Has anyone else seen this? Has some really useful cutting information.
>sugar is 8 times more addictive than cocaine
>most obese children are literally addicted to sugar
>sugar substitutes are put into virtually every 'reduced fat' product because food without fat tasted bland
I don't know if I buy the more-addictive part. But sugar is so hard to avoid (point 3) that it hardly matters. Imaging trying to treat cokeheads at a clinic where the lunch room served bumps with breakfast.
Sugar is fucking awesome. I don't feel like myself if I eat below 500g a day. There is absolutely nothing wrong with sugar, there is a reson why blood sugar is such an important thing.
>94% of mice chose the sugar infused water over the coke laced water
>even mice already addicted to cocaine soon switched
>sugar is 8 times more addictive than cocaine
Fuck this movie, and fuck the people who need to see it to make good eating choices. If you can't figure out what is good for you and what is not and need to see a movie to figure it out for you, you are beyond help. This movie isn't going to spur any revolution in the way people eat, it's just going to line the pockets of the people who created with money. Then the masses will forget about it 10 minutes later when they buy their kids poptarts and grab their Starbucks late on the way home. Fuck people.
The reason sugar is so bad is that it is absorbed and stored as energy (read as fat) almost instantly. When you eat sugar, the pancreas produces insulin to aid the process.
When you have a diet soda, your brain still thinks you are eating sugar despite the lack of calories, and so the pancreas releases insulin. With the extra insulin in your system, the above process will begin.
You will also still crave sugar, as your body has not received any and has released insulin in anticipation.
Naturally occurring sugars in fruit are generally accompanied with fiber which mitigates the effect.
Fruit got dat fiber which means less sugar is absorbed
If you have the choice of a 100 calories soda or 100 calories of almonds, the nuts will count for fewer calories because the sugar in the soda will be absorbed instantly while the fiber in the nuts causes a portion of the calories to pass through you before complete digestion.
There is more to counting calories than just counting - you need to look at what is really going into you.
Presto, let's use cocaine rather than sugar for our coffee and for the diet of our kids!
Why nobody ever introduced just plain cocaine in our sod--
>me remembers that coke had cocaine
I bet that the jews did that
Cocaine isnt even addictive faggot this whole study is flawed
Sounds like something a soccer mom would make it. Why not make it a real addictive drug like heroin.
Oh thats because it wont prove their jewish narrative that they are trying to push.
>lower-order animals being addicted to cocaine
Do you even know what cocaine does mentally to humans?
For starters don't trust journalists or "doctors" on the internet who don't give their sources. They spread sensationalist bullshit because they make money if a lot of people read their articles.
Don't get me wrong I don't expect everyone on /fit/ to be an expert on this shit but sometimes I feel the need to point out that something is obviously wrong. I won't go into detail because it would take multiple posts and I just got home from a long day at work.
>Cocaine isnt even addictive faggot this whole study is flawed
>Cocaine isn't even addicitve
go read a dictionary you fucking faggot.
You're missing the point - its not that sugar is more addictive, it's that sugar is also highly addictive.
Fat people who diet will literally get withdrawal symptoms from lack of sugar.
I don't sympathise with hamplanet adults, but when you have young children who have a substance addiction because of there idiot parents and won't truly be able to understand why then it's pretty fucked up.
>I get my knowledge of cocaine from a book
Try actually doing it. Its not addictive.
Its addictive the same way popcorn is addictive. Fuck off kiddo.
>jewish soccer moms in charge of health studies
I guess this was the expected result
I saw this film when it came out - they cited the tomato paste as a good source of fiber.
They also said the market for cheese was tiny before 1980 or so. Suddenly all these reduced fat products were being produced and they needed to make something with all the excess: cheese.
Similarly with corn - the industry produced a huge excess and needed to monetize this: high fructose corn syrup.
One the one hand every kind of food has been villified as the source of the fatness, on the other hand artificial sweeteners are used to fatten pigs.
I personally think that sweet-tasting food messes with the appetite regulation system the body has and they might have gotten the real culprit this time.
On the one hand, as a recovering fatty, I'm not going to blame anyone but myself, and I take full responsibility for my recovery.
On the other hand, it can't possibly be that in 1950 everyone had willpower and common sense and by 2000half the population became weak willed and gullible. Something happened that make our natural tendencies work against us with disastrous results.
No. The point is they tried to push a narrative to prove their point by using cocaine.
Cocaine is something the general public doesnt know much about due to low usage rates and is equivalent to a boogeyman.
All so a bunch of faggots can go around spouting "sugar is more addictive than cocaine"
Yea well is fucking alcohol and cigarettes. But everyone uses those so it isnt useful for fear mongering.
>Its addictive the same way popcorn is addictive.
>thread is entirely about food being addictive
you are not a bright man, are you?
But you'd agree that it shows that sugar is addictive? Because that's the stuff getting pumped into processed foods.
Just because you don't agree with their angle doesn't mean you should disregard the whole study.
Perhaps sugary processed foods will be the cigarettes of this era - everyone use to smoke and think it was fine. And now?
Good question. Best would be entry level medical textbooks, as journal articles are often too hard for "normal" people (ie people without a (bio)medical background).
Unfortunately, those books cost a shitton of money. Maybe Wikipedia or info from the NIH. Those articles are readable AND correct.
If sugar is addictive like drugs, that explains keto.
Some people can't ever have a drink again. Some people can't ever have a donut again. Non alcoholics don't get why an alcoholic can't drink in moderation. Non sugar addicts don't see why you need to be in ketosis all the time
>The reason sugar is so bad is that it is absorbed and stored as energy (read as fat) almost instantly
No it's not. learn2biochem
It is stored as glucagon and excess is burned for heat.
You know what is a good appetite suppressant? Sugar.
Yeah, in that case try an MMO community. I'd rather take the average cocaine user than the average MMO loser.
There's a bunch of articles referenced in this, if you google it you can find more.
Eating sugar is pleasurable and releases dopamine. Linking dopamine to a specific behaviour is the basis for addiction.
Go back 10,000 years and sugar was extremely rare in diets. As it's almost instantly stored as fat (useful in evolutionary terms), it makes perfect sense for humans and other animals to crave it.
It's well known that eating releases dopamine - sugar just represents this going one stage further.
Several problems with your brain
1. Drug users in general dont admit the full truth of their drug use due to the illegality of it. Especially to random people.
2. There is no reliable way to find cocaine users
3. There is no reliable way to see if they are lying about their drug usage or amounts used
So any study on drug users is fundamentally flawed.
So the way people find these people is to go to prison and find users who got arrested for drug chargers. But these people are degenerates anyways so they are no representative of the average user.
Cocaine users include people who have high stress jobs that require loss of sleep (lawyers come to mind) and casual users (young 20, 30 somethings). The qualities and the effects of drug basically make you into the world's biggest alpha male with no fear and hyped the fuck up.
Addiction just comes from wanting to be the alpha male again. I dont think mice understand this on the same level.
>It is stored as glucagon
Fuck it /fit/ you may all have gfs and are fucking buffed while I'm a skeleton but this is too much
Refined sugar obviously isn't good for you, but you shouldn't need a sensationalist documentary to tell you that. People crave sugar because your body runs on glucose, not because it's some toxic drug. Best to get your glucose from healthy foods.
Also, the premise of that film is bullshit. The government at no point told people to eat all the sugar they want. They said to eat less sugar and less fat and what Americans did instead was put more sugar on their butter. Unlike the film insists, it's not the fault of the government or corporations that everybody's fat now, it's people eating shitty food of their own accord, getting fat, and looking for a scapegoat
>tells me sugar is more addictive than cocaine
>then tells me obese children are LITERALLY addicted to sugar
>says that as though im supposed to be shocked
if sugar was 8x more addictive than cocaine why did you then phrase the next sentence as if it was something shocking? if sugar is 8x more addictive than cocaine then it sort of goes without saying that obese children would be addicted
>losing weight has never been easier
>i feel great and my depression is completely cured as long as i am on
>can't think of any downsides
>FUCKING SICK CUNT STATUS FOR LIFE BRAH
how has fit managed to go backwards, i thought we were long past this bullshit
The other day I was reading about how cocaine interacts with the brain and a question occurred to me: Do you find that the mood you're in when you take the cocaine effects the quality of your high while on it?
People ignore this because we so quickly forget our historical context. Good on you, man.
Why do you think people call sociology bullshit? People here seem to think of the are of study sa way for people to take blame of themselves, but of course this doesn't help them lose weight or become better people. In reality,the real use of sociology is in noticing these trends,and disconcerting how they came to be.
Show me any study that says anything about fruit that isn't "fruit consumption associated with lower risk of cancer" "fruit consumption associated with lower risk of diabetes" "fruit consumption associated with lower risk of heart disease"
try completely cutting carbs out of your diet and see how you feel
you will experience withdrawal symptoms
see how flawed your logic is? it can be applied to all sorts of shit, should all kids now be on a no carb diet?
You seem to think I'm saying nobody should eat any sugar, so we haven't been arguing about the same thing the whole time.
Like you say, I can't cut carbs out my diet because I will get withdrawal symptoms.
The point is that young children who are now eating high levels of sugar cannot reduce the amount they consume without getting the same withdrawal symptoms.
I'm not saying they should remove sugar completely, but if they want to bring it down to a healthy level they will still crave for the old, sugar heavy diet. And as sugar and it's substitutes are pumped into nearly all processed foods, it is difficult to move away from these products.
Dietary cholesterol does influence blood cholesterol, but that's not all it does. Here's an article written by 3 world leaders in cardiovascular research
the exact same thing is happening with carbs in general but you dont seem to care, you're obsessed with sugar
america's kids are so fat that even if they removed 100% of sugar from their diet they would still be fat, just from burgers and fries and chips instead
why specifically sugar?
why aren't you saying they should be eating less carbs in general? after all cutting down carbs produces withdrawal symptoms so that's 'proof' they are bad, right?
your diet could literally be 100% sugar and you can still lose fat, deal with it.
At no point did I place the blame solely on sugar - not sure where you are getting this from - but sugar is just a major contributor to weight gain and present in nearly all processed foods.
It's common sense that everyone should be eating a healthy balanced diet if they want to lose weight.
High fat foods are a major contributor too
I just dont get the point of the argument
some people abuse sugar, some people abuse porn, some people abuse cocaine
if person A is consuming 100 grams of sugar a day and has visible abs, nobody gives a fuck
if person B is consuming 100 grams of sugar a day and is obese then omg sugar is addictive and we need to do something!!! did u kno sugar is more addictive than cocaine???!
See this just shows how dumb you are
if you are flooding your brain with dopamine (i.e. sex or porn addiction) you are destroying dopamine receptors
= less energy, less motivation, less confidence etc. etc.
anything can be abused you knuckledragger
>watch the trailer
>Gary Taubes and Robert Lustig
Taubes is a known charlatan who pushes a low-carb diet, and Lustig is a fat "obesity expert" who claims no food in nature contains both fat and sugar simultaneously.
The carb blamers, fat blamers, and protein blamers (they exist) are all correct, because they all contain calories. Energy-in Energy-out isn't the whole story, but it's a close enough first approximation.
you should always want to have sex so you can reproduce as much as possible
by your logic
you should always want to eat so you can store as much fat as possible for the cold season
>sex always has a beneficial outcome within nature - children
>in the modern world, there is no need to gain excess fat and by overeating you are just killing yourself
OK guys here is the deal about this movie. What is important here is viewing things in terms of scale and policy. When you look at it on a small scale. The stuff about the calories in and calories out being BS is crap. The stuff about personal responsibility is also crap. But when you evaluate this on a large scale as a health policy its not crap. Look it simply is not realistic to have everyone out there counting their macros. If your goal is really to decrease obesity of the population on a large scale, then the problems described in this film are very real. However if you came to me and were like I'm tryna get shredded brah what should I do, I would tell you simply that it is calories in and calories out. Take this from someone who used to be a fatty and lost 60 pounds counting my cals.
and we should outlaw sex because some people become addicted?
your logic is full retard mode since birth
too much of anything is bad, stop fixating on sugar you weirdo
like i said earlier, if we woke up tomorrow and sugar no longer existed americans would still be fat 5 years down the line
because high calorie foods still exist
because people would rather drive than walk
because people dont like exercise
so sugar is outlawed and people are still fat, what next? do we outlaw cars? or outlaw fatty foods?
but its not about outlawing sugar, its about reducing the amount being pumped into processed foods
some would say cars are killing the planet - instead of banning them, they are progressively becoming more environmentally friendly
same thing applies here
I'm explaining my point badly but basically what I'm saying is you have to evaluate these things in terms of scale and efficacy. Basically if you are a bodybuilder on a cut and you eat a lot of sugar or refined carbs, will it really matter? No, it might make a couple percentage points of difference but no. The reason being is that it really does come down to calories in and calories out. However when you look at this type of problem on a large scale and ask "hmmm why is such a large percentage of the population overweight and show signs of metabolic disease". If you answer that question by saying well its all the sugar we eat and then describe the metabolic effects of sugar, how it makes you more hungry and insulin etc, thats totally valid. For people who aren't monitoring calories and are simply "eating intuitively" added sugar would cause people to consume a lot more calories.
>Go back 10,000 years and sugar was extremely rare in diets. As it's almost instantly stored as fat
>As it's almost instantly stored as fat
>almost instantly stored as fat
But that's complete bullshit, carbohydrates are the nutrient that are actually least likely to get stored as fat and are used more immediately for energy.
Fats are actually mostly stored as fat, very little of dietary fat is used for energy after it's digested. It's almost always stored, but realize that due to energy balance, this does not mean fat will make you fat.
Society is made up of individuals. If individuals don't control themselves, they can't rely on the government to do everything for them. Fat, lazy people with no motivation will be fat, lazy people with no motivation no matter what
Sure there are but the fact remains when you look at obesity on a global scale it really is a staggering problem. I mean in a generation the rate of chronic illness is going to be unprecedented, I mean this is something that could bankrupt countries. If you allowed everyone to drive tanks around I'm sure there would be some people who would use their tank responsibly, but we don't allow that. We share the cost of obesity and something must be done.
That's a ridiculous idealistic argument, look at it in terms of utility. Look at what regulation has done to control the rates of cigarette smoking. Look at any public health campaign that has any efficacy. I agree with the ideals behind your post, where its coming from, but you have to be realistic.
But its coming to the point where it's a real problem for society as a whole
In the last 30 years obesity has become a huge problem and now lots of children are obese. In 20/30 years time, the healthcare costs around the issue are going to become sky high and it will have a very real effect on your quality of life. Do you really want to see billions of tax dollars being spent on these people? Because that's what is going to happen
As the epidemic is so recent, nobody is really sure what the long term effects will be, but there is not much chance of them being good.
Have you ever had to drop large amounts of weight, I have, and I did. But the amount of dedication it took was huge, the amount of effort and how careful I had to be with my calorie counting(and still am) was huge. To expect vast percentages of the population to do that is not realistic, it wont happen. Don't die on the sword of your ideals, if you really want to solve the problem on a large scale you need to be realistic.
>random documentary says to ban sugar for public health
>"YEAH, FUCK SUGAR, ILLEGALIZE IT, THE REVOLUTION IS NOW!"
>various health officials and major organizations call for a reduction or elimination of meat and dairy products for both public health and environmental sustainability
>"MY RIGHTS AS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN ARE BEING INFRINGED! MY ANCESTORS ATE MEAT! CHEESE IS IN THE CONSTITUTION! MUH BURGERS!"
It's like people will throw one unhealthy thing under the bus to save another unhealthy thing that they like more
As an exfat, the biggest problem I had facing weightloss was that you are bombarded with different techniques and way too much information (of which many just isn't true or is psuedoscience) that you simply couldn't tell the rights from the wrongs as someone without the knowledge
Every truth about weightloss, even if it's something studies have indicated a long time ago, is a welcome one. Hardly anyone reads those studies, this makes it more accessible to most people
as an exfat, fat people are expensive, obesity is rampant, every bit of knowledge that can prevent grandscale obesity should be considered long-term financial investment
for weightloss it's more effective then conventional weightloss, lost 20kg's with conventional when I weighed 120, then lost another 20kg's on keto
The 20 KG's on keto went much smoother and I hardly had any urges to cheat, atleast, much less then with conventional diet
(bounty's are my bane)
This is true. A lot of misinformation is intentional; people will tell fat people what they want to hear in order to sell books to them or get pageviews on their blog, often distorting facts or telling half-truths without explaining context. This is how the low carb culture came about. "It's not your fault you're fat, it's the GOVERNMENT telling you to eat CARBS. You like bacon, don't you? Well eat all the bacon you want, it's good for you and you'll be thin for life! Buy my e-book"
did you know that oxygen is 100,000,000 times more addictive than heroin?
> Laurie David
> Katie Couric
Well so much for getting any real information on nutrition from this piece of shit. It will be like Supersize Me where they just target someone to sue. It will be interesting if the spend more time or less on corn farmers since they are heavily subsidized.
Processed foods usually contain sucrose (a disaccharide of glucose and fructose) or high fructose corn syrup (a mix of separate glucose and fructose molecules).
As for which is worse, it depends who you ask. Most people will say it doesn't matter, sugar calories are sugar calories. There are some (possible quacks) who say fructose is very bad for you, and some (definite quacks) who say HFCS is very bad for you.
glucagon... that's a hormone that does the opposite thing to insulin. What you are looking for is glycogen which is stores in muscles and the liver. The body only has capacity for so much of it and can only store it at a certain rate. Drinking a can of coke exceeds that rate and a lot of the sugar will be picked up by adipose tissue (fat). In future, please know what you are talking about before shitposting.
Source: I am a doctor.
Any way you slice it, it comes down to the individual. People aren't fat because of a gram of HFCS in their pork sausage, they're fat because they eat shitty food. Banning certain foods doesn't fix anything, it just shifts the problem elsewhere. If people are uneducated and don't have the motivation to look after themselves, all you can really do is take one vice away and have them pick up or amplify another.
plus, there are most definitely downsides. It can cause psychosis, paranoia, insomnia and anxiety. If you take too much it can cause convulsions and seizures. Long term it causes cardiovascular, liver and kidney damage as well as hypertension, tooth decay and impotence. That's just off the top of my head.
only if your body currently requires them. If it does not then carbohydrates are immediately stored as high blood sugar damages the body. In contrast, the body can tolerate much higher amounts of lipids in the blood and will react to store them less aggressively.
Facultative dietary thermogenesis.
I also have a science experiment for you. Drink a 2 liter bottle of soda and see how it makes you feel. The next day drink a bottle of olive oil and see how it makes you feel. The one that filled you with explosive energy wasn't being stored as fat. The one that made you feel sluggish, slow, and shitty was being stored as fat.
Y'all should watch this. It gives the rundown on how the body processes sugar/HFCS, and why it can be considered a poison. Forewarning, the talk is around 60 minutes, with 30 minutes of questions following.
>Sucrose = 50% Glucose/50% Fructose
>Glucose is used by cells for energy
>Fructose can only be converted into lipid-chains in the liver
>Half of the caloric energy of sugar is used to power the body, the other half has to be stored as fat
>HFCS is even worse than sugar in this regard
The problem is that Robert "Fat Boy" Lustig is an idiot
You fucking retard. If this happened to an extent necessary to control the effect of 2 liters of sugar water on your blood then it would still kill you via hyperthermia. The body brings blood sugar under control within minutes.
Seriously thinking that you can't get fat if you don't eat fats. /fit/ never ceases to amaze me.
well that's understandable when you consider that these mice are just drinking the cocaine water. that's what it sounds like anyway. if they were getting either sugar or cocaine injected into their veins, the results would probably be different.
I don't see any fruitarians because I'm not a psychiatrist.
To put your bullshit in perspective, a 2 litre bottle of coke contains 800 kcal. That's 800000 calories. 1 calorie of energy raises the temperature of 1 gram of water by 1 degree Celsius. Let's assume that this is similar for body tissue that is mostly water. So the bottle of coke would raise an average 70kg body's temperate on average by 800000/70*1000 degrees which is 11.4 degrees C. That would kill you within minutes. Obviously temperature would be lost and Some would find storage as glycogen but even half that rise would be fatal.
Now back to /b/ where you belong.
>digestion slowed by water, which also increases urinary excretion
Step up, senpai. Although as that book points out, a small amount of fat can be synthesized, it's just less than 5% of the caloric load given (in the case of fructose, even less for pure glucose like from starch)
calories are a measure of combustive energy release, NOT how much biological energy (ATP) they can produce.
there is some correlation, and sugary drinks like cola produce a shitton, but they aren't the *same*
You can find several studies to "prove" pretty much everything has negative effects on the human body.
I'll eat cereal, ice cream, bacon and chocolate bars as long as i live and probably never get diabetes or heart disease unless it is genetic and i'll never be obese.
And that is because, i have a functioning brain.
Okay, it's not immediate but for soda it is pretty damned fast. Also, the book assumes a normal diet. Vast amounts of sugar in a short period of time like my hypothetical bottle of coke cause a very large insulin response which causes movement of glucose into adipose tissue. Although conversion to fatty acid is still slow, once the glucose is there it doesn't leave unless there is a rise in glucagon which there won't be any time soon.
I'm only really arguing this for excessive amounts of refined sugars in a short timeframe.
Yeah, I wonder who could be responsible for this...
I can't agree when there are fat acceptance "documentaries" out there as well. Like >>29104996 said, some people are just clueless and are looking for quick fixes, not hard truths.
8 times more addictive than cocaine? What are have you been smoking(clearly not crack)?
I know sugar is addictive as hell but to say that it's 8 times more addictive than cocaine is just going full retard.