
- Ryel 13y agoJust another BS title for the people working on the DSM, and a doctor to extend his legacy by creating a catchy, all-encompassing term that stands to plague the world for decades. You're not ADD, you're all-wound-up because your sitting in a chair for 8 hours a day only to come home and do homework for another hour, sit down and eat for another hour, shower, hygiene, etc for another hour, then finally bed. Nowadays kids spend probably a minimum of 12 hours doing sedentary work. Now combine that time spent sitting with a diet high in sugar, caffeine, and artificial food... OF COURSE YOU HAVE BUILT UP ENERGY. The recent work of Doctors(mostly Psychiatrists) is absolutely ridiculous and the people producing the fodder for mass hysteria (ADHD, ADD, Schizo, etc,) need to be held accountable for the mis-diagnosis they've created in the society(not to mention the lawsuits they're going to be facing when in 10 years we find out that the reason for all of these new mass-diseases are these new mass-drugs)) The ONLY classification of "addiction" should be to things that have TRULY addicting chemical qualities that can be proven in simple placebo A/B testing. All OTHER work is worthless because in the human mind, anything is liable to become "addictive". I can become addicted to carrots, that doesn't make carrots "addictive"(chemically) and doesn't necessarily warrant a doctor prescribing me with loads of drugs or classifying me inside of some kind of medical label for the DSM. The only reason sugar is treated any different is because the potential fame and money. Not the mention the likelihood nowadays that the study was funded by the same corporation that stands to benefit from the results. * I can only hope that my generation is the one that stands to really study how powerful the mind and the body are, rather than today's generation of simply patching the problem with a bandaid called Adderall.