las

Welcome all seeking refuge from low carb dogma!

“To kill an error is as good a service as, and sometimes even better than, the establishing of a new truth or fact”
~ Charles Darwin (it's evolutionary baybeee!)

Friday, November 1, 2013

Sugar Addiction and Prelude to a Review of The 21 Day Sugar Detox

With apologies in advance for some tangent going ons ...

As a popular paleo (for marketing purposes anyway) author released a paperback version of her 21 Day Sugar Detox this week -- yes, I'm talking about a $400-will-buy-you-a-certificate-that-says-so "holistic nutritionist" aka Certified Nutritional Consultant courtesy of 501c3 Bauman "college" -- I thought this journal article might be of enough interest to the inmates here to warrant a post.

The plausibility of sugar addiction and its role in obesity and eating disorders



Background & aims
To consider the hypothesis that addiction to food, or more specifically sucrose, plays a role in obesity and eating disorders.
Methods
By considering the relevant literature a series of predictions were examined, derived from the hypothesis that addiction to sucrose consumption can develop. Fasting should increase food cravings, predominantly for sweet items; cravings should occur after an overnight fast; the obese should find sweetness particularly attractive; a high-sugar consumption should predispose to obesity. More specifically predictions based on the hypothesis that addiction to sugar is central to bingeing disorders were developed. Dieting should predate the development of bingeing; dietary style rather than psychological, social and economic factors should be predispose to eating disorders; sweet items should be preferentially consumed while bingeing; opioid antagonists should cause withdrawal symptoms; bingeing should develop at a younger age when there is a greater preference for sweetness.
Results
The above predications have in common that on no occasion was the behaviour predicted by an animal model of sucrose addiction supported by human studies.
Conclusion
There is no support from the human literature for the hypothesis that sucrose may be physically addictive or that addiction to sugar plays a role in eating disorders.
Now one of these days, since Diane has rocketed to a degree of prominence such that she boasts hers is the first book most curretly land on at Amazon, I'm going to have to do a "know the experts" segment here for her.  Suffice it to say that a certificate from anything other than a accredited institution of higher learning as ones only qualifications should cause anyone pause when deciding on their credibility on certain matters.  To the best of my knowledge, Diane has probably taken one "science for non-majors class with lab" to complete her undergraduate degree which is in retail marketing or somesuch.  None of the coursework she took for her nutrition certification would be transferable to an institution of higher learning, and most of the faculty at her "college" are not even degreed in their fields!  Which isn't to say one can't be self-educated, but Diane has not demonstrated a knack for that.

Her book begins with the following quote, followed by her own story of life as candy girl:
“I like to eat and the only thing I’ve ever been addicted to in my life is sugar.” —Crispin Glover
Diane grew up spending her chore money on candy at the local convenience store.  As a young adult she relished the freedom of eating cake or pie for breakfast or dinner.  Sounds normal (seriously!).  But for her "sugar" meant bread, bagels and pasta too!!  (Red flag ... )  She was a high school athlete who stopped or cut back on that in college and gained weight.  Is anyone surprised by this?  Oh yeah, exercise is not helpful for weight loss or management.  I keep forgetting ....   And so after packing on 35 lbs in college, Diane took up dieting as a hobby and became obsessive about point counting (so am I being presumptuous to assume Weight Watchers here?).    Low fat granola bars and soy cheese!  Now I calorie counted like the best of them, and I did dabble in low fat cheeses, but soy?  Sorry.  No.  So I'm going to presume she also went on some sort of vegetarian kick as well.
"Fast-forward several years, and the weight had come off because I was undereating and over-exercising."
Now ... I'm not going to justify stupidity in weight loss strategies here, been there done that myself as well, but note that she was able to lose weight through ELMM.  But she got into the paleo thing and found that chicken thighs and kale (reasonable portions!) were satisfying and she no longer got "hangry" (complete with cartoon drawing in case you need the visual).
"Once I cut out the sugar and refined foods, eliminated gluten, and followed that up by cutting other grains and legumes, my blood sugar stabilized. It was like a miracle. I could go out with plans of being gone for over an hour and not have to jam a snack into my purse—food freedom!"
And then she had a candy binge and a sugar crash.  Oh the evils of candy.   You see she didn't eat a piece of candy, she ate a whole bag.  (Red flag ...).  Raw milk to the rescue!!   The light shone down and Diane knew she needed to stay away from the sugar forever and ever, Amen.  And so began her trip down the dead end Sugarphobia Lane just past the intersection of Main and Orthorexia Blvd.   I say this because despite the glowing reviews and copious thanks she humblebrags on Facebook over all the time, Diane Sanfilippo has "confessed" to suffering from chronic fatigue for the past two plus years now, and had to resort to dipping back into the caffeine well for energy to endure the arduous task of book writing.  Cognitive dissonance can be draining I hear.

Some years ago, she wrote an ebook (before Practical Paleo) and it's now in physical print.  Revamped with pretty pictures ... and rest assured, Diane is ...
"here to guide you through this journey with an effective, clear-cut program that will liberate you from the chains of your cravings."
The Detox part implies toxicity and/or addiction.  And so you are to detox.   And yet can you imagine detoxing from a real addiction in a manner that allows small doses of the toxin, or worse yet, normal "doses" disguised so that you don't register that you're taking them?  This is Diane's rationale for green apples.  You are allowed one a day as these have less sugar.   Though I think someone informed Diane that they don't really (that would be unripened apples that are intended to be red) and she's tweaked her message to one of retraining the palate to avoid sweet.


Yes, those evil green orbs of death and toxicity are Diane's favorite fruit to pose with and prominently featured in her pictures everywhere.  You can have one per day.  Only one.  Not two.
The primary goal of The 21DSD is to change your palate and your habits, so I’m taking you out of your comfort zone by allowing only fairly bitter, sour, and bland fruits, such as green apples, underripe bananas, and grapefruit. While the natural sugar content of some of the included fruits is in fact higher than that of, say, berries, the included fruits don’t tend to taste very sweet or trigger further cravings for sugar.
But you've got an addiction from which you must detox.  And yet, why not just cut out all sugar cold turkey?  Aside from not needing her book, she writes in response to her own question to this effect:
Yes and no. It may seem obvious that simply removing sugar is an “easy” way to detox. But the not-so-simple part is that just removing sugar doesn’t always get rid of the get rid of the cravings. Having a more complete picture of which foods contain sugar, act like sugar in the body, and trigger cravings is a critical element of success on this program.
What about nuts?
Cashews and peanuts are out for The 21DSD, while other nuts are Yes foods. As I mentioned in the response to the limited fruits question above, one goal of the program is to change your palate and habits. Cashews tend to trigger sweet-taste habits and become hard to limit, so they are out. Peanuts are known to carry high levels of aflatoxin, a type of mold that can develop in foods like grains and legumes. Because this is a detox program, it excludes peanuts for this known toxin-load issue.
Won't fruit trigger cravings?
Thousands of participants who’ve included these limited fruits feel that they provide a small relief from the stress of being overly restricted, but they don’t result in the urge to overindulge as very sweet fruits like mango and pineapple can.
OK ... enough quotes I think to get what I'm getting at here.  Is sugar physically addictive?  I maintain that a resounding no is the answer to that question, as the cited article in this post confirms.   If it were -- especially to the degree for which it shoulders so much blame -- the scientific evidence would be abundant and clear cut.  It is not.  The addiction is psychological, and therefore Diane Sanfilippo, and countless others like her, must fashion intricate programs to reprogram you.  This begins with first convincing you that you are, indeed, addicted.  And if you don't think you are, you just don't realize it.  Because sugar is more than sweets, it's also any carbohydrate.  But it's not the amount, as we're told point blank in the book, because green apples contain as much or more sugar than other apple varieties, yet these allow you to retrain your palate?!  Imagine fighting an alcohol addiction by advising consumption of ethanol gel capsules equivalent to one ounce or somesuch.  That this would be somehow better to break you of your alcohol addiction than teetotaling.

Cashews?    How are these sweet-taste habit inducing?  According to nutritiondata.com, an ounce of cashews contains 8.4 grams non-fiber carbs of which 1.4 grams are classified as sugars.   Meanwhile, an ounce of almonds contains the same  1.4 grams sugars but only 2.1 grams non-fiber carbs.  So ... is it the additional 6.3 grams of non-sweet carb per ounce that's causing some sort of "sweet-taste habit" to ensue?  Or is it the yumminess?  Or sweeter taste?  No ... macadamias, coconut and sesame are allowed.  Nah ... it's an evil legume but she can't come out and say that and mention paleo (and she allows some legumes, albeit limited, surprisingly).  The rationales become tangled quickly as aflatoxins in peanuts have exactly zero to do with sugar cravings.  Still:
Because this is a detox program, it excludes peanuts for this known toxin-load issue.
Remember that the next time you, or someone you love needs to go into drug/alcohol rehab.  Make sure their facility is free from all known potential toxins for the duration of their stay because otherwise they will not be able to escape the clutches of their addictive nemesis.

You see, the thing is,  and I've been saying this for a long time now, foods are not physically addictive in the way that drugs are.  They just aren't.  Perhaps in extreme cases there can be a physical component, but, I have used this example many times to make the point -- alcoholics will resort to desperate means to get their fix:  medicines and even hand sanitizer!  Former First Lady of Massachusetts Kitty Dukakis famously drank some rubbing alcohol in a moment of such desperation.   You just don't see sugar addicted people buying a bag of sugar and eating it uncontrollably.  Seth Roberts' Shangri-La diet suggests unflavored sugar water as an approach to appetite control and weight loss!  Same goes for starches.  And no, eating laundry starch is not evidence of addiction, it is form of a rare disorder known as pica.  So ditto all carb or sugar addiction claims.

Cravings?  Yes.  I can relate to this ... to the inability to eat one cookie or whatever the food may be.  In my late teens and early 20's I binged in horrible fashion.  But it was my own doing.  After a binge I would clamp down to undo the damage, and in doing so I became obsessed with food because I was restricting myself in grand fashion again.  I see this repeated and played out over and over and over on Diane's facebook pages and the like.   She is not alone.  The paleosphere is rife with eating disordered behaviors passed off as healthy choices.

Seriously, if someone were to abstain from alcohol for three weeks and then end up needing to repeat this several times with different levels of abstention, etc., you would consider such an approach a failure.  This is the same thing.  Restrictive plans comprising other people's arbitrary rules are no cure for your "addictions" that are created by making your own arbitrary rules.  I'm sure that will offend some people reading this.  It's not personal except that I can say that science can be your friend in FREEING you from this for once and for all.

Regular readers might remember that Whole9 couple and their It Starts With Food 30 day hijinx!


Here I thought avoiding sugar on the #whole30 was supposed to rid you of cravings and change your relationship with food!!  I can't help but laugh a little and cry a little for Olivia here.  She's stuck in the cycle of restriction as a cure for cravings when it is the most likely cause.


And, I can't help but laugh quite a bit more at the Hartwigs likely taking a dig at the Green Apple Lady of Paleo with the above Facebook post.   

I'll sign out with some Def Lepard!  Because big hair bands make me smile.  And it is Friday.



52 comments:

Beth@WeightMaven said...

One comment re "foods are not physically addictive in the way that drugs are." I agree that there are meaningful differences between cocaine and sugar wrt addiction, but that doesn't mean one can't become addicted to both. Re desperate means to resort to a fix, who needs to be desperate when your drug of choice is legal, far cheaper, and far more easily available than drugs or alcohol?


That said, I think far too many people (hello Dr. Mark Hyman) are calling normal evolutionary attraction for sugar addiction ... in that respect, he and some of the other sugar phobics are really doing more harm than good IMO.

Wuchtamsel said...

It's rare that it's already the headline that makes me laugh hysterically. But "sugar detox"??? I mean, come on. Sick people without a doubt... But not the way they think they are...

Beth@WeightMaven said...

As an aside, I found this study interesting as far as an initial look at the prevalence of food addiction.

Thumbdriver said...

You should proooobaaaably disclose that the review you reference at the beginning was "partially funded by the World Sugar Research Organization"... Just sayin.

charles grashow said...

In medical terms, a substance is addictive if it:

induces a pleasant state or relieves distress,

causes long-term chemical changes in the brain,

leads to adaptive changes in the brain that trigger tolerance, physical dependence and uncontrollable cravings,

causes dependence, so that abstaining is difficult and creates severe physical and mental reactions.

http://www.clinicalnutritionjournal.com/article/S0261-5614%2809%2900239-8/fulltext
The plausibility of sugar addiction and its role in obesity and eating disorders

Methods

By considering the relevant literature a series of predictions were examined, derived from the hypothesis that addiction to sucrose consumption can develop. Fasting should increase food cravings, predominantly for sweet items; cravings should occur after an overnight fast; the obese should find sweetness particularly attractive; a high-sugar consumption should predispose to obesity. More specifically predictions based on the hypothesis that addiction to sugar is central to bingeing disorders were developed. Dieting should predate the development of bingeing; dietary style rather than psychological, social and economic factors should be predispose to eating disorders; sweet items should be preferentially consumed while bingeing; opioid antagonists should cause withdrawal symptoms; bingeing should develop at a younger age when there is a greater preference for sweetness.

Results

The above predications have in common that on no occasion was the behaviour predicted by an animal model of sucrose addiction supported by human studies.

Conclusion

There is no support from the human literature for the hypothesis that sucrose may be physically addictive or that addiction to sugar plays a role in eating disorders."

http://scienceblogs.com/purepedantry/2008/12/11/sugar-is-an-addictive-drug-ehs/

In general, as neuroscientists we have four general criteria for an addictive substance:

Bingeing: When you have a substance, it makes you feel good so you take a lot of it.

Withdrawal: Discontinuation of the substance causes the opposite effect of bingeing. When you don’t have it, you feel worse than normal.

Craving: When you don’t have the substance, you want it more and you will do more to get it. We say that the motivation to get it is greater.

Sensitization: When you are addicted, you are more sensitive to the effects of the substance. Less of the substance causes greater effects.

My point here is that you say can “sugar is addictive like a drug,” but what really matters is what you mean by like. It is like a drug in the sense that it and cocaine produce similar data in experiments with rats. But is it like cocaine in the sense that the perceptual experience of the two are similar? I like sugar as much as the next guy, but I assert that an all-night coke jag is a bit different than staying in with a pint of Haagen Dazs.

The purpose of my exercise here is that you might understand how we define addiction in the laboratory and hence understand why a researcher would say that sugar is like a drug. I believe Hoebel’s results, and I think that they are significant in understanding diseases like eating disorders or obesity. However, saying that sugar is a drug is not the whole story, and I think people need to recognize that.

charles grashow said...

http://balancedbites.com/meet-the-team

Diane holds a bachelor’s degree from Syracuse University, a Holistic Nutrition Consultant Certification from Bauman College in Berkeley

http://www.baumancollege.org/about/eating-for-health-model

"For optimal health, disease prevention, and quick healing from illness or injury, it is best to eat about six servings a day of fresh or fermented vegetables and three servings a day of fresh or dried fruits or juice. We have our work cut out for us to get to this level. It means
snacking on fruits, veggies, nuts, and seeds, rather than chips, cookies, candy, and crackers."

10 EATING FOR HEALTH TIPS


1. Increase intake of local, seasonal, fresh, organic foods.
2. Drink plenty of purified water each day.
3. Minimize caffeine intake to 50mg or less (1 cup black tea, 3 cups green tea, or 1/2 cup coffee or espresso).
4. Eat protein by 10am and 1-3 more times during the day to help curb sugar cravings.
5.Decrease intake of refined and artificial sugars, white flour products, unnatural fats, added hormones, preservatives, colors, and antibiotics.
6. Diversify sources of proteins, fats, and carbohydrates.
7.Eat more monounsaturated fat (olives, avocados, almonds) than saturated fat (animal, dairy, coconuts) or polyunsaturated oils (soy, corn, sunflower).
8. Decrease consumption of gluten-containing grains (wheat, rye, barley) to prevent digestive disturbance and inflammation.
9. Eat 3 portions of vegetables in a meal to 1 serving of protein and 1 serving of fat for pH balance.
10. Enjoy your food and let others eat in peace.

BUT - isn't fruit bad for you??

Mark said...

Food addiction is real! Sugar addiction is real!


Anti-food addiction is real!


All share a common theme and possibly common treatment.


The latter is recognized by all, the former not; however it's a slippery slope when diagnosing and determining if food addiction can be treated.


We simply don't know yet!

Susanne said...

OK! I finally get to ask a question in the comments that I have been sitting on for a while, because it has not been relevant to the posts. But the bio above mentions a "sugar crash" which I read about on the internet quite a lot, but .... I have never experienced this that I know of. Do y'all actually get these? Like, regularly? I have been especially fascinated since reading Mark Sisson's description of what happens when you eat a piece of birthday cake, at http://www.marksdailyapple.com/what-happens-to-your-body-when-you-carb-binge/#axzz2jTcVVig3
I mean, it sounds to me like the symptoms of a heart attack, not a reaction that you might get from food. Related questions:

1) Is this something that is expected to happen to the average normal healthy person, i.e. does it indicate normal metabolism, or something going wrong? If it is "normal" why has it never happened to me, an average middle aged lady eating basically an Ebil American Heart Association Diet(TM)?

2) Is it more likely reaction in someone who has been on a carb-restricted diet? Because Mark clearly sets it up as happening to his own readers ("You’re into the Primal style of eating...") who are presumably in his safe end of the carb curve, under 100g per day or whatever it is.

I note that Mark's piece of cake seems to have three times as much sugar as the pieces of cake that I normally eat. ("Within a matter of 10 quick forkfuls, you’ve gone from small doses of quality carbs wisely spread throughout the day to possibly 100 or more grams of pure sugar in one sitting." Compare to e.g. http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/baked-products/4920/2)
Is this the reason? But on the rare occasions when I get to a buffet, I take full advantage of the dessert counter, so I must have hit 100g of sugar at some point.


If low-carbing makes this happen to you, how is this better than "normal"? If this is "normal", please tell me the circumstances under which I can experience this. I found half a bag of mini peanut butter cups today cleaning out the freezer, which should get me over 100g. I am eager to take one for the team in the interests of science.

Sanjeev Sharma said...

inconsistency between the 2 articles linked:

Sensitization: When you are addicted, you are more sensitive to the
effects of the substance. Less of the substance causes greater effects.

leads to adaptive changes in the brain that trigger tolerance, physical dependence and uncontrollable cravings,


The scienceblogs article is IMHO wrong on this point.

Sanjeev Sharma said...

> far too many people (hello Dr. Mark Hyman) are calling normal evolutionary attraction for sugar addiction

par for the course - it's the same process that now calls unreleting criticism "stalking", thus insulting those who actually get stalked.

Want an easy way to deflect criticism?

Want an easy way to make your own business look better?

Grab an easy target, demonize it by linking it to some horrible stuff (preferably one, easy to remember word), thus diluting the horrible stuff and invalidly making lots of people anxious about nil.

carbsane said...

This is interesting (I'll read the full study later today or tomorrow)

Obesity measurements were significantly higher in food addicts than controls; Food addicts were 11.7 (kg) heavier, 4.6 BMI units higher, and had 8.2% more body fat and 8.5% more trunk fat. Furthermore, food addicts consumed more calories from fat and protein compared with controls.

carbsane said...

I come at this from a position of drugs having worked in pharma and forensics. For better or worse, the Controlled Substances Act classifies drugs according to their potential for addiction, and treatment for these drug addictions tends to include a legitimate "detox" where physical withdrawal symptoms occur. One can get addicted to caffeine -- funny how that gets thrown to the curb when the laborious "child birthing" process of arduous book writing looms.

I hear you on the fact that food is legal, cheap and readily available, but here's my point -- is it the sugar? The fat? The starch? The salt? etc.?? Why are all foods not equally addictive or not?

http://www.yaleruddcenter.org/resources/upload/docs/what/addiction/FoodAddictionScale09.pdf



I imagine I would have pegged this pretty soundly at age 20. By age 30? No. No therapy, no detoxing, no dietary revelations or conversions. Was my addiction cured? I don't think so. I think it never existed.

Wuchtamsel said...

"But the bio above mentions a "sugar crash" which I read about on the internet quite a lot, but .... I have never experienced this that I know of. Do y'all actually get these?"



No, never. And I don't know anyone who ever did...
This "phenomenon" also seems to be mysteriously confined to North America, as I never heard anything about that anywhere in Europe. ;-)

carbsane said...

OMG I can't believe that article on Mark's site!! What the .....


I have "known" a person or two that this happens to through the internet, but it's not from binging it is the way their bodies respond to carbs. Interestingly VLC doesn't work for them either, and my take at this point is that the defect is probably in insufficient gluconeogenesis and/or glycogen breakdown issue.


Even in my youthful binging days this wasn't how my body reacted.

carbsane said...

So she has veered from her teachings as well.

carbsane said...

Why? It is disclosed in the review.


Now, here's a question. Does it materially change the review? The counter to it would be "what about this study, or this one, or ... that the article left out". Much of the public funding has been aimed at demonizing sugar for a very long time. It would be nice if advocacy weren't a part of science but it is. So I evaluate on quality of the product.

carbsane said...

Agree.

charles grashow said...

Conflict of interest
The author has no financial interest in
the sale of any sugar or sugar containing product. It is, however,
gratefully acknowledged that the writing of this review was partially
funded by the World Sugar Research Organization. The views expressed
are, however, entirely those of the author who established the format of
the review and was entirely free to express whatsoever views he thought
appropriate.

eulerandothers said...

I think I'm a food addict. I was watching a 'Maron' episode in which the main character, Marc Maron, a recovering alcoholic, says something to the effect of: ;They've taken away cigarettes, drugs, alcohol, what do we addicts have left?' and he's eating an ice cream cone. He could just as easily have been eating a taco because a taco would be as cheap and as portable!


I could think of my self as a recovering 'all those things he said' because I don't often drink (too many calories), don't do drugs (don't want to get the munchies - too many calories!) and I gave up smoking long ago. I go in and out of WW, and I 'stress eat.' I sound like a person with an 'addictive personality.' I probably am. I am certain that if I took up smoking tomorrow, I would lose weight almost without noticing it because I'd enjoy smoking so much more!
However, I'm not going to do it... wouldn't be prudent....
/

In this interview with Slate magazine, he talks about how alcoholics get support at AA - and although food is not so destructive to families (unless your spouse divorces you because you are fat), there were some aspects of that support that sounded like Weight Watchers! If you lose weight and achieve your declared goal at WW, you can continue to go to meetings, as many as you want - the support is still there. But you have to take advantage of that.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2013/09/02/marc_maron_alcoholism_and_drug_addiction_an_interview.html

Dan said...

There is no such thing as sugar addiction. To satisfy the current working understanding of addiction, several properties must be met:


1) Ingestion of the substance typically produces an acute mind-altering state ("high").


2) Tolerance rapidly builds, requiring more and more of the substance to produce the same neuropsychiatric effect.


3) Use of the substance quickly comes to impair daily functioning (e.g. the ability to work, have relationships, etc).


4) There is an acute and rather durable withdrawal phenomenon, and people are often morbidly sick with this.


There are some exceptions to these rules - for example, nicotine addiction - but for the most part, all truly addictive substances satisfy these criteria. Sugar does not satisfy any of them. People do not stay at home and lose their jobs and families because they are gulping down ice cream and chocolate cake; they do not become violently ill when they stop consuming sugar; they do not require more and more sugar because of tolerance; they do not experience abnormalities of perception, judgement, and reality testing because of sugar.


The word 'addiction' has become so widely used to describe every manner of pleasurable substance that it has become a useless piece of terminology, at least in popular lore. For example, we now have porn addiction, food addiction, smart phone addiction, gambling addiction, internet addiction, now sugar addiction!


When I clean up dirty needles next to my local river and under the bridge in the late fall, one can see the effects of a real addiction (to heroin and other narcotics). Methamphetamine, cocaine, heroin, morphine - those are real drugs of addiction. Not C6H12O6. Sorry.

Bris Vegas said...

It's called 'Reactive Hypoglycemia'. It's a very real problem for habitual VLC dieters. During RH the body reduces glucose levels far too rapidly inducing a hypoglycemic state. This causes a release of cathecholamines, cortisol, adrenaline, noradrenaline), to induce gluconeogenesis in an attempt to normalise blood glucose. The result is severe anxiety and a greatly elevated heart rate. [ It happened to me once when I was on a VLC diet after I drank a couple of cans Coke.]

Bris Vegas said...

An eminent exercise physiology Professor told me that poorly regulated blood glucose is a plausible explanation for most anxiety attacks.

Wuchtamsel said...

"The word 'addiction' has become so widely used to describe every manner of pleasurable substance that it has become a useless piece of terminology, at least in popular lore. For example, we now have porn addiction, food addiction, smart phone addiction, gambling addiction, internet addiction, now sugar addiction!"


I think the reason for this are the puritanic roots of the United States. If it feels halfway good it just HAS to be a "sin"!
Damn I never even heard about "porn addiction". This is so ridiculous. ^^

Bris Vegas said...

The paper has ZERO credibility. It is cherry-picking of the first order funded by the sugar industry.

A quick search of Medline Plus using the term 'sugar addiction' tells the opposite story to what you claim. The vast majority of recent papers suggest that sugar and sweetened foods cause neurobiological effects consistent with addiction.

Bris Vegas said...

"People do not stay at home and lose their jobs and families because they
are gulping down ice cream and chocolate cake; they do not become
violently ill when they stop consuming sugar; they do not require more
and more sugar because of tolerance; they do not experience
abnormalities of perception, judgement, and reality testing because of
sugar."


Wrong on every single point. People literally eat themselves to death.

Gamabunta said...

That is a rather extraordinary claim. Care to share the extraordinary evidence to back it up?

carbsane said...

They say that RH can be an early diabetic state. This would make sense for the VLC as well who have buttered their pancreata into mild dysfunction where they don't mount an appropriate acute insulin response. Then they overproduce later which suppresses gluconogenesis when it should be upregulated to prevent hypos so when glucose clears the hypo occurs.


But fear not, physiological IR is a good thing as you'll survive a bolus of insulin if Robert Lustig jabs you with an insulin bolus ;-) <- joke

Wuchtamsel said...

"Eminence" is about as far away from "evidence" as it gets... ;-)

Dan said...

"I think the reason for this are the puritanic roots of the United States."

I know you are European, so this should come as a shock to you -- the original Puritans came over from Europe because they were fleeing persecution from people who were even more puritanical than they were. I am not a student of history, but I do know that there were strains of puritanical thinking in Europe long before the Puritans left on the Mayflower. However, the French revolution, the Enlightenment, the separation of Church and State, the explosion of scientific knowledge, even the romanticism movement changed all that, while in the USA, many strains of puritanism persisted. What do you think?

Wuchtamsel said...

I know of course that puritanism was a direct "downstream effect" of reformation, as by the way are pretty much all (modern and postmodern) schools of thought, belief and philosophy of today in some way or another. I also think you are spot on with the french revolution being the first spark that lead to another "wave of new thoughts".

The thing about the puritans (and also about other groups that left for the new world) is (I think) that because they went for this new, ideal country that they wanted to form after their believes, they developed a certain way of orthodoxy that is somewhat immune against changes. That's not bad in as such, of course. But I think it's a fact that the US society of today has at least more in common with the US society of the late 18th century than the European societies have in common with their 18th century ancestors. (While the US were MUCH more progressive at that time, of course.)

Susanne said...

Thanks for the replies! I will google reactive hypoglycemia. I was just puzzled by this phenomenon that so many diet article writers seemed to take for granted, but I have never experienced. Did you look at the comments on Mark's article? Three pages of people reporting effects like this! Unless it's food poisoning, which some of it sounds like — nausea, tremors, vomiting and sleeplessness after eating an ordinary dessert? Going into a five hour "coma"? I wonder if some of them are having a psychosomatic reaction (at least partly) at the idea of having eaten something not "clean". Quite a few use words like binging or cheating or eating it although they "know better".

charles grashow said...

http://drhyman.com/blog/2010/05/19/why-cholesterol-may-not-be-the-cause-of-heart-disease/

Total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, and triglycerides.
Your total cholesterol should be under 200. Your triglycerides should be under 100. Your HDL should be over 60. Your LDL should be ideally under 80. Your ratio of total cholesterol to HDL should be less than 3.0. Your ratio of triglycerides to HDL should be no greater than 4, which can indicate insulin resistance if elevated.

http://drhyman.com/blog/2010/05/20/lower-your-risk-of-heart-disease-without-drugs/

Use lean animal protein like fish, turkey, chicken, lean cuts of lamb, and even vegetable protein such as nuts, beans, and tofu.

Eat high-fiber foods, ideally at least 50 grams per day. Beans, whole
grains, vegetables, nuts, seeds, and fruit all contain beneficial fiber.

Red rice yeast (two 600-mg capsules twice a day), which is another powerful cholesterol-lowering herbal formula. (this is a stain drug)

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/red-yeast-rice/NS_patient-redyeast

Red yeast rice is the product of yeast ( Monascus purpureus ) grown on rice, and is served as a dietary staple in some Asian countries. It contains several compounds collectively known as monacolins, substances known to inhibit cholesterol synthesis. One of these, "monacolin K," is a potent inhibitor of HMG-CoA reductase, and is also known as mevinolin or lovastatin (Mevacor®, a drug produced by Merck & Co., Inc).

Wuchtamsel said...

"People literally eat themselves to death."

Yes, but to claim that sugar is the single culprit for that is ridiculous enough to make for a whole great evening of standup comedy.
Face it, it's a mixture of nutritional stupidity, plain ignorance and a good amount of dull, generalized greed!
People with a minimum amount of discipline and self-efficacy keep their weight lifelong without any problems. With or without sugar.

Beth@WeightMaven said...

I find the work of folks like Bruce Alexander (rat park), Gabor Mate, Stanton Peele, and Marc Davis on addiction compelling (note: these are all folks who don't buy into the "addiction=disease" model). When you look at stats that say that only 20% or so of cocaine users actually become dependent or addicted and that it's actually higher for legally available substances (cigs, alcohol), then I think the idea that maybe there's something else at play -- besides how addictive a substance is and/or the level of withdrawal/detox needed -- is worth considering.

Like I said, it's a shame that too many people label too much of the continuum of overeating as addiction. That said, I do believe that for some at the end of that continuum, it really is meaningfully addiction, at least according to this definition.

Beth@WeightMaven said...

BTW, Stanton Peele writes a lot about folks who "mature out" of addiction. Basically the idea is that people see that the behavior no longer works in their life and they stop ... no therapy, no detox, etc. I'm not saying you were an addict at 20, but the idea that folks heal addictions on their own -- while not something Dr. Drew would endorse -- seems very likely.

Dan said...

I think you're right. Let's not forget that the first wave of Puritans still burnt witches at the stake (or drowned them). While America has gone through a number of revolutions (including the Civil War and the anti-British revolution that started the republic), they have never thrown off puritanism in any of their revolutions. However, there have always been dissenters (such as the Transcendalists in the 19th century). Outside of certain places in Nevada, you would never find legalized prostitution in America as you would in Holland, where it is openly displayed and prostitutes advertise their 'wares' from storefront windows. Nor can you find many (any?) places in America where people are legally prescribed heroin as a means of harm reduction in safe injection sites. The level of prudery in America today reminds me a bit of medieval societies such as Saudi Arabia (the analogy is of course not perfect).

Dan said...

"Wrong on every single point. People literally eat themselves to death." If what you say is true, and sugar is addictive, people would ignore all other forms of food and purchase large bags of white sugar and simply eat it by the cupful. You may find a rare demented person doing that, but I think that is the exception. Certainly people who seek cocaine or heroin do not go out looking for adulterants for their product - they just want the "pure stuff".

carbsane said...

I have a followup post coming later today. Hopefully it fleshes out a bit where I'm coming from.

charles grashow said...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-katz-md/sugar-health-evil-toxic_b_850032.html

charles grashow said...

Loren Cordain has now endorsed a "paleo" diet bar!!

http://www.tpdfoods.com/product/the-paleo-diet-bar-cinnamon-raisin-12-pack

With Dr. Cordain's exclusive endorsement, Braaap Nutrition presents The Paleo Diet™
Bar, a gluten free, soy free, dairy free and all natural food bar high in the beneficial nutrients that he recommends in some of his best selling books, The Paleo Answer™, The Paleo Diet™ Cookbook and The Paleo Diet™ for Athletes

Wuchtamsel said...

Well, bigotry is not a strictly american phenomenon. It exists in Europe, too. But it's often disguised in a different way.
But what I find more characteristic for the USA is this emphatic kind of mesmerism that for example (to return to the issue of this blog...) people like Kevin Trudeau or Jimmy Moore can trigger when it comes to nutrition or medicine. They have a downright religious following that takes everything these "gurus" say as dogma, no matter how absurd it may be. And I think there is some obvious subtle link between this fact and early American history.
Of course we have wackos here, too. Homeopathy is for whatever reason very popular in Germany and France. But our wackos are just an annoying menace each on their own. They don't organize in pseudo-churches that start to trace everyone who unmasks their nonsense. ^^

Dan said...

Mesmerism is exactly the right term for it! It is not just nutrition or medicine gurus that exert this mesmerizing effect on their adherents. We see this in many other fields as well, including politics, sports, and social movements. With an approach of moderation and skepticism, you will never fall for any cult movement.

charles grashow said...

http://www.westonaprice.org/thumbs-down-reviews/the-paleo-solution-byrobb-wolf

More concerns: Wolf is big on fish oil, recommending up to 30 grams per day―that''s two tablespoons! All those oxidized polyunsaturates (fish oil is boiled for hours at 230 degrees) are bound to cause problems, not solve them. And then there is the very dangerous suggestion to bring total cholesterol levels down to 120-140 mg/dL―cholesterol levels this
low are strongly associated with increased rates of depression, stroke, violent behavior, suicide, intestinal diseases and reduced libido (we make sex and stress hormones out of cholesterol). No wonder Charlie has lost his interest in sex.

The fact is, while The Paleo Solution diet contains plenty of meat, it is just another version of food puritanism―a diet so lean, dry and deficient that it is impossible to stay on and bound to lead to health problems. No "paleolithic" or traditional culture ever ate this way, and we shouldn't either.

charles grashow said...

He's at it again

Fat Chance: Fructose 2.0

Dr. Robert Lustig, UCSF Division of Pediatric Endocrinology, updates his
very popular video "Sugar: The Bitter Truth." He argues that sugar and
processed foods are driving the obesity epidemic, which in turn affects
our endocrine system.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceFyF9px20Y

LeonRover said...

Food Addiction Clinicians recommend that attendees ea lots of Cold Turkey.

Andre5001 said...

http://www.dietdoctor.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/lustig.jpg

bilalpress said...

Latest cars and vehicles, Latest Mazda Models, Racing Cars, International Sport Cars, Concept Cars, PS-Pod, Strange Vehicles, Nissan, Royce Corniche, Ford Concept Cars, Strange Vehicles, Mercedes and More Sport Cars and Vehicles with Pictures and Info

WorldLatestVehicles.com

VC_Maude said...

I do find I "crash" if I eat a moderate amount of sugar or bread/pasta in the afternoons, and it's been that way for me since before I can remember (and I have never been on a carb-restricted diet). Doesn't feel like a heart attack, though, if that's what you were asking about. I just get very sleepy and unable to concentrate or think clearly. This effect is still there, but lessened, if I stick to protein and vegetables for lunch and save the starches/sugars for the evening. I do even better if I eat a late, protein-heavy breakfast, don't do a lunch, and eat an earlier dinner. Eating mid-day, basically, sets me up for nap-time (even when I get adequate sleep). I'm open to the possibility that this means something isn't quite right with my metabolism, though.

kangaruhs said...

You're behind on the science here. Sugar has been demonstrated to meet the scientific criteria for addiction.

carbsane said...

No I'm not. The Yale Food Addiction scale is discussed in my upcoming book. Sugar actually doesn't meet the seminal criteria, though sadly those researchers misrepresent this. :(

John Bryan said...

Heres how I quit my addiction(s) "cold tukey"... http://inputoutputgame.com

Blogger said...

Using EasyHits4U you can earn free advertising credits by visiting other website-ads from a membership base of over 1,200,000 accounts. Earn credits fast with a view for view model.

Post a Comment

Moderation is currently on. Thanks in advance for your patience.