High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS)

[Jennifer F]

I boldened that line ^^^ above. This agrees with me. Umm, 4 weeks and 6 weeks while great for this study are not long enough time frames to bring the detriment I am referencing. (Not to mention personally experiencing.) How long did the study continue overall?

And as I said before, I am not a medical science guru.

So from this are you saying that long term over consumption of sugar is not harmful?

Hey, one can jump in their own petri dish. Drink two Cokes a day for a week. Then stop and go sugar free for 24 hours. Then make your own determination as to whether that's not an uncomfortable "heavy craving" in your gut. Do it for a year and then stop. Three decades, four. That's an addiction. Physical and emotional et al.

←

I would never conclude anything based on one example/article--that's the popular media's job! I was only trying to illustrate that research into this topic has been done. There were more articles on the subject, but I don't have the time to do a meta analysis right now. I understand that you have a personal experience, and that is great, but science isn't based on personal experiences (too many variables).

[ludja]

Pollan's "thing" if you will, is a belief that we have become a nation reliant on "industrial" food which is bad. The solution is to shift to small local sustainable farms etc.

I believe this is Pollan in a nutshell:

The root of this evil according to Pollan is corn (see his piece "We Are What We Eat"--what we eat is corn or a result of corn products. It is responsible for french fries (fried in corn oil), fast food, corn fed beef (as opposed to grass fed) soft drinks, and a zillion other so called industrial foods. basically if it is mass produced it is evil.

Pollan even has a problem with mass produced organic foods.

Health issues are secondary to Pollan's thesis. They play a supporting role.

I personally disagree with Pollan's entire thesis. It is a noble effort but is hugely flawed and his conclusion is largely unworkable. In short he sounds good but on closer inspection.....

...

←

I don't want to derail this thread from the topic of sugar and HFCS. This is a large topic that merits its own thread.

However, I recently finished reading The Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael Pollan and reading the quote above, I would like to offer the suggestion that if anyone is even peripherally interested in this larger topic or aspects of it, that they do themselves a favor, and read Pollan's book for themselves. That is, I think it is worth reading the “primary source” in this case in addition to reading reviews or individual interpretations and opinions of it.

Personally after reading the book, I genuinely don't find myself reducing it, or even the author's potential intent, to a simple take home message or moral prescription. Much of the content was fascinating to me and I enjoyed Pollan's writing, but more interestingly, I enjoyed the challenge of the new thoughts and further questions it provoked in me as a response. I am a big reader, but it is still exhilarating and newly rewarding to be surprised into thinking more deeply than one expects and in unexpected directions after reading a particular piece of writing.

(I was a bit surprised at my response since I had previously read a bunch of Pollan's articles, heard him on National Public Radio and listened to discussion of his work, here and elsewhere. Many of the extra ideas and richness of thought I found in the book are more nuanced than I expected and I think, at one level, depend on reading and considering the whole book. Nevertheless, I did find a short quote I enjoyed and that I added to my signature line...)

[K8memphis]

I boldened that line ^^^ above. This agrees with me. Umm, 4 weeks and 6 weeks while great for this study are not long enough time frames to bring the detriment I am referencing. (Not to mention personally experiencing.) How long did the study continue overall?

And as I said before, I am not a medical science guru.

So from this are you saying that long term over consumption of sugar is not harmful?

Hey, one can jump in their own petri dish. Drink two Cokes a day for a week. Then stop and go sugar free for 24 hours. Then make your own determination as to whether that's not an uncomfortable "heavy craving" in your gut. Do it for a year and then stop. Three decades, four. That's an addiction. Physical and emotional et al.

←

I would never conclude anything based on one example/article--that's the popular media's job! I was only trying to illustrate that research into this topic has been done. There were more articles on the subject, but I don't have the time to do a meta analysis right now. I understand that you have a personal experience, and that is great, but science isn't based on personal experiences (too many variables).

←

I was asked how did I arrive at calling sugar poison. How about this, alcohol is clearly not a poison. To an alcoholic it is a poison. Ever the more so to their families it is a biting poison. Poison meaning something real bad for us that we are drawn to consume, addicting.

Sugar is that poison for me and for many others. I would be representing the boomers who's lifelong consumption of sugar has caught up with them and those who stayed smart and stayed off it knowing in the first place how bad it is.

I was just at the store buying salmon and tilapia. As to which pieces I wanted I said to the clerk, just pick out the ones you would like eat. I said, "Do you eat fish?" She said tilapia yes salmon no. I said I've learned to like it. The clerk looked at me and said, "What do you have that you gotta buy fish now?" We talked and laughed. She's got bad cholesterol and can't eat this and that and this and that. I said, "Yeah, it's too bad we can't eat what we want now because we waited too long to eat the way we knew we should have all along."

That's all I mean. It's a poison. There was a dang tractor beam of Star Trek proportion pulling me to the cookie counter. Sugar has been an addiction for me. It is very difficult to avoid it.

I believe I also quoted Gloria Swanson's saying that in the book, Sugar Blues by William Dufty 1975. I am coming at this from the point of view that for example, some people think that cookies made from shortening as opposed to butter are not 'wholesome'. Whereas I believe that cookies made from sugar need nut meats in them or whole oats at least to balance out that sugar so it does not gut punch your system.

Stuff like that.

[Jennifer F]

The only thing I could say I agree with you about is that too much of anything isn't a good thing. Take for example even water...if you drink too much water in too short an amount of time it can cause water intoxication & death, but I wouldn't consider water a poison. Maybe my definition of poison is just a more narrow one. I'll leave it at that.

[K8memphis]

So you believe that caloric control alone will reduce weight?

Yes! In fact... wait for it... waaaaaaait for it... burning more calories than you consume is the only scientifically-proven way to reduce excess adipose tissue. As I mentioned above, not all weight loss is the same. Loss of "water weight" through a low carb diet is not meaningful weight loss.

Let us imagine the following: Take two identical twins at the same weight, and with the same exercise habits. Put them on calorie deficit diets that have equal caloric value. Both diets have the same amount of fiber, vitamins, etc. The difference is that one twin gets 50% of his calories from carbohydrates, including simple sugars, and the other twin gets only 5% of his calories from carbohydrates, with no simple sugars. At the end of the trial, the twins will have lost approximately the same amount of body fat. The low-carb, no-sugar twin may be several pounds lighter because of the water weight-shedding effect of a diet that contains insufficient carbohydrates.

Sugar and hfcs does hurt our blood sugar and this does get really dicey as it progresses with the liver thing that can create weight issues in addition to cardio blockage and stroke and diabetes, cancer.

There is no scientific evidence of which I am aware that this is the case with respect to any kind of real-world diet (no one is suggesting a diet of 100% fructose) and a fair amount of evidence that it is not the case.

When folks get sick, it is recommended that they cut back or eliminate sugar and eat a proper diet. If it's not harmful, it's use would not be discouraged or forbidden.

Again, no one is suggesting that people don't overconsume sugar, or that overconsumption of sugar doesn't have negative consequences. So does overconsumption of fat, overconsumption of protein, overconsumption of salt, and indeed, overconsumption of water. That doesn't make fat, protein, salt and water poisons, and it doesn't make sugar a poison either. Similarly, just because reduction in consumption of certain foods may be recommended when one is sick (although I am not aware of any scientifically-supported recommendations to eliminate sugar from the diet when one is sick) does not make that food "harmful" in normal circumstances. For example, someone with the flu might be advised to lay off the red wine. And yet, we know that red wine in amounts of a glass or so per day is actually beneficial.

Sugar is simply an allowed poison. A little won't kill you. America in general is way beyond this point. The 'a little' point.

Again, this is a common American misunderstanding, the idea that "if a lot of something is bad for you, then it's a 'poision' and you shouldn't have any of it." This is simply not true. Cigarettes are a "poison." A lot of cigarette smoke is bad for you, and even a little of it is bad for you as well. Alcohol is a poison, too. A lot of it is bad for you. But, interestingly enough, a little alcohol is actually good for you. Who knew? There is no evidence that sigar is a poison or that a reasonable amount of refined sugar in the diet is terrible for the human body.

No one is suggesting that Americans don't have too much refined sugar in their diet. Indeed, I say above that "convincing and well-supported arguments may be made (and have been made) to the effect that overconsumption of mono- and disaccharides has had a negative epidemiological health consequence."

I'll grant it's the same chemically as fruit sugar. It is however so refined it is dangerous to us. If we refined habernaro or jalapeno to that extent and used it our food (as in the craving for spicey food being equal to the craving for sweets scenario) we would burn our tongues off with the first use.

It's not clear from this that you have a firm understanding of "refined." There is very little difference between the sugar content of, e.g., unrefined honey and high fructose corn syrup.

As for the spicy heat example, there certainly are plenty of places in the world where the "craving" for spice is every bit as real as the "craving" for sweet, salt, etc.

I boldened that line ^^^ above. This agrees with me. Umm, 4 weeks and 6 weeks while great for this study are not long enough time frames to bring the detriment I am referencing. (Not to mention personally experiencing.) How long did the study continue overall?

No, actually it does not agree with you. That sentence only says "this is what people are saying these days" (and, again, I would add that no one is recommending a high-sucrose diet). This is just cherry picking a sentence out of context to make it seem like the study supports one viewpoint when in fact it supports the opposite.

The key sentence to read in that abstract is: "In this study, a high-sucrose intake as part of an eucaloric, weight-maintaining diet had no detrimental effect on insulin sensitivity, glycemic profiles, or measures of vascular compliance in healthy nondiabetic subjects." Another way of wording this would be: "The basic premise behind the South Beach Diet and other insulin-based diets is horsecrap unless you are diabetic."

Also of extreme interest is, who funded this experiment in Belfast Ireland the undisputed mission control of all things nutritional.

Peer-reviewed science is peer-reviewed science. Discounting the results of a study because of the source of its funding, or on any basis other than the soundness of its science, is a primary tactic of fringe quackery.

Look... if you want to believe Agatston and Perricone, and the scare tactics and rhetoric of their big-money diet books instead of common sense and mainstream science, be my guest. But saying that sucrose and white bread flour are poisons that ruin our blood chemistry again and again and again still doesn't make it so.

←

With respect, your permission was not a factor for me. Quoting studies does not negate my regained health neither do they make refined white flour products and refined sugar products wholesome nutrition.

What scare tactics? Who was scared?

I agree with you that caloric intake is key. However for example 1500 calories of a rotation of sweet pies will certainly ruin your system and weight loss may occur eventually but the right kind of 1500 calories will facilitate a great weight loss without the additional loss of health.

Healthy 33 year olds generally don't need to loose weight. Try that Belfast study on a bunch of boomers or children. How long was the study conducted? That's a very good scientific particle of information. Who funded the study has everything to do with common sense. Are you kidding?

Shoot, it has only been in the last few decades that medical science has even sneered at what we eat to be thought to be the base of any ailment or cure. So that is the side you are on apparently.

I'm not big science girl. I could run to studies but I really don't care to. I'm into surviving and I'm happy that these things have worked for me.

Sugar is a poison to me and lots of people. My evidence is clear.

I'm not swayed at all. That horsecrap worked for me and I'm not diabetic.

[Pan]

Would any of you like to comment on this article?

The most eye-catching quote is:

[...]"Sugar is as dangerous as tobacco [and] should be classified as a hard drug, for it is harmful and addictive," according to a recent article in the British Medical Journal.[...]

No specific citation seems to be given. Has anyone read the article obliquely referenced in the story in the Guardian?

[K8memphis]

The only thing I could say I agree with you about is that too much of anything isn't a good thing.  Take for example even water...if you drink too much water in too short an amount of time it can cause water intoxication & death, but I wouldn't consider water a poison.  Maybe my definition of poison is just a more narrow one.  I'll leave it at that.

←

Water is nutritional for us. Refined white sugar is not nutritional.

Do you think? I don't think it is. Does anyone think it is? It makes things taste great. I'm a sugar artist, a baker, an addict. Now old enough to say I cannot eat it like I used to and maintain my weight and health. Which is not an unheard of situation unique to me.

Are the kids hiding in the pantry to eat stolen green beans or stolen cookies? Are they sneaking apples or chocolate bars? One piece of chocolate can have the sugar of 5 apples and not a drop of fiber. I can eat a lot of chocolate. I can only eat so many rounds of five apples at a time.

That's not rocket science either. I like the word poison because I think we need to stop and think about sugar as a random occassional treat. Not as a common thread running through a majority of our foods and peppering our days.

It's mortally frustrating.

[K8memphis]

Would any of you like to comment on this article?

The most eye-catching quote is:

[...]"Sugar is as dangerous as tobacco [and] should be classified as a hard drug, for it is harmful and addictive," according to a recent article in the British Medical Journal.[...]

No specific citation seems to be given. Has anyone read the article obliquely referenced in the story in the Guardian?

←

Well hmm. Seems to be something in print there with a lot of support for exactly what I have been saying. The increases in sugar consumption cited alone are extremely noteworthy. Not super scientifical, lots of opinions though. Puts the big red A for addiction out there, it is of course. Try to give up drinking colas, test it.

I sincerely do not want any legislation. Awareness and education would help I think. But boy that article is packed with beaucoups of great stuff! And please forego the notion that this is a new concept. Sugar being damaging has been around for decades. This article says sugar overuse is on the rise. Far too many labels say "flavoring".

Thank you for posting that, Michael!

Edited February 17, 2007 by K8memphis (log)

[Pan]

Well, I find the claim that sugar is a hard drug like heroin very dubious. I don't suffer from withdrawal symptoms if I don't get a pastry on a given day. But I'd like some comments, and I'm especially interested in knowing what article in what journal the unattributed quote is from, and its context within the article.

Water isn't nutritional, but a medium for nutrients to be dissolved in and transmitted throughout the body.

[K8memphis]

Well, I find the claim that sugar is a hard drug like heroin very dubious. I don't suffer from withdrawal symptoms if I don't get a pastry on a given day. But I'd like some comments, and I'm especially interested in knowing what article in what journal the unattributed quote is from, and its context within the article.

Water isn't nutritional, but a medium for nutrients to be dissolved in and transmitted throughout the body.

←

To be fair, the comparison I made is that water contributes to nutrition, water is nutritional for us. Sugar is not nutritional.

Here's another self petri dish idea that is easy peasy to open the eyes of anyone open to discussion of the potential hazards of sugar ingestion. It helps to be over 25 years of age, like I said this damage is accomplished over lots of time. But eat a slice of iced layer cake for a midnight snack. First thing in the morning, check your bloated little mug in the mirror. Times that times all the other slices and all the other organs...

This information about the dangers of sucrose has been common knowledge in the health food world forever. Maybe I can find some stuff...I'll try.

It's just not a popular concept at all is it, that sugar is bad for us. Sugar as a commodity is huge business! Huge.

Reading that link you posted about how they jar and sterilize the baby food and the sugar carmelizes in the heated jar makes my skin crawl.

[K8memphis]

Well, I find the claim that sugar is a hard drug like heroin very dubious. I don't suffer from withdrawal symptoms if I don't get a pastry on a given day. But I'd like some comments, and I'm especially interested in knowing what article in what journal the unattributed quote is from, and its context within the article.

←

Our bodies are mostly all alike. You don't notice any withdrawal from not eating pastry because you have satisfied that those sugar blues in some other myriad way.

If someone goes sugar free on a clean diet, no fruit juice, no wine, no sugar, no sweeteners no added sweeteners, no fruit, you will experience withdrawal.

Maybe I can point you to a past petri dish episode. For example, if we find ourselves in the hospital for some reason or another on a restricted diet, we crave sugar.

Try it. You will have withdrawal.

I think the heroin comparison is extreme, but nonetheless

sugar is an addicting detrimental anti-nutritious ingredient.

Oh my yes!

[K8memphis]

Alright, here we go.

Actually, I would say that it's definitely a secret that sugar is addictive.  Probably because it isn't true.  There is a huge misunderstanding in the popular imagination about what addiction really is, but suffice it to say that one cannot become "addicted" in any meaningful sense to sugar, fat, carbohydrates, chocolate, etc.  Regardless, even if one does develop a taste for and ramp-up consumption of sweet things -- and I agree that this is an issue in the American diet -- the same is true of salt, fat, bitterness, sourness, spice, etc. for other people.  This doesn't mean that spicy heat, etc. are "addictive."

←

Addiction has three components, increase in use, withdrawal when removed and urge to relapse. Sugar hits all of these markers but some people are more comfortable with the term ‘sugar-dependant’ as opposed to ‘addiction.’ The following article makes the case that each of the three components to addiction exist in sugar.

Found on Winkipedia but it quotes a Tufts study conducted at Princeton.

Of note in the article:

“Withdrawal symptoms have been reported, including headaches, fatigue, tremors, anxiety and depression. These effects are reported to be similar to, but slightly less intense than those associated with caffeine withdrawal”

Is it any surprise that The Sugar Industry says sugar content of as much as 25% in our food is healthful or is ok but...

“In 2003, a report was commissioned by two U.N. agencies, the World Health Organization and the Food and Agriculture Organization, compiled by a panel of 30 international experts. It stated that sugar should not account for more than 10% of a healthy diet. In contrast, the US Sugar Association [2] insists that other evidence indicates that a quarter of our food and drink intake can safely consist of sugar. However, this contradicts the sugar industry's criticism of the research discussed above:

Research into sugar addiction has been largely confined to one research group at Princeton University where they fed rats chow as well as a 25% sugar solution- similar to the sugar concentration of soda-pop. In just 1 month the rats became dependent on their daily dose of sweet stuff, they gradually chose to eat less chow but increased their intake of the sugary drink until it doubled." Tufts University Health & Nutrition Letter.New York:OCT 2002. Vol.20, Iss. 8; Pg.1,3 pgs. [3]

"The rats were given a drug to block their opiate-receptors and showed withdrawal signs typical of drug-addicted rats- teeth chattering, paw tremors, and head shakes."

This is a great article.

Of note in this ^^^ article:

Clearly your love for the grocery store's cookie aisle is extreme. Scientists, however, never really thought that a person could become hooked on sweets like they were a drug. Now a batch of findings is making researchers reexamine the concept.

"Research indicates that compounds that block opioid receptors, specific nerve cell areas where the opioid chemicals carry out their actions in the brain, can reduce the intake of sweet foods. Although direct proof is still lacking, some scientists believe that this finding indicates that sweets create a release of opioids that activate the receptors and create a pleasurable response. When the reaction is blocked, so is the urge to consume sweets. In addition, it's known that some addictive drugs, like morphine, directly target the opioid receptors and create an intense response. This suggests that there are parallels between drugs and sweets. Drugs, however, likely cause much more powerful actions in the brain."

So no there is not a lot of research. But again, one can easliy conduct their own experiment easily to determine the validity of this science. But do it cleanly eleminating all sugar and substances that immediately turn to sugar in order to experience the withdrawal.

For example I found this on a 12 step program for sugar addiction.

Edited February 17, 2007 by K8memphis (log)

[Pan]

Kate, thanks for the citation of the article on the Society for Neuroscience site. Very interesting.

I wonder if you get withdrawal if you eat starch, though. Besides, you really don't want to avoid sugar completely -- you'd eat no vegetables and no fruits if you did. And the thing is, carbohydrates are necessary for brain function, so it's not like heroin, or even alcohol, both of which people can live without forever very healthily.

[K8memphis]

Kate, thanks for the citation of the article on the Society for Neuroscience site. Very interesting.

I wonder if you get withdrawal if you eat starch, though. Besides, you really don't want to avoid sugar completely -- you'd eat no vegetables and no fruits if you did. And the thing is, carbohydrates are necessary for brain function, so it's not like heroin, or even alcohol, both of which people can live without forever very healthily.

←

You are welcome.

I always said I was referring to refined white sugar and it's many guises and pseudonyms, not natural fruit sugar.

A balance of carbs are needed to stay within the correct blood chemistry range to aid brain function. The wrong amount will cloud and confuse brain function. Withdrawal? Umm, I don't get withdrawal if I eat starch (if I can be an unscientific just in general example). What I get from the wrong kind of starch is craving for more. It's a trigger. So I will then eat too much of the wrong thing and crave sugar.

And conversely, when I'm on the right carbs and have eliminated white sugar I do not have cravings. So many areas are positively influenced by this corrected eating. But still yet I want to eat the other way. I'm a rat in a little cage. Not as content to look better and feel better while eating right as to happily relapse into satisfying my sugar dependency (which according to the study I could find can be described as an addiction, milder than a nicotine addiction nonetheless an addiction).

Now naturally occuring sugars within fruits & stuff (of which white sugar is not) are not triggers. I can eat fruit and veggies, it's not every type of sugar, just the refined stuff that's added to products and cookies and cake and pastry and doughnuts and pepsi and coke and chocolate and candy and marshmallows and candy corn and spearmint leaf candy and bread and you get the picture. drool drool. Not to mention the stuff that turns to straight up sugar in your system when you eat it like 100% fruit juice, the rice cakes mentioned earlier dried fruit, stuff like that.

And I ran across an article that explained all the new names for added sweetener including the evaporated cane syrup I mentioned earlier. For me, as a person with this 'dependency' I should avoid all such products. sniff

Stevia is horrible oh my god! I'd rather drink black coffee than try that stuff again.

But y'know the trigger thing? If I eat a spoonful of (no-sugar added) peanut butter or a tablespoon of walnuts, the peanut butter will be a trigger (because of the carbs I guess) and I start craving. The walnuts do not act as a trigger because it is a different type of protein? Now I'm guessing on that science. I just know it's true of me. Walnuts are safe. Peanuts, peanut butter is risky, not a good choice for moi.

Lots of people have this. It often stems from alcoholic heritage among other things. But I have gone through detox and lost weight and etc. So I can watch me in the petri dish and it's actually fascinating. How much much much what we eat affects so much much much. And medical science for the ages has ignored this.

A couple other unscientific advantages to me being 'good'-- prettier complexion, clearer vision, clearer thinking, no hot flashes. No kidding either.

So while it is an extreme word choice to say white sugar white flour is poison when you see the positive results possible for the sugar-dependent when they avoid it, well, you decide how good a choice of words it is, unscientifically of course.

[Pan]

For you, white sugar does seem to be poisonous, and you do seem like a recovering addict. And I figure it is like that for some people and not others, like alcoholism, but with the caveats I posted above.

Can't agree with you about stevia, though. My father uses it, and I find it fine in complex dishes (such as Indian ones) that ask for an amount of sugar. I think he has to half the amount.

[K8memphis]

Maybe I did not know how to use the stevia. It was awful. Does he use it in tea or coffee? I could see that it could hide better in an already flavorful savory dish.

But you might like to peruse the book Sugar Blues by William Dufty that I mentioned earlier. Paperback, seven bucks, I just picked up a copy at Bookstar recently. It's quite an adventure in the history and effects of sugar. If anything I said was shocking, William Dufty, a fellow addict, a hundred times more shocking. He goes back in time and traces the history of sugar.

Here's a cool quote from Andy Warhol at the beginning of Chapter Three.

"I'll buy a huge piece of meat, cook it up for dinner, and then right before it's done, I'll break down and have what I wanted for dinner in the first place--bread and jam...all I ever really want is sugar." Andy Warhol, New Yorker Magazine, March 31, 1975

Have you read Angela's Ashes by Frank McCourt? A memoir of his childhood describing cruel unrelenting poverty where sugar was a constant staple in their diet. Sugar and bread and tea. Interesting.

[Pan]

I haven't read Angela's Ashes. I don't think my father drinks coffee anymore, but he sprinkles stevia on sour raspberries sometimes.

[WHT]

Hey, one can jump in their own petri dish. Drink two Cokes a day for a week. Then stop and go sugar free for 24 hours. Then make your own determination as to whether that's not an uncomfortable "heavy craving" in your gut. Do it for a year and then stop. Three decades, four. That's an addiction. Physical and emotional et al.

←

sugar is not adictive but caffeen is!

[K8memphis]

Hey, one can jump in their own petri dish. Drink two Cokes a day for a week. Then stop and go sugar free for 24 hours. Then make your own determination as to whether that's not an uncomfortable "heavy craving" in your gut. Do it for a year and then stop. Three decades, four. That's an addiction. Physical and emotional et al.

←

sugar is not adictive but caffeen is!

←

Yes it is. It's the 'other' white powder. And y'all made me go find this information so here it is again. Nobody has to believe it but that doesn't make it false. It's an unusual foreign thought. Try to be open and see for yourself.

Alright, here we go.

Actually, I would say that it's definitely a secret that sugar is addictive.  Probably because it isn't true.  There is a huge misunderstanding in the popular imagination about what addiction really is, but suffice it to say that one cannot become "addicted" in any meaningful sense to sugar, fat, carbohydrates, chocolate, etc.  Regardless, even if one does develop a taste for and ramp-up consumption of sweet things -- and I agree that this is an issue in the American diet -- the same is true of salt, fat, bitterness, sourness, spice, etc. for other people.  This doesn't mean that spicy heat, etc. are "addictive."

←

Addiction has three components, increase in use, withdrawal when removed and urge to relapse. Sugar hits all of these markers but some people are more comfortable with the term ‘sugar-dependant’ as opposed to ‘addiction.’ The following article makes the case that each of the three components to addiction exist in sugar.

Found on Winkipedia but it quotes a Tufts study conducted at Princeton.

Of note in the article:

“Withdrawal symptoms have been reported, including headaches, fatigue, tremors, anxiety and depression. These effects are reported to be similar to, but slightly less intense than those associated with caffeine withdrawal”

Is it any surprise that The Sugar Industry says sugar content of as much as 25% in our food is healthful or is ok but...

“In 2003, a report was commissioned by two U.N. agencies, the World Health Organization and the Food and Agriculture Organization, compiled by a panel of 30 international experts. It stated that sugar should not account for more than 10% of a healthy diet. In contrast, the US Sugar Association [2] insists that other evidence indicates that a quarter of our food and drink intake can safely consist of sugar. However, this contradicts the sugar industry's criticism of the research discussed above:

Research into sugar addiction has been largely confined to one research group at Princeton University where they fed rats chow as well as a 25% sugar solution- similar to the sugar concentration of soda-pop. In just 1 month the rats became dependent on their daily dose of sweet stuff, they gradually chose to eat less chow but increased their intake of the sugary drink until it doubled." Tufts University Health & Nutrition Letter.New York:OCT 2002. Vol.20, Iss. 8; Pg.1,3 pgs. [3]

"The rats were given a drug to block their opiate-receptors and showed withdrawal signs typical of drug-addicted rats- teeth chattering, paw tremors, and head shakes."

This is a great article.

Of note in this ^^^ article:

Clearly your love for the grocery store's cookie aisle is extreme. Scientists, however, never really thought that a person could become hooked on sweets like they were a drug. Now a batch of findings is making researchers reexamine the concept.

"Research indicates that compounds that block opioid receptors, specific nerve cell areas where the opioid chemicals carry out their actions in the brain, can reduce the intake of sweet foods. Although direct proof is still lacking, some scientists believe that this finding indicates that sweets create a release of opioids that activate the receptors and create a pleasurable response. When the reaction is blocked, so is the urge to consume sweets. In addition, it's known that some addictive drugs, like morphine, directly target the opioid receptors and create an intense response. This suggests that there are parallels between drugs and sweets. Drugs, however, likely cause much more powerful actions in the brain."

So no there is not a lot of research. But again, one can easliy conduct their own experiment easily to determine the validity of this science. But do it cleanly eleminating all sugar and substances that immediately turn to sugar in order to experience the withdrawal.

For example I found this on a 12 step program for sugar addiction.

←

Edited February 18, 2007 by K8memphis (log)

[K8memphis]

I went to PubMed and quickly found the following article abstract (From the Diabetes Journal):

Effect of eucaloric high- and low-sucrose diets with identical macronutrient profile on insulin resistance and vascular risk: a randomized controlled trial.

Black RN, Spence M, McMahon RO, Cuskelly GJ, Ennis CN, McCance DR, Young IS, Bell PM, Hunter SJ.

Regional Centre for Endocrinology and Diabetes, Royal Victoria Hospital, Grosvenor Road, Belfast, U.K.

The long-term impact of dietary carbohydrate type, in particular sucrose, on insulin resistance and the development of diabetes and atherosclerosis is not established. Current guidelines for the healthy population advise restriction of sucrose intake. We investigated the effect of high- versus low-sucrose diet (25 vs. 10%, respectively, of total energy intake) in 13 healthy subjects aged 33 +/- 3 years (mean +/- SE), BMI 26.6 +/- 0.9 kg/m(2), in a randomized crossover design with sequential 6-week dietary interventions separated by a 4-week washout. Weight maintenance, eucaloric diets with identical macronutrient profiles and fiber content were designed. All food was weighed and distributed. Insulin action was assessed using a two-step euglycemic clamp; glycemic profiles were assessed by the continuous glucose monitoring system and vascular compliance by pulse-wave analysis. There was no change in weight across the study. Peripheral glucose uptake and suppression of endogenous glucose production were similar after each diet. Glycemic profiles and measures of vascular compliance did not change. A rise in total and LDL cholesterol was observed. In this study, a high-sucrose intake as part of an eucaloric, weight-maintaining diet had no detrimental effect on insulin sensitivity, glycemic profiles, or measures of vascular compliance in healthy nondiabetic subjects.

That was after only one key-word search (low carbohydrate diets). I agree with what Slkinsey has been posting. It is consistent to what I have learned via my bachelors & masters degrees in Dietetics. Just adding my two cents.

←

What's more, this study does support what I am saying and what the diet doctor said because yes the blood sugar does go back to normal in non-diabetics. It goes haywire momentarily, shoots up, crashes down, and goes back to zero like a gyroscope for healthy ie. non-diabetic people.

PS. My understanding of this insulin/blood sugar thing is that overnight our wonderfully designed incredibly resilient and adaptable selves reconfigure our blood chemistry and we start off fresh every morning. Depending on when as in how early we might blow it during the next day, to what extent we blow it and what our momentum has been in this sugar-consumption-that-triggers-insulin-release-that-means-fat-storage-today-boogie determines how much more damage we do.

←

Damage as in the storage of fat and deposits into our arteries and the free radicals set loose and blablabla whatever all the other stuff is. But sure blood chemistry goes back to normal I said that early on.

Being overweight or not is a separate issue to being a sugar junkie. Overweight and sugar addiction are not necessarily the same thing. This of course does not negate the damage done in the meantime not to mention the fact that the junkie got a fix.

Unscientifically speaking and peering into the petri dish marked K8t you would see that I had normal weight most of my life.

Weight is a separate issue.

Sugar is so to uh huh addictive. Try to get off it. Think about it, it's in most every cupboard or counter in the industrialized world in it's white pristine crystalline

oh how pure and innocent am I mode. Not to mention an additive in so much stuff it's silly. For example a store brand baker's spray pan coating?! wtf

Edited February 18, 2007 by K8memphis (log)

[ghostrider]

I think that a goodly part off the discussion here has really been about the distinction between the strict clinical definition of "addiction" vs. the looser, more popular usage. Having been a nicotine addict, & having recently removed a major source of sugar from my diet (ice cream made with real cane sugar) due to incipient diabetes, I understand the difference. I also know that the effort it took to lose the ice cream habit wasn't substantially different from that required to quit smoking. I'm as likely to use one term as another in talking about that effort; "habit" doesn't seem to convey it as effectively as "addiction" even if it's techncally more accurate.

A few pages back there was a discussion of the difficulty of finding bread without added sweeteners, be they HFCS or sugar. Yesterday I visited my local bakery & asked the nice lady who runs it if she used sugar in her rye bread and if so, how much. What a marvelous conversation! She went in back and brought out an ancient leather-bound notebook with yellowing handwritten pages, the original recipe book that belonged to her great-uncle who came over from Germany & opened the bakery 80 years ago. It was a thrill just to see that. Part of my town's history right there.

So it turns out that she adds 1.5 oz of sugar to a batch of dough that yields 16 loaves. She says it makes activates the yeast & makes the dough rise more effectively. Doing some quick math, that means I'm consuming an extra .009375 oz of sugar with every sandwich.

Let's even round it up to 1/100 of an ounce for ease of memory. I think I need to worry about the sugar I'll get from the carbs in the bread more than that smidgen of cane sugar.

[K8memphis]

I think that a goodly part off the discussion here has really been about the distinction between the strict clinical definition of "addiction" vs. the looser, more popular usage.  Having been a nicotine addict, & having recently removed a major source of sugar from my diet (ice cream made with real cane sugar) due to incipient diabetes, I understand the difference.  I also know that the effort it took to lose the ice cream habit wasn't substantially different from that required to quit smoking.  I'm as likely to use one term as another in talking about that effort; "habit" doesn't seem to convey it as effectively as "addiction" even if it's techncally more accurate.

←

I would have agreed until I had to go look it up all scientific like. According to what I can find scientifically, (and have cited above) addiction has three components. The desire for an increase of the substance, the presence of withdrawal when it is removed and the propensity for relapse. Sugar, scientifically has all three. So while it may seem a mild addiction or dependency it can be literally defined as addictive. And then obviously, either your tobacco habit was stronger or you still are ingesting enough sugared items to satisfy yourself, or you were not sugar addicted.

A few pages back there was a discussion of the difficulty of finding bread without added sweeteners, be they HFCS or sugar.  Yesterday I visited my local bakery & asked the nice lady who runs it if she used sugar in her rye bread and if so, how much.  What a marvelous conversation!  She went in back and brought out an ancient leather-bound notebook with yellowing handwritten pages, the original recipe book that belonged to her great-uncle who came over from Germany & opened the bakery 80 years ago.  It was a thrill just to see that.  Part of my town's history right there.

So it turns out that she adds 1.5 oz of sugar to a batch of dough that yields 16 loaves.  She says it makes activates the yeast & makes the dough rise more effectively.  Doing some quick math, that means I'm consuming an extra .009375 oz of sugar with every sandwich. 

Let's even round it up to 1/100 of an ounce for ease of memory.  I think I need to worry about the sugar I'll get from the carbs in the bread more than that smidgen of cane sugar.

←

Miniscule yes, in that case one would expect some sugar for those exact reasons. So follow me for a minute. A savvy manufacturer will want to hold the raw cost of his product down to the nub in order to make more of a profit on it. So why is sugar being added seemingly willy nilly to odd and random products? I hope that that is common knowlege, these sugar additions and the billion pseudonyms that are being used.

Two quotes of note from this web page.

The unfortunate fact of life is that this stuff also adds good taste to whatever it is added to and, to make matters even worse, it is strongly addicting. It can be no surprise that sucrose is used as an almost universal constituent of processed foods, all with government approval as long as the package is clearly marked to indicate the presence of sucrose.

Dextrose is in almost everything. Sure sure small amounts, but why? Why would a manufacture take the time and money to put it in there?

It is very likely that you are addicted to sugar. A sugar addict can find ways to rationalize the addiction. Sugar addiction is so common in industrialized Western nations as to be unrecognizable. If you grew up in a culture where everyone — every single person from the time a cigarette could be held in the hand — smoked and where practically nothing was said about it, you would come to accept it as a natural fact of life. (Europe is almost such a place.) You would not think of yourself as addicted to tobacco, as there would be no one in your environment with whom to compare yourself. They would all be busy smoking, just like you. Thus, it is with sugar. Fish in the ocean ask no questions about dry land.

There's lots of stuff on the web about sugar addiction.

Why is sugar added to so many products?

Edited February 18, 2007 by K8memphis (log)

[K8memphis]

So while it may seem a mild addiction or dependency it can be literally defined as addictive. And then obviously, either your tobacco habit was stronger or you still are ingesting enough sugared items to satisfy yourself, or you were not sugar addicted.

←

Oh wait. Nothing like reading what you said, Ghostrider.

You said, not substantially different. Quitting the two substances, the lovely ice cream and the cigarettes was about the same effort to quit. By the way -Congratulations! Not easy!!

And for me to this minute, even though I quit smoking over 30 years ago, I'd still love to go grab a smoke.

In Heaven, I'm gonna slip outside the gate for a minute...

Edited February 18, 2007 by K8memphis (log)

[Chris Amirault]

Interesting flexnews article on HFCS vs sugar:

A recent article published by the 'Associated Press' examines why US soft drink producers are sticking to high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) despite the fact that are paying more for the sweetener.

The report goes on to show that there is one simple reason - for now, HFCS is cheaper than sugar.

Sugar prices skyrocketed in the 1980s which prompted manufacturers to switch to HFCS. This year, HFCS prices have increased mainly due to the rising demand of corn for ethanol production. Meanwhile, sugar prices have increased despite having eased from the peaks reached due to Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

Only Jones soda has switched to sugar only (in 2006), but there's some hinting that the Big Two are considering the switch as well.

[slkinsey]

Yea, it's long been the case that HFCS is less expensive than cane sugar in America. This is largely for three reasons: First, US government price supports for domestic sugar conbined with tarrifs on sugar imports have artificially driven up the price of sugar in the United States. Second, US government subsidies and other supports for corn growers have artificially lowered the price of corn syrup. Third, corn syrup is a liquid product and sugar is a solid product, which makes it easier to use corn syrup on an industrial basis. It also means that some re-tooling would be necessary to switch over to sugar (which costs money, and would also make it expensive to switch back if the economics changed), or the sugar would have to be purchased in liquid form which would further drive up the cost of using sugar.

Here's something I posted in another thread on the same topic: Is corn syrup so bad?

I don't think high fructose corn syrup is so much cheaper than sugar. Whatever the cost differential, it can't be more than the equivalent of a few cents on a can of soda. Let's say every can of soda went up by 5 cents. I can't imagine that would affect soda consumption at all.

I think the reality is that high fructose corn syrup is, indeed, quite a bit cheaper than sucrose -- not only on a cost-versus-sweetening power basis, but also in terms of industrial handling costs, etc. Others have mentioned that high fructose corn syrup, being liquid, is much easier to handle on an industrial basis.

As chance would have it, there are all kinds of quotas and price supports for sucrose in the United States, with the last batch introduced by Reagan in the early 80s (although the government has been inflating domestic sugar prices and making importation difficult for almost 200 years). These serve to make it way too expensive to import sucrose in any meaningful amount, and also artificially inflate the price of domestic sucrose. On the other side of the coin, we have all kinds of subsidies and supports for corn growers, which serve to drive down the cost of corn-derrived sweeteners (i.e., high fructose corn syrup). Manufacturers turned to high fructose corn syrup beginning in the 80s in response to this artificial economic imbalance because, when you combine the serious price savings on the raw ingredient with the easier industrial handling of a liquid product, it made sense to change. Other manufacturers in other countries didn't make this change, because they didn't have the special economic conditions that exist in the US. On the world market, I think sucrose is still a good bit less expensive than high fructose corn syrup. In the US, however, the price difference is reversed. There have been times when the US price of sugar was over 700% greater than the world market price.