juju7 wrote:

igorfrankensteen wrote:Sugar is clearly no more addictive than anything else, including vegetables, because lots of people go entirely off it without suffering withdrawal symptoms. The word "addictive" gets tossed around far too loosely these days, often primarily as a way either to excuse someone's refusal to discipline themselves, or to make an attack on a popular fad, appear to have the force of medical care behind it, instead of simple resentment.

I think you make a good point. If the word gets used too widely, it loses its meaning. Are people addicted to shopping, gambling, the internet?

I'm With Stupid wrote:

Alan B wrote:@Juju7.
This thread is properly placed in Biological Sciences but would you perhaps consider a move to General Discussion to gain a wider audience?

Doesn't everyone just click on New Posts? Or is it just me?

Alan B wrote:

Kenaz wrote:Try a sugar free diet. Tell me if you don't have minor symptoms of withdrawals and intense cravings.

Are you suggesting a diet without fruit 'n veg.? Because there are sugars in all of those...

Alan B wrote:

Kenaz wrote:Try a sugar free diet. Tell me if you don't have minor symptoms of withdrawals and intense cravings.

Are you suggesting a diet without fruit 'n veg.? Because there are sugars in all of those...

Kenaz wrote:

Alan B wrote:

Kenaz wrote:Try a sugar free diet. Tell me if you don't have minor symptoms of withdrawals and intense cravings.

Are you suggesting a diet without fruit 'n veg.? Because there are sugars in all of those...

Sugar outside of its balance in whole food. Sugar or artificial sweeteners. Come now.

Kenaz wrote:

Alan B wrote:

Kenaz wrote:Try a sugar free diet. Tell me if you don't have minor symptoms of withdrawals and intense cravings.

Are you suggesting a diet without fruit 'n veg.? Because there are sugars in all of those...

Sugar outside of its balance in whole food. Sugar or artificial sweeteners. Come now.

Kenaz wrote:Sugar outside of its balance in whole food. Sugar or artificial sweeteners. Come now.

Alan B wrote:

laklak wrote:Seems everything is addictive these days, and might in fact be so. But I agree with Igor that the word is tossed around a bit too freely. I think people want to avoid responsibility for their actions. I can't help shagging other women, I'm a sex addict. I can't help weighing 600 pounds, I'm a food addict. While some may be actual addictions, I think the majority are simply a case of lack of will power and a desire to shift blame.

I quite agree. Many so-called 'addictions' are just a matter of self-control (however difficult that may be).
But when we're dealing with a chemical substance insidiously added and in some cases unnecessarily so (without declaration in every case) to almost all processed food & drink throughout the 'civilised' world and coupled with the observation of increased sales of those items, the term 'addiction' may not be too strong a word.
There seems to be little doubt now, that 'added sugars' (the WHO calls them 'Free Sugars' as distinct from intrinsic sugars) are recognised as a major contribution towards obesity and that the increased presence of these 'added sugars' exacerbates the problem, which does seem to suggest an 'addictive' link. A few papers have been linked to here and on the What is a 'Portion' thread which purport to show an addictive property connected to sugar.
More research needs to done, methinks.

Alan B wrote:

Kenaz wrote:

Alan B wrote:

Kenaz wrote:Try a sugar free diet. Tell me if you don't have minor symptoms of withdrawals and intense cravings.

Are you suggesting a diet without fruit 'n veg.? Because there are sugars in all of those...

Sugar outside of its balance in whole food. Sugar or artificial sweeteners. Come now.

Then you mean Non-Milk Extrinsic Sugars (NMES). And that's the problem. Sure, we know what foods obviously contain NMES. One only has to look at bakery products and associated confections and, of course, the sweet shop. Then there are the sugary drinks. Stopping adding sugar to one's tea or coffee and to desserts, etc., and avoiding the obvious, is not the whole story.
There are many other foods that have NMES deliberately added and throughout the whole of the processed food industry worldwide not one manufacturer is forced to differentiate between intrinsic sugars and their added NMES.

Alan B wrote:

Kenaz wrote:Try a sugar free diet. Tell me if you don't have minor symptoms of withdrawals and intense cravings.

Are you suggesting a diet without fruit 'n veg.? Because there are sugars in all of those...

juju7 wrote:To what purpose?

Scientists are gearing up for a battle with the food industry after the World Health Organization (WHO) moved to halve its recommendation on sugar intake.
Nutrition researchers fear a backlash similar to that seen in 2003, when the WHO released its current guidelines stating that no more than 10% of an adult’s daily calories should come from ‘free’ sugars. That covers those added to food, as well as natural sugars in honey, syrups and fruit juice. In 2003, the US Sugar Association, a powerful food-industry lobby group based in Washington DC, pressed the US government to withdraw funding for the WHO if the organization did not modify its recommendations. The WHO did not back down, and has now mooted cutting the level to 5%.

“These are reasonable limits,” says Walter Willett, head of nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston, Massachusetts. “Five per cent of calories is just a bit less than in a typical serving of soda, and we have good evidence of increased risk of diabetes with that intake, which of course increases with greater intake.”

juju7 wrote:If the body doesn't distinguish between intrinsic sugar and added sugar, then surely only the total sugar matters.

Alan B wrote:

juju7 wrote:If the body doesn't distinguish between intrinsic sugar and added sugar, then surely only the total sugar matters.

That could be a big 'if', since research appears to be suggesting that increase in sugar consumption due to 'added sugars' can be 'habit-forming'. Why?

Alan B wrote:

juju7 wrote:To what purpose?

The WHO is suggesting 'free sugar' consumption of 5% (or less) contribution to required daily energy.
Nature

Scientists are gearing up for a battle with the food industry after the World Health Organization (WHO) moved to halve its recommendation on sugar intake.
Nutrition researchers fear a backlash similar to that seen in 2003, when the WHO released its current guidelines stating that no more than 10% of an adult’s daily calories should come from ‘free’ sugars. That covers those added to food, as well as natural sugars in honey, syrups and fruit juice. In 2003, the US Sugar Association, a powerful food-industry lobby group based in Washington DC, pressed the US government to withdraw funding for the WHO if the organization did not modify its recommendations. The WHO did not back down, and has now mooted cutting the level to 5%.

“These are reasonable limits,” says Walter Willett, head of nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston, Massachusetts. “Five per cent of calories is just a bit less than in a typical serving of soda, and we have good evidence of increased risk of diabetes with that intake, which of course increases with greater intake.”

It all very well the WHO making these recommendations, but if the consumer is prevented from distinguishing between intrinsic and extrinsic 'free' sugars by poor labelling, then what's the point of these recommendations if the consumer cannot make an informed choice?

juju7 wrote:If the body doesn't distinguish between intrinsic sugar and added sugar, then surely only the total sugar matters.

That could be a big 'if', since research appears to be suggesting that increase in sugar consumption due to 'added sugars' can be 'habit-forming'. Why?
As a contrast, there is plenty of fruit available - some with quite high sugar content - yet there appears to be no evidence that certain fruits are 'habit-forming' or are responsible for obesity.
One might as well say quenching one's thirst on a hot day with a bottle of ice-cold beer has the same effect on the body as a bottle of ice-cold water - after all water is water... (Not an exact analogy, I know).

juju7 wrote:The WHO refers to free sugars, not whether they are added, or naturally in the food.
They are chemically identical, and so if sugar is addictive, it is addictive whether from a natural content, or whether it is added.

Free sugar is defined by the World Health Organization and the US Food and Agriculture Organization in multiple reports [1][2] as "all monosaccharides and disaccharides added to foods by the manufacturer, cook, or consumer, plus sugars naturally present in honey, syrups, and fruit juices". It is used to distinguish between the sugars that are naturally present in fully unrefined carbohydrates such as brown rice, wholewheat pasta, fruit, etc. and those sugars (or carbohydrates) that have been, to some extent, refined (normally by humans but sometimes by animals, such as the free sugars present in honey). They are referred to as "sugars" since they cover multiple chemical forms, including sucrose, glucose, fructose, dextrose, etc.

Rumraket wrote:That "fact" is also known to be false. Fructose (a 5 carbon sugar) is metabolised very differently from glucose (a 6 carbon sugar). Table sugar is made of sucrose, which is a single glucose and a single fructose unit linked together.

Sugar is in no way just sugar, it comes in many forms. Sometimes they are linked together into long polymers and even the way the way they are linked together determines their digestibility and metabolism. Cellulose is a polymer of glucose, but humans can't digest cellulose. Amylose is a polymer of glucose too, but linked in a different way. Humans can digest amylase.

Even if Lustig is wrong to call fructose poisonous and saddle it with all the blame for obesity and diabetes, his most fundamental directive is sound: eat less sugar. Why? Because super sugary, energy-dense foods with little nutritional value are one of the main ways we consume more calories than we need, albeit not the only way. It might be hard to swallow, but the fact is that many of our favorite desserts, snacks, cereals and especially our beloved sweet beverages inundate the body with far more sugar than it can efficiently metabolize. Milkshakes, smoothies, sodas, energy drinks and even unsweetened fruit juices all contain large amounts of free-floating sugars instantly absorbed by our digestive system.

Avoiding sugar is not a panacea, though. A healthy diet is about so much more than refusing that second sugar cube and keeping the cookies out of reach or hidden in the cupboard. What about all the excess fat in our diet, so much of which is paired with sugar and contributes to heart disease? What about bad cholesterol and salt? “If someone is gaining weight, they should look to sugars as a place to cut back,” says Sievenpiper, “but there’s a misguided belief that if we just go after sugars we will fix obesity—obesity is more complex than that. Clinically, there are some people who come in drinking way too much soda and sweet beverages, but most people are just overconsuming in general.” Then there’s all the stuff we really should eat more of: whole grains; fruits and veggies; fish; lean protein. But wait, we can’t stop there: a balanced diet is only one component of a healthy lifestyle. We need to exercise too—to get our hearts pumping, strengthen our muscles and bones and maintain flexibility. Exercising, favoring whole foods over processed ones and eating less overall sounds too obvious, too simplistic, but it is actually a far more nuanced approach to good health than vilifying a single molecule in our diet—an approach that fits the data. Americans have continued to consume more and more total calories each year—average daily intake increased by 530 calories between 1970 and 2000—while simultaneously becoming less and less physically active. Here’s the true bitter truth: Yes, most of us should make an effort to eat less sugar—but if we are really committed to staying healthy, we’ll have to do a lot more than that.