Prev
Next

The war on sugar is full of overcooked addiction claims

Susie Burrell

by Susie Burrell

07 May 05:45am

Must Reads

The Punch is moving house - this is a caption

The Punch is moving house

385

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this? - this is a caption

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

122

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming” - this is a caption

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

251

Filed under: Diet, Health, Nutrition, Obesity, Sugar

34 comments

No other food has received the recent caning (pardon the pun) that sugar has over the past few months. Headlines of ‘toxic’, ‘poison’ and ‘addiction’ have been constantly bantered around with sugar free devotes claiming that banning the simple molecule has changed their life and their weight forever.

Would you hold up a service station for one of these?

Since high amounts of sugar is found in generally non-nutritive foods including soft drinks, sweet desserts, yoghurts, confectionery and processed cereal products, is not surprising that people drop weight when they ‘ban’ sugar form their diets.

When you take a closer look at what is actually happening physiologically, is that the total carbohydrate load of the diet is significantly reduced when foods that contain sugar are eliminated, which simply means that insulin levels in the body are reduced and weight is lost.

Naming sugar as addictive as an illicit drugs or alcohol though needs to be carefully considered, as there are some significant differences between a drug or alcohol dependency and one that is proposed to be associated with sugar that need to be taken into account.

The effect of sugar was initially likened to the effect seen with drugs as sweet food, as is the case with all palatable food, including foods high in fat, sugar and salt stimulate neurons that have an ‘opioid’ effect in the brain.

This means that they tell the body that these foods are a good energy supply and the body needs them to produce energy to run off. It is largely a biological mechanism to tell the body to eat foods that contain fuel so that the body can continue to function. In the short term, these foods make us feel better and hence the belief that as they make us feel better, they are ‘addictive’.

Now it is not the ‘opioid’ effect that primes human beings to search for more of this palatable stimulus – this is a natural feel good hormone that is produced when we eat something that tastes good. Rather it is dopamine, a neurotransmitter that is released in ‘anticipation’ of eating palatable food that appears to support the habit of eating these foods regularly.

This means that when you start to remember how good the ice cream tasted and start to have it regularly that the brain starts to ‘prime’ to seek out these foods. It even seems that these dopamine receptors may be more closely linked to weight gain than was previously thought.

One study published in the Journal of Neurology found that overweight people has fewer dopamine receptors than normal weight individuals meaning that those who were overweight needed more food stimulus to get the same level of pleasure than normal weight people.

So where does that leave us in terms of sugar being addictive? The American Psychiatric Association requires several diagnostic criteria to define an ‘addiction’;

1) Recurrent substance use resulting in a failure to fulfil major role obligations at work, school, home;

2) Recurrent substance use in situations in which is it physically hazardous;

3) Recurrent substance-related legal problems;

4) Continued substance use despite having persistent or recurrent social or interpersonal problems caused or exacerbated by the effects of the substance.

Now while you may find yourself somewhat possessed on some occasions with the need for a chocolate bar, the truth is that needing sugar does not generally stop people from working. Nor does it see individuals holding up a local petrol station to obtain sweet snacks. And to the best of my knowledge, no one is in court for sugar related activity.

This is not to say that the drive to eat sweet foods is not powerful, particularly for those of us who have gotten into the habit of constantly rewarding their dopamine receptors with large volumes of sweet, highly palatable food.

It is also not to say that breaking a habit of eating sweet foods regularly is difficult, but to label it as powerful as drugs is simply giving our little glucose model, which are brains and bodies run on, a little too much power.

Most commented

34 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Mark says:

      08:22am | 07/05/12

      As a recent convert to the sugar free lifestyle, I disagree with most of what you have written. Yes, it is not an illicit drug so writing that is just provocative. What I have found since I substantially reduced sugar (fructose) in my diet 6 months ago is the following 
      - weight has dropped 9 kilos
      - I feel healthier
      - I feel more in control of my life. 
      - I actually feel full again, something sugar I believe  prevented. This naturally reduced the amount I wanted to eat.
      - I have tasted food again that is low in sugar  in a way I never thought possible. My taste buds are back.
      - I have found substitutes for the products I use to love. Rice Malt Syrup for honey,  low sugar chocolate for regular chocolate…I could go on.
      Is it addictive? All I can say is for the first few weeks when I reduced my intake it felt very similar to giving up nicotine all those years ago.
      I have still eaten as much as I have wanted of low fructose foods, have taken no notice of the fat content in food, have not increased my exercise and can comfortably say I will never be overweight again. Put simply, (in laymens terms) once I felt I had got the fructose out the system it was a rather easy. I have never dieted previously because willpower is not my thing. No willpower was required for me here after the furst fee weeks however I was 10 kilos overweight. Experts say there are umpteen other benefits such as preventing diabetes. I can’t comment yes or no on that but I’ll take the benefits if they come. smile I have never met the elephant in the post David Gillespie but have read his Sweet Sugar book and put it down as one of the best things I have chosen to do in life. 

      Reply

    • Scotchfinger says:

      09:15am | 07/05/12

      I hope you haven’t cut fruit out of your diet. Fruit provides nutrients that you won’t find in other foods easily - vitamin C is a very important one. Poor Dr Atkins found to his cost the consequences of cutting carbs from his life…

    • Rose says:

      09:29am | 07/05/12

      I will never give up sugar, I just don’t see the point. All the benefits of giving up sugar that you listed I got from just watching my serving sizes and walking several times a week. I lost just under 10kg, feel great and I know that what I’ve done is 100% sustainable, which I don’t believe completely giving up something like sugar is.
      I get really frustrated with all these new ideas, giving up sugar, detoxing and other various life changing diets and fads. The only person’s life that is truly changed is the person who made millions marketing the books, supplements and merchandise. I may be a cynic, but I spent several years as a weight loss consultant and have come into contact with scores of people who have been sucked in to this, that and the other, sometimes getting great results for a short period of time before it ll goes pear shaped or not seeing any real benefit. Nothing beats just having a healthy diet with exercise to keep people healthy and happy.

    • Mark says:

      09:42am | 07/05/12

      I haven’t cut fruit out but instead of having freshly squeezed juices (purchased or home made) where you end up throwing out all the good fibre and keeping all the sugar from a huge amount of fruit, I now eat 2 to 3 pieces of whole fruit a day.
      BTW, slight correction. The book is called sweet poison not sweet sugar.
      Interestingly
      Tomatoe source is out
      Barbecue Source is out
      Soy source is fine (yes I know it has a large salt content)
      Non fat reduced mayo is fine
      Most mustard is fine
      So I have Mustard instead of Tomatoe source on meat. Easy.
      I have a packet of Tim Tams my wife bought in the cupboard. Has been there for a month. It usually wouldn’t last 24 hours in that cupboard!

    • AdamC says:

      10:10am | 07/05/12

      Mark, this is just a low kilojoule diet with a brand name.

      The health industry seems to dress up low kilojoule dieting in a different way every few years. In my experience, most people I know could lose weight quite easily simply by ceasing to eat (snack or graze) between meals. Incidentally, most snackfoods are high in sugar, starchy carbs or or fats. Remember when fat was the evil nutrient du jour?

    • Mark says:

      10:42am | 07/05/12

      Maybe it’s low kilojule, although I doubt it. All I look at is the sub category of sugar in the carbohydrates section of the ingrediants on any packet of food and aim for less than 3 in 100 grams of sugar. The exception is dairy where it’s fine to have as much as I like as long as there is no added sugar.
      Cream, full cream milk, non sweetened yoghurt and cheese being the main items that are fine to eat as you please. The first 5 grams approx of dairy is lactose which is fine. After that it’s added non lactose sugar. I am not a dietician and have followed the tips from a book by an X lawyer so theres two easy free kicks if you so desire however let me repeat, it’s the best thing I have don’t for my health since I gave up tobacco. My back has improved as I am carrying less weight and I actually exercise a bit more as (suprise surprise) its more fun to go for a walk when your carrying less.

    • Gregg says:

      11:26am | 07/05/12

      @Mark,
      What Rose is saying is kind of ” everything in moderation ” and a small ammount of use of sauces for instance will make bugger all difference to you other than maintaining a well rounded healthy lifestyle, one just as likely to be maintained as sticking on a low sugar eating lifestyle.

      I have been on low sugar for decades and maybe my top weight would have blown up past 150 Kg. if I hadn’t been but I’ve still been a pretty hefty lad at times and I’ve been able to bring my weight down to better levels by moderation in intake and plenty of exercise.

      Whilst low on sugar was as a result of diabetics in the family, I have always liked something sweet as most people will and Woolies still having hot cross buns coming out of their bakery are no big help.
      At the same time, whereas I ingest some foods that have sugar, I never add sugar unless making up some homemade jam or adding some honey or whatever to porridge and certainly do not like sweet sickly drinks.
      I still use sauces ( a bit ) have the very infrequent pastries and even use sweet jams but all in moderation and the weight has come down.

      I even have infrequently a bit of sweet chocolate just because it is more readily available than a low sugar version and I probably have TIM Tams in the cupboard that might be past their use by date so this winter should see how kind storage in a cool cupboard has been.

      I suppose my message is you can still lead a well rounded food life without being too rounded yourself if you really want to but yes, there is some willpower required, just the will to see how you want to be and be what you want to see.
      I now have to keep my diabetes 2 in check while doing that and are reasonably sucessful at it, still having sugar in my food intake, if in moderation.
      Next step may be to see what is involved in reversal if that is possible for me, I knowing that some people have but possibly not an option for everyone.

    • morrgo says:

      11:30am | 07/05/12

      @Mark; there is more to sugar than fructose, the two are not identical.  Commercial sugar in Australia is a compound of one molecule each of fructose and glucose.  Unlike the US, we have negligible high-fructose sweeteners. 

      And I hope that you also cut out potatoes, rice and all baked goods made with white flour: physiologically these have the same effect as glucose.

    • mark says:

      12:20pm | 07/05/12

      Gregg, this is essentially where I and the author disagree. I honestly believe I was addicted to sugar. I could go through a packet of mint slices in an hour. I can now avoid the mint slices with ease. I use to love a lemon squash for dinner, I can now easily avoid it.  For me it’s not moderation it’s substantial reduction in fructose and eat whatever else you want guilt free without obviously being stupid in what you eat. Removing fructose (as previously mentioned) has reduced my appetite which has gone a long way to reducing my weight. Is it psychological, maybe, but I very much doubt it.

      Morrgo - I have not given up carbs, I have cut down substantially fructose (the other half of sucrose being fructose and glucose) If I cut out carbs then I would require willpower. As previously mentioned, I (and most of the world) are not very good with willpower.

    • Geofford says:

      08:22am | 07/05/12

      How blatantly can you overlook the obvious?

      2) Recurrent substance use in situations in which is it physically hazardous;

      No wonder you didn’t try rebutting that one.

      You should get a mars bar tramp stamp.

      Reply

    • Al says:

      08:58am | 07/05/12

      Geofford, you do realise that “2) Recurrent substance use in situations in which is it physically hazardous;” can apply to almost ANYTHING.
      Too much water consumed for a period of time can result in death.
      To try and say that because something that meats that part of the definition means it is addictive is BS.
      Even breathing could be considered “Recurrent substance use in situations in which is it physically hazardous;” as it causes you to ingest any number of substances that may be physically hazardous.

    • PsychoHyena says:

      10:06am | 07/05/12

      @Al, it’s amazing that it’s even a criteria. But then I guess breathing is addictive as it keeps us alive (mostly), eating is addictive: it also keeps us alive and functioning (mostly).

      As you said everything has a level of danger around it, I do like your example with water though, most people don’t realise that too much water results in kidney failure.

      I personally don’t eat a lot of sugar, I eat the RDI (maybe a little more) and that’s mostly through juice and other small amounts in everyday foods. On the same token I smoke tobacco, but don’t drink alcohol, I don’t tend to take medication (unless I have a migraine).

      Hmmm actually this has gone a little further than I intended and in the end I’ve realised I’m not a burden on the health system at all.

    • Geofford says:

      10:19am | 07/05/12

      Al - Way to state the irrelevant obvious. Did you read the article? (maybe a quick re-read would help). Do you understand context?
      It is alright to use common sense.

    • Smidgeling says:

      08:56am | 07/05/12

      Umm, sugar is cheap, legal and plentiful. That’s why you don’t see people holding up petrol stations to fund the habit.

      Let’s take addiction down to the basis- it’s an inability to go without something that is not directly linked to out survival.

      Reply

    • Mr. Jordon says:

      09:43am | 07/05/12

      My pet hate from die titans is that they falsely claim the sugars found in fruit is the same as cane sugar. They are not. They are broken down by the body in very different ways.

      As someone with an inflammatory disease(Crohn’s) cane sugar increase inflammation. Whereas, fructose with is absorbed directly into the body doesn’t increase inflammation.

      Reply

    • boris says:

      09:52am | 07/05/12

      Why are you all having a go at this intelligent article and the woman who wrote it? Calling something an addiction disempowers those to whom the label is ascribed, and gives a handy “excuse” as to why they continue to partake? Bandying this term around without care or caution may well lead more people, who are on the verge of making significant lifestyle changes, to losing their resilience and giving in to an “addiction”. I suggest the proponents of this term perhaps haven’t seen addiction at its most destructive.
      And to have a go at a person who is simply trying to offer a helpful opinion is just ignorant, particularly when you bluster on about facts upon which you have no knowledge or experience. Better to keep your mouth shut sometimes.

      Reply

    • Nick says:

      10:47am | 07/05/12

      It seems extremely pessimistic to argue that identifying an addiction disempowers people.  Those I’ve seen find it helpful because it provides them with an understanding of their behaviour and a strategy for change

    • James In Footscray says:

      10:49am | 07/05/12

      I agree. The term ‘addiction’ is thrown around a lot - ‘sugar addiction’, ‘sex addiction’, ‘pokies addiction’. It can disempower us - as Boris says - as it suggests there’s no point fighting the desire to eat more Tim Tams.

      The ‘addiction’ fad is a nice money spinner as well - a whole new class of professionals have to step in and ‘cure’ us.

      ‘Addiction’ is also a great excuse for not taking responsibility for your actions. ‘Sorry I cheated on you, I’m a sex addict’ - yeah right.

    • Nick says:

      10:28am | 07/05/12

      I wonder whether this is one of those situations where jargon creates a barrier to communication.  Most people think addictive means if you have some you want more, but some dieticians and food manufacturers seem to prefer the APA diagnostic criteria for addiction because it sets a far higher bar - for example I have sat through a number of incredibly tedious seminar series where people argue over whether caffeine is addictive and no prizes for guessing who typically funds those argueing to the contrary.  This seems to me to be a disease of modern communication, where people simplfy issues and defend ridiculous positions rather than trust a well informed public to sort through the complexities.

      Reply

    • BigTony says:

      10:52am | 07/05/12

      To Mark, kindly ‘sauce’ your claims.

      Thanks.

      Reply

    • Leo says:

      12:01pm | 07/05/12

      Modern medicine will destroy the human race as we know it.

      When I was a boy (70’s) our family doctor smoked - in his office no less. I remember when he died my mother saying it was from a drinking problem. I thought he was old but probably only 50’s. I remember him being a big fat man and he had a massive jar of lollies on his desk and would allow kids to take one at the end of the consultation. So would you get your health taken care of by a doctor that smoked and drunk and was obese? Well I guess it was a different era, his waiting room in suburban Turramurra was always packed and there would be people standing outside too. Back in those days everyone smoked. When I took it up at around 18 it just seemed natural, though thankfully I gave up about a decade ago. But the medico’s used to say smoking was unhealthy - not smoking will kill you - so everyone lit up thinking they would just jog a bit more to make up for it.

      While Doc might have toddled off earlier than he should have, not everyone does. Some people do terrible things to themselves and never have a health problem. Take Keith Richards for example, he has done everything on the really naughty list - multiple times - he defies death yet some poor sod serving in a bar gets cancer from second hand smoke. There is a real lack of consistency in the outcomes and food is the same, when I was 18 I could eat a horse, and the jockey and I would not put on a gram. These days I gain weight if I inadvertently steer my trolley down the isle with the chips and soft drinks.

      Its interesting that medicine has been around for as long as it has but only recently it has intruded into the area of re-shaping us rather than just repairing us. And they have four main baddies on their hit list - Smoking, Booze, Fat & Sugar. And all are highly addictive. As far as food goes, pretty much everything that tastes wickedly good has large quantities of fat or sugar. I wish our bodies were advanced enough to manage our desires based on what it ‘really’ needs not just the constant lust for cheap energy.

      So the mantra from the medico’s is to make us feel guilty that we are destroying our bodies when we ingest the baddies, and I think its certainly working. So can you imagine what the human race will look like a few generations into eating healthy, exercising and never eating the bad stuff…

      Everyone, everywhere will look like Posh & Becks !!!

      AAARRRrgghghh   Doomed I say

      Reply

    • Michael R says:

      12:41pm | 07/05/12

      Humans are primates. Our closest cousins are chimps, who are fruitarians. Common sense tells you that the sugar in natural whole fruit is a far more biologically appropriate base for a diet than foods dense in protein, fat, complex carbs - or processed foods.

      Reply

    • marley says:

      01:55pm | 07/05/12

      So far as I’m aware, chimps and other primates are not fruitarians but omnivores who consume fruit, leaves, insects, bird eggs and small amounts of meat.

    • Michael R says:

      03:20pm | 07/05/12

      There’s always a nitpicker among us. Yes chimps occasionally eat some of those things. The point I made was: what food are we biologically adapted to eat? Our anatomy is not geared to chew grass, devour meat, eat seeds, or pick ants off a stick all day long. We don’t have the liver, kidneys or teeth of carnivores, etc. Our digestion is still largely geared to eating fruit, although our gut is smaller than chimps to reflect the small adaption we’ve made to higher concentrated foods. Health comes from optimum nutrition whilst putting minimal stress on the body. Ergo, eat MOSTLY what you’re designed to eat. Humans who adopt fruitarian diets, from my reading, last at best a few years before they suffer deficiencies. The exact ideal human diet is still a mystery, but fruit diets are often the starting point in dietary healing, and commonsense says fruit (or similar food like potatoes) are ideal staple foods to build a balanced diet around. Read Ross Horne’s books or visit beyondveg.com.

    • marley says:

      03:37pm | 07/05/12

      You argue that we are not suited to a carnivorous diet.  I didn’t say we were. I said we were omnivores.  They are not synonymous.  And we are anatomically suited for an omnivorous diet - the length of our intestine (shorter than herbivores;  longer than carnivores);  the presence of hydrochloric acid in the stomach;  generalised rather than specialised teeth;  etc etc.

    • Dale says:

      03:49pm | 07/05/12

      If you don’t want to believe that sugar has an adverse effect on the human body then that’s fine. If you don’t want to believe that people can develop a dependency on sugar then that’s fine too.

      I can tell you that in my own personal experience I found it pretty much impossible to limit the amount of sugar I had on a daily basis. I can tell you that when I decided to cut it out of my diet I had low level withdrawal symptoms, sort of like a mild dose of the flu, and when that passed I no longer had any desire to eat sugary foods such as chocolate and sweet pastries. For me that was a surprise because I found it very difficult to walk down the chocolate aisle without grabbing some choccie on the way before I cut out sugar

      I do feel better, I am losing weight but I think that’s mostly because my appetite has reduced significantly. That also makes it a lot easier to eat in moderation, not so easy when your leptin is being blocked from excess fructose in your system. And for me sugar is not an essential nutrient or something every diet has to have. I don’t eat fish or seafood due to an allergy but I’m not missing out on anything (except perhaps anaphylactic shock) so it is possible for people to live without a particular food in their diet without feeling “deprived”.

      I should also point out here that when I say sugar I should really be saying Fructose, there are other sugars that I do partake such as lactose, dextrose and glucose. I don’t even mind having the occasional bit of fructose when it’s in it’s original packaging, i.e whole fruit, not dried.

      I’m not trying to force people to give up sugar, I’m just trying to share how going without sugar has been a benefit to my life.

      Do what you will with that knowledge.

      Reply

    • ashamasha says:

      05:28pm | 07/05/12

      Ms Burrell has conveniently left off the rest of the official criteria as it relates to diagnosing addiction. 

      Which is rather Interesting considering the criteria are the ones that relate to a substance’s effect on the body (her professional area), rather than external lifestyle, but they don’t agree with her own views.  Also note that it’s not necessary to meet all 7 of the criteria, but 3 criteria within the same year.  I would suggest that many people, if they honestly thought about it, and then attempted to give up sugar/fructose, would easily meet the missing 4 criteria listed below.

      The missing criteria are:
      (1) Tolerance, as defined by either of the following:
      (a) A need for markedly increased amounts of the substance to achieve intoxication or desired effect.
      (b) Markedly diminished effect with continued use of the same amount of the substance.

      (2) Withdrawal, as manifested by either of the following: (a) The characteristic withdrawal syndrome for the substance (refer to Criteria A or B of the criteria sets for Withdrawal from specific substances). (b) The same (or a closely related) substance is taken to relieve or avoid withdrawal symptoms.

      (3) The substance is often taken in larger amounts or over a longer period than was intended.

      (4) There is a persistent desire or unsuccessful efforts to cut down or control substance use.

      Sugar? Addictive?  what do you think now that you’ve seen the missing criteria???

      Reply

    • Scott says:

      06:05pm | 07/05/12

      As an ex-sugar addict who now barely touches anything sugary (except where it occurs naturally as lactose or is wrapped in a natural fibrous package (fruit)), I can confidently say that sugar is very addictive.

      Without the stuff, I’m 12kg lighter (and dropping) and have never eaten better - bacon, eggs, heaps of veggies, full-cream milk etc. My blood-pressure, cholesterol, triglyceride levels etc are all either spot on or on a massive improvement curve.

      So, either keep following the (industry sponsored) advice here - or get off a food that mother-nature only intended for us in very, very limited quantities.

      Your health, your choice.

      Reply

    • stephen says:

      07:05pm | 07/05/12

      Sugar as a sweetener is maybe only necessary on merangue, but it is useful in yeast type breads and also as palm sugar in curries ... also in coke-a-cola.
      The problem arises when consumers unconsciously become addicted to the stuff and buy foods that producers incorporate into their foods as an enticement ... then they put lots of rubbish into the food that is cheap, harmful and dishonest.
      Once, this may have been a description of take-away foods, but I think that critics of such have not evaluated modern ingredients and cooking techniques.
      As far as I know, upon pressure from lobby groups for the big four to cut salt and sugar percentages in their foods, only Hungry Jacks has not done so.

      Reply

    • cheap says:

      12:34pm | 08/05/12

      Thank you ever so for you blog.Thanks Again.

      Reply

    • service says:

      03:58pm | 08/05/12

      Muchos Gracias for your blog.Really thank you! Want more.

      Reply

    • cheap says:

      06:48pm | 08/05/12

      Thanks again for the article post. Keep writing.

      Reply
 
Sorry, comments are now closed for this article.

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

by The Punch Team

385

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

by Hannah Harborow

122

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

by Sarrah Le Marquand

251

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter