New prohibitionists should back off

[jagators63]

what do you think of that ??


I believe that is a personal choice for them to do with their health.


Should New Prohibitionists back off ??


http://www.edmontonsun.com/2012/06/1...hould-back-off

[jstock]

I think there needs to be increased labeling so consumers can make more educated choices.

[moahunter]

^you have to be interested in nutrition, and care about your health, to read the labels. Changing the labels won't make more people like that.

I quite like this Globe and Mail article, more than one in OP:

The problem is that people like fast food. They like its salty, fatty taste, washed down by quarts of sugar. Fast food is engineered to be addictive. Nor is it true that healthy food is more expensive. You can walk into any grocery store and buy enough rice and beans and vegetables and meat to feed your family for a few bucks a week. The catch is that healthy food isn’t fast. Generally you have to cook it, and people have forgotten how. It is not true that people don’t have time to cook and shop. Most people have hours and hours of time to watch TV and surf the Internet. And that is what they’d rather do.

Rich people eat lots of fast food too. The difference is that they tend to choose sushi or takeout salmon. They wouldn’t be caught dead eating a Big Mac, which they regard as poison. Unlike poorer people, they are under relentless social pressure to be slim. Then there are the people in the middle, who are desperate to lose weight but can’t, no matter how hard they try.

After two decades of hectoring from public-health officials, the war on obesity is stuck in the mud. As Francis Collins, the leading public health official in the United States, told Newsweek, “We are struggling to figure this out.” But according to some, the problem is that we haven’t gone nearly far enough. “We have evolved to need coercion,” writes Daniel Lieberman, a Harvard professor of evolutionary biology, who argues that because we can’t control our appetite for sugar, the state must do it for us.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/comme...26/?cmpid=rss1

[Komrade]

The last thing we need is more legislation.

How about personal responsibility? We do not need the state telling us whats good and bad for us. Its up to each person to decide that for themselves.

If you are stupid enough to think Fast Food and Big Glups wont hurt you, your problem.

[edmonton daily photo]

Lets just tax it..

Sugar, for example, has no redeeming benefits what so ever. So, just like cigs, lets sin tax the S**T out of it.

[AShetsen]

I disagree strongly that less legislation and more personal responsibility is needed. I believe that when people talk about personal responsibility, actual responsibility is the last thing from their minds, and what they really want is personal license. Responsibility is an obligation, almost entirely, to others. To society as a whole. And as society becomes larger and more complex, more regulation, more legislation is required. And more taxes, as well.

[edmonton daily photo]

^ I am sorry I don't agree...

Surgar, for example, is an addictive drug that has no useful or redeeming purposes outside of banking. Now when "food" companies are using the addictive combinations of sugar fat salt to feed an addiction to cheap, vitamin void food, oversight is needed. There is NO reason for such excessive levels of sugar in our diet. There is no reason the High Fructose Corn Syrup be found in almost everything and it's not ok at items that have next to no nutritional value get passed off as "food" and escape tax.

Case in point.. If I buy a dozen doughnuts I don't pay GST on them.. because it is a food item... Now in what world do doughnuts make up a part of a healthy diet?! Tax the $hit out of it. It is ludicrousness that we support a market for cheap corn and corn products and processed foods while the cost of eating of REAL food like broccoli becomes a barrier.

[AShetsen]

To edmontondailyphoto. I'm not sure I understand where you're coming from. It sounds as though you want more regulation and taxes to control sugar and other additives, and yet you say you don't agree with me. I did say I was in favor of a tighter regulatory regime in all respects.

By the way, Wente's Globe and Mail about obesity and efforts to fight it, linked to by moahunter, is very good.

[Hull534]

I like the idea of a heavy tax on both sugar and salt. It is the basic inexpensiveness of the ingredients which promote the wide spread use.

If I had to pay $10 for a box of table salt, it would not affect me an individual very much because it would last me a very long time. But it surely would effect the food industry which are using it by the the multi tons. I am sure that they would reduce the salt content or explore alternatives.
The same can be done with sugar also.

Consumers would maintain their choices . The price they pay would begin to reflect the impact of the use of commodity on the health system.

[AShetsen]

Actually healthy raw food is very inexpensive, but it's easier to buy a Big Mac or the sushi takeout. (Wente's excellent point). So as regards sugar and other unhealthy additives, the thing is not to tax it -- it's already more expensive -- but to regulate against it.

[MrOilers]

Originally Posted by Hull534

If I had to pay $10 for a box of table salt, it would not affect me an individual very much because it would last me a very long time. But it surely would effect the food industry which are using it by the the multi tons. I am sure that they would reduce the salt content or explore alternatives.
The same can be done with sugar also.

Food manufacturers wouldn't use less salt or sugar, they would just increase their prices slightly and people will all pay a little bit more because it won't change their habits.

[edmonton daily photo]

Originally Posted by AShetsen

To edmontondailyphoto. I'm not sure I understand where you're coming from. It sounds as though you want more regulation and taxes to control sugar and other additives, and yet you say you don't agree with me. I did say I was in favor of a tighter regulatory regime in all respects.

By the way, Wente's Globe and Mail about obesity and efforts to fight it, linked to by moahunter, is very good.

Sorry i missed that.. I thought I read you wanted less.

[MrOilers]

Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo

Surgar, for example, is an addictive drug that has no useful or redeeming purposes outside of banking. Now when "food" companies are using the addictive combinations of sugar fat salt to feed an addiction to cheap, vitamin void food, oversight is needed.

Sugar is not addictive. Neither is fat, nor is salt. Collectively we eat too much of each of them, but it's because they are tasty, cheap, and plentiful, not because they are "addictive".

In addition, malnutrition and vitamin deficiencies are not problems in this part of the world, either. People are getting fatter (overnourished) because we are all eating more and exercising less.

Tinkering around with regulations, laws, and taxes on food won't make people eat less or exercise more. And one thing I am dead-set against, are any laws that make food more expensive.

[edmonton daily photo]

Originally Posted by AShetsen

Actually healthy raw food is very inexpensive, but it's easier to buy a Big Mac or the sushi takeout. (Wente's excellent point). So as regards sugar and other unhealthy additives, the thing is not to tax it -- it's already more expensive -- but to regulate against it.

You are taking one one part of a complete and healthy diet and basing an argument around that one part.... Eating healthy is nowhere as cheap to eat processed corn based crap.

We have also been marketed that eating healthy and cooking is "Hard"

Best tomato soup ever recipe.

Take a can of hi quality canned tomatoes
Add a bit of water
A pinch of salt
I like a little garlic
A bit of basmatti rice
and a basil leaf at the end.

Head and Serve...

Now compare that to to a can of Campbell tomato soup..

[moahunter]

Originally Posted by MrOilers

Food manufacturers wouldn't use less salt or sugar, they would just increase their prices slightly and people will all pay a little bit more because it won't change their habits.

Or substitute, use processed fruit for example. The problem is, fix one thing (like lowering fat content), and food manufacturers substitute something else harmful (like high fructose corn syrup or more salt). The invention of high fructose corn syryp (incredibly cheap), and substituion of fat by it, is part of what has lead to the problems we have, most processed foods are laced with way to much sugar. Basically though, to many people have got to lazy to cook unprocessed food (and it is lazy like the Globe article says, we have time for TV and internet but not to cook), and have also become addicted to pop and juices - they are getting fat because of it. Whether processed take home foods can be made more healthy (perhaps required to be?) is likely part of the solution, but its not an easy one due to the substituion issue.

[MrOilers]

The USA government contributes to the overuse of inexpensive high-fructose corn syrup additives because of their silly sugar cane import quotas and large government subsidies to the corn industry.

[edmonton daily photo]

Originally Posted by MrOilers

Sugar is not addictive. Neither is fat, nor is salt. Collectively we eat too much of each of them, but it's because they are tasty, cheap, and plentiful, not because they are "addictive".

In addition, malnutrition and vitamin deficiencies are not problems in this part of the world, either. People are getting fatter (overnourished) because we are all eating more and exercising less.

Tinkering around with regulations, laws, and taxes on food won't make people eat less or exercise more. And one thing I am dead-set against, are any laws that make food more expensive.

I am sorry you are wrong but sugar and fat are addictive. You may want to do some research and talk to a dietitian. They will explain how, when you consume a large amount of sugar, your blood sugar levels become unstable and this creates a Low/High cycle where your brain actually starts Jones for sugar.

Fat releases hormones in your body that have physical effects.

People "Crave" salt... and we have become accustomed to bland tasteless food that relies on salt to provide flavor.

I am sorry Moa but you need to do research as some of our food additives, Esp sugar, are addictive.

[edmonton daily photo]

Researcher says sugar is as addictive as cocaine
LINDSAY GOLDWERT
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012...on-table-sugar
Monday, April 02, 2012
Dr. Robert Lustig thinks America needs to go to rehab for sugar addiction.

According to brain scans, sugar is as addictive as cocaine, the California-based endocrinologist told CBS News’ “60 Minutes.”

It causes a euphoric effect that triggers dopamine, the chemical that controls pleasure in the brain.

The average America eats a third of a pound of sugar every day — 130 pounds a year.

Lustig says his research proves that the sweet stuff causes heart disease and cancer, as well as Type 2 diabetes and obesity.

[moahunter]

Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo

I am sorry Moa but you need to do research as some of our food additives, Esp sugar, are addictive.

I never said otherwise, I support some form of regulation, but I recognize how hard it is, as there are so many unhealthy options that taste good available to processed food manufacturers. Pick on one poision (like fat as was done in 70's/80's) and they go to another (like sugar - high fructose corn syrup).

[edmonton daily photo]

Food and the Brain: Is Sugar Addictive?
http://blog.fooducate.com/2012/03/15...gar-addictive/

Most addictive drugs cause increases in extracellular dopamine in a part of the brain called the nucleus accumbens. Dopamine is one of our “feel-good” neurotransmitters that is largely responsible for our motivation and reward systems. Typically, drug-seeking behavior will cause a rise in dopamine levels in the brain even before the drug is actually consumed––the mere anticipation of reward is oh-so rewarding. Rats addicted to sugar ingest it in a binge-like manner that releases dopamine in the accumbens during and right before consumption, much like heroin use in humans. And also like drug addiction, this sugar bingeing causes changes in the expression and availability of dopamine receptors in the brain: the next “high” will require even more sugar to achieve the same effect.

Another interesting tidbit: High sugar consumption mimics our brain’s natural opiate system. Opiates are the pleasure chemicals found in our brains (released after orgasm and vigorous exercise, among other things) and in drugs derived from the poppy plant (morphine, heroin, oxycodone, etc.). Of course, no one is saying that eating a bag of Twizzlers is on-par with recreational Vicodin use. The problem with these pleasure chemicals comes in their addictive consequences.

[edmonton daily photo]

Originally Posted by moahunter

I never said otherwise, I support some form of regulation, but I recognize how hard it is, as there are so many unhealthy options that taste good available to processed food manufacturers. Pick on one poision (like fat as was done in 70's/80's) and they go to another (like sugar - high fructose corn syrup).

Sorry it was MR oilers who said that... I must go feed my coffee addiction and wake up. Without sugar.

[MrOilers]

Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo

I am sorry you are wrong but sugar and fat are addictive. You may want to do some research and talk to a dietitian. They will explain how, when you consume a large amount of sugar, your blood sugar levels become unstable and this creates a Low/High cycle where your brain actually starts Jones for sugar.

Sorry, but I don't buy it. The research is inconclusive for a reason.


Also, if sugar and fat are considered "addictive", then all food should be considered "addictive".

After all, when people don't eat, they start to develop measurable physiological and emotional problems that are only remedied by eating more food.

[edmonton daily photo]

^ fine don't buy clinic proof of what sugar does to our bodies.

Eating addictions are also well documented and it's a common way to try and self medicate ones way out of depression.

[MrOilers]

Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo

^ fine don't buy clinic proof of what sugar does to our bodies.

Cherry-picking a few select articles written on blogs and news sites that agree with your own hypothesis is not "clinical proof".

There is plenty of clinical and scientific literature that demonstrates that sugar and fat are not addictive, despite what other people claim to have found


In my opinion, blaming poor eating habits on an "addiction" is just a lazy and convenient way for people to absolve themselves of their own responsibility for not eating better/healthier.

[edmonton daily photo]

[MrOilers]

Another cherry-picked video from a news broadcast that chose to have a guest give his own opinion and own interpretation of the research for which there is no consensus.

[edmonton daily photo]

Originally Posted by MrOilers

Cherry-picking a few select articles written on blogs and news sites that agree with your own hypothesis is not "clinical proof".

Really articles written by Doctors and research scientist talking about their work on the subject isn't clinical proof?!

How about 60 min?
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7403942n
s sugar toxic?
April 1, 2012 4:00 PM
Dr. Sanjay Gupta reports on new research showing that beyond weight gain, sugar can take a serious toll on your health, worsening conditions ranging from heart disease to cancer.

[edmonton daily photo]

Originally Posted by MrOilers

Another cherry-picked video from a news broadcast that chose to have a guest give his own opinion and own interpretation of the research for which there is no consensus.

And yet you have not provided any proof to the contrary...

The sugar industry has issue with the WHO who wants to see our caloric intake from sugar to be about 10% of our diet.. seems reasonable to me. The sugar industry wants it declared that levels up to 25% are safe.

The daily Caloric intake for a man is apx 2300. That means the sugar industry would have us believe that eating nearly a cup of sugar a day is ok to our health... Mr Oilers you start eating a cup of sugar a day and lets test it out shall we?

[MrOilers]

Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo

And yet you have not provided any proof to the contrary...

Here's the abstract of a piece of primary research I found directly from PubMed. This was the first result for my search on "Sugar addiction". This abstract has no journalist or TV doctor "cherry picking" a piece of data that supports this new nonsensical diet paranoia that sugar is somehow "addictive". Nope, this was published in the Journal of Clinical Nutrition, written directly from those who have done the research:

The plausibility of sugar addiction and its role in obesity and eating disorders
David Benton Clinical nutrition (Edinburgh, Scotland)
1 June 2010 (volume 29 issue 3 Pages 288-303 DOI: 10.1016/j.clnu.2009.12.001)

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.

Do I believe people crave sugary foods? Yes, I do. But cravings are not "addiction". Not in a medical sense.

[MrOilers]

Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo

The sugar industry has issue with the WHO who wants to see our caloric intake from sugar to be about 10% of our diet.. seems reasonable to me. The sugar industry wants it declared that levels up to 25% are safe.

The daily Caloric intake for a man is apx 2300. That means the sugar industry would have us believe that eating nearly a cup of sugar a day is ok to our health... Mr Oilers you start eating a cup of sugar a day and lets test it out shall we?

I don't doubt that sugar manufacturers want to continue to sell their products to the public. But none of this supports your assertion that sugar is an addictive substance.

[edmonton daily photo]

And Lastly a link http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2235907/ to the US National Library of Medicine

Evidence for sugar addiction: Behavioral and neurochemical effects of intermittent, excessive sugar intake

Nicole M. Avena, Pedro Rada, and Bartley G. Hoebel*

[edmonton daily photo]

Originally Posted by MrOilers

I don't doubt that sugar manufacturers want to continue to sell their products to the public. But none of this supports your assertion that sugar is an addictive substance.

This is not my assertion.. this is researched findings of people within the medical profession.

[MrOilers]

Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo

here are the related sited references for the article.. maybe this will be enough..

Should I copy and paste the dozens and dozens of references from the article I found? No, that would be pointless.

As I said before and I'll say again, the hypothesis that sugar is addictive is an inconclusive one among the experts.

I don't believe that sugar is an addictive substance. It's a necessary part of our diet, for god's sake.

[sundance]

Sorry I don't want a nanny state, if people want to kill themselves by a high calory, fat, salt diet, go for it. Its the same argument as seatbelts and motorcycle helmets. I think the government should allow adults to not wear them. And yes I know they save lives, and I do support seatbelt, carseat laws for children.

I want less government not more, its called freedom. If I wanted a nanny state I'd move to Ontario.

[edmonton daily photo]

Originally Posted by MrOilers

Should I copy and paste the dozens and dozens of references from the article I found? No, that would be pointless.

As I said before and I'll say again, the hypothesis that sugar is addictive is an inconclusive one among the experts.

I don't believe that sugar is an addictive substance. It's a necessary part of our diet, for god's sake.

you are trying to deflect the point that you were demanding researched medical evidence and I provided it. Next you will be standing up with Danielle Smith saying the science on climate change is "up for grabs"

The effect of sugar on the brain and the body is well documented -full stop-

[moahunter]

Originally Posted by sundance

And yes I know they save lives, and I do support seatbelt, carseat laws for children.

So what about sugary drinks and foods for children? Where do you draw the line?

I don't think its so much about banning, as rather improving the products the food industry supplies. At the moment, they have no choice because consumers have got used to high sugar food (which replaced high fat food). But if all foods were weaned down on sugar quantities, I think people would quickly start getting used to the new norm. My concern is what would be used to repalce sugar.

I find it interesitng my girlfiend goes out an buys non-fat yougurt rather than fat yougurt, but when you look at the nutritional information, the non-fat often has 2 or 3 times as much sugar as the fat. Its just one poision for another. Yes we can make educated choices, but its a bit sad when kids are growing up eating all this crap.

[edmonton daily photo]

Originally Posted by sundance

Sorry I don't want a nanny state, if people want to kill themselves by a high calory, fat, salt diet, go for it. Its the same argument as seatbelts and motorcycle helmets. I think the government should allow adults to not wear them. And yes I know they save lives, and I do support seatbelt, carseat laws for children.

I want less government not more, its called freedom. If I wanted a nanny state I'd move to Ontario.

To me it's about cost...

Coke a cola made 10 Billion last year, for instance, but what was the cost to us and our healthcare?

Is someone going to take me up on my challenge to eat 3/4 of a cup a sugar a day like the Sugar industry tries to tell us is safe?!

[MrOilers]

Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo

Next you will be standing up with Danielle Smith saying the science on climate change is "up for grabs"

Not at all the same thing.

Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo

Is someone going to take me up on my challenge to eat 3/4 of a cup a sugar a day like the Sugar industry tries to tell us is safe?!

Only if you take my challenge to go have a bath with your toaster.

[MrOilers]

Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo

The effect of sugar on the brain and the body is well documented -full stop-

And the fact that it's "addictive" is nothing more than a hypothesis (and a very poor one, I believe).

[edmonton daily photo]

Originally Posted by moahunter

So what about sugary drinks and foods for children? Where do you draw the line?

I don't think its so much about banning, as rather improving the products the food industry supplies. At the moment, they have no choice because consumers have got used to high sugar food (which replaced high fat food). But if all foods were weaned down on sugar quantities, I think people would quickly start getting used to the new norm. My concern is what would be used to repalce sugar.

I find it interesitng my girlfiend goes out an buys non-fat yougurt rather than fat yougurt, but when you look at the nutritional information, the non-fat often has 2 or 3 times as much sugar as the fat. Its just one poision for another. Yes we can make educated choices, but its a bit sad when kids are growing up eating all this crap.

Sugar doesn't need to be replaced.. there are many products that don't require sugar at all.. but it's placed in it because the american palette has become accustomed to it.

Ketchup , for example is apx 30% natural and processed sugar.
Granola/breakfast bars
"healthy" Vitamin Waters
"Healthy" Breakfast Cerials - Take Kellog’s Smart Start Strong Heart cereal. Despite its misleading name, one cup contains a whopping 14 grams of sugar.
Spaghetti Sauce
Muffins
Dried Fruit tends to go through a sugar water bath.
Juices
Flavored Yogurt
Packaged instant flavored oatmeal

[edmonton daily photo]

Originally Posted by MrOilers

And the fact that it's "addictive" is nothing more than a hypothesis (and a very poor one, I believe).

Than why, using your own words, do people crave it?

[sundance]

To me it's about cost...

Coke a cola made 10 Billion last year, for instance, but what was the cost to us and our healthcare?

Is someone going to take me up on my challenge to eat 3/4 of a cup a sugar a day like the Sugar industry tries to tell us is safe?!

And Coke pays how much in taxes? Governments do get their money from either personal or corporate taxes. Governments will get enough money to pay costs, I think we can be sure about that fact.

Tobacco companies said cigarettes were healthy for you too, personally if you want to believe everything you are told without question then do it. I just don't like the state telling me what to do, I like the freedom to choose to do as I wish.

PS: 3/4 a cup of sugar has about 600 calories, you could eat about 4 of them each day without gaining weight or if you spread it out it will not cause diabetes. Of course you are only getting calories not any minerals, proteins or other vitamins. They use a 5-10% glucose (okay not sucrose) solution all the time in hospitals where patients are unconscious and the patient can't feed themselves.

[edmonton daily photo]

Originally Posted by MrOilers

Do I believe people crave sugary foods? Yes, I do. But cravings are not "addiction". Not in a medical sense.

And just because you don't believe doesn't make it so.

The Scientific method:
Formulate a question, Hypothesis, Test and Analysis.

At this point we go far beyond Hypothesis. I have clearly linked articles that outline the test and Analysis phases and the findings that have been published for peer review.

Processed refined sugar was never part of our natural diet. We know it causes physiological and psychological effects in people. Mr Oilers I do believe you have children. Do you let them eat as much sugar as they wish, or do you control the intake? Do you notice effects in their moods? Both during the sugar "high" and after the resulting crash... If you don't your not looking hard enough.. again this is all well researched and documented.

[edmonton daily photo]

Originally Posted by sundance

And Coke pays how much in taxes? Governments do get their money from either personal or corporate taxes. Governments will get enough money to pay costs, I think we can be sure about that fact.

Tobacco companies said cigarettes were healthy for you too, personally if you want to believe everything you are told without question then do it. I just don't like the state telling me what to do, I like the freedom to choose to do as I wish.

PS: 3/4 a cup of sugar has about 600 calories, you could eat about 4 of them each day without gaining weight or if you spread it out it will not cause diabetes. Of course you are only getting calories not any minerals, proteins or other vitamins. They use a 5-10% glucose (okay not sucrose) solution all the time in hospitals where patients are unconscious and the patient can't feed themselves.

WHO organization says sugar should make up no more than 10% of our caloric intake. 3/4 of a cup is what the sugar industry feels is safe. The challenge was to eat 3/4 of a cup of sugar every day and see if you have any adverse heath effects?! but hey if you want to try 4 times that amount you go right ahead. When I say sugar in this instance it includes a lot of natural sources. Basically any sugary additive.

Yes I believe the amount of sugar poured into our food should be controlled. At this point in North America it is the only way that everyone across the board will comply and action needs to be taken.

[MrOilers]

Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo

Than why, using your own words, do people crave it?

the same reason people crave a drink of water when they are thirsty, or crave a big meal when they are hungry. We crave sweet things because sugar is a food that tastes good, not because we are somehow "addicted" to it. We don't have "sugar junkies" everywhere, stealing packets of sugar from restaurant tables and sucking them down because they are going crazy due to some fictitious "sugar high" wearing off.

[MrOilers]

Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo

And just because you don't believe doesn't make it so.

That is true, except there is no convincing or resounding scientific rationale for believing that sugar itself is "addictive". Yes, lots of animal studies have done things like breeding rats that are more likely to crave sugary foods and become obese, or looking at neurotransmitter activity changes when a person eats certain things (in reality, our brain changes what it's doing no matter what we eat or experience). Actually, of that laundry list of references you posted, a cursory glance shows a lot of them were simply citing drug studies or animal genetics studies, not involving sugar or food.

Mr Oilers I do believe you have children. Do you let them eat as much sugar as they wish, or do you control the intake? Do you notice effects in their moods? Both during the sugar "high" and after the resulting crash... If you don't your not looking hard enough.. again this is all well researched and documented.

There is no such things as a "sugar high" - our pancreas produces hormones that keep the sugar levels in our blood within a constant range, no matter what we are eating. If there was such thing as a sugar high, diabetics would feel a "high" every time they forget to take their insulin, which we know does not happen.

And I do have one child, age 7, and my home has a cupboard full of candy that she rarely touches. In fact, she still has candy from Halloween and Christmas in there. I think I eat more candy than she does. But not because I am "addicted". Candy is just a tasty snack once in a while.

[edmonton daily photo]

Diabetics would not feel a high everytime they forgot insulin... without insulin you can't break down sugar so without insulin sugar isn't processed.

Using diabetics as an example of sugar highs is poor. Their issues is has to do with the ability to break down sugar not that they have some hyper sensitivity to it.

our Pancreas does create Insulin and this is used to help regulate blood sugar but our blood sugar levels do Spike and crash... esp when we talk about easily absorbed processed sugars that never existed in nature and our body's were never really designed to deal with it, especially in the quantities we ingest it today. That is why type 2 Diabetes is such a growing concern.



You are correct sugar and hyperactivity have no definitive link, but there are many tests on how poor nutrition and spikes and crashes in blood sugar levels effect concentration and ability to learn. I use the term sugar high cause it's one of those easily recognizable catch phrases. We can see clearly the effects on a diabetics ability to operate and mood based on the level of sugar/insulin in their blood. But that is besides the point.

I am self proclaimed sugar addict...