Humor Random Comments Thread

[Linguofreak]

Actually not. There is no scientific proof that supports the claim that sugar is addictive (in the way like drugs unlike many people claim and even say "sugar is a drug").

It's not an addiction if it's genetically pre-programmed from birth.

The real problem with sugar is that we were designed for an environment where it's a scarce-but-vital resource, and nowadays it's cheap and easy to get, but our brains still have the instinct to gobble down any sugar we find right now, because you never know when you'll find another mother-lode of the stuff like this again (never mind that you can buy it cheap in 5-pound bags).

 

[TheShuttleExperience]

It's not an addiction if it's genetically pre-programmed from birth.

The real problem with sugar is that we were designed for an environment where it's a scarce-but-vital resource, and nowadays it's cheap and easy to get, but our brains still have the instinct to gobble down any sugar we find right now, because you never know when you'll find another mother-lode of the stuff like this again (never mind that you can buy it cheap in 5-pound bags).

We were acrually not designed for a lot of things. Our human world we created is almost entirely artificial and very far away from the world the Homo used to live in I think.

Doesn't only include sugar but also the smartphone I use for typing this text right now, which contributes to depletion of ressources and environmental pollution especially in regions and for people far away from my nice and wealthy home...

One can blame almost everything for being potentially bad. But in reality the actual cause of most if not all bad things is the behavior of the Homo Sapiens itself

 

[Urwumpe]

One can blame almost everything for being potentially bad. But in reality the actual cause of most if not all bad things is the behavior of the Homo Sapiens itself

So its still bad. And sorry to disappoint you, but we cant change our hardware yet. We can't for example change our chemistry. We cant change what our body identifies as good food. And if we could, the whole drug industry would not exist. Why pay a large sum of money for something known to be harmful, if you could just think yourself the wanted effects?

If you want to claim to be the Übermensch, fine. But most likely, Alan Turing was still right: “The body provides something for the spirit to look after and use."

 

[TheShuttleExperience]

So its still bad. And sorry to disappoint you, but we cant change our hardware yet. We can't for example change our chemistry. We cant change what our body identifies as good food. And if we could, the whole drug industry would not exist. Why pay a large sum of money for something known to be harmful, if you could just think yourself the wanted effects?

If you want to claim to be the Übermensch, fine. But most likely, Alan Turing was still right: “The body provides something for the spirit to look after and use."

Uh, I think there is a misunderstanding

I'm the exact opposite of a superman You might find them amongst climate activists and healthy-diet-preachers... but you know the recent Bali-story?

I am actually somewhere between nihilism and hedonism. I don't blame technologies, chemistry etc. at all, just for the same reason why I don't blame sugar: I am not afraid of it and it's everyone's decision whether to use something or consume something or not, as long as it is a legal and common thing to do. I am just honest. I know that my way of living has consequences, mostly to others and the flora and fauna of this planet. But I don't really care for the reason you mentioned: we can not simply change certain things yet.

But there is one thing everyone could do personally: to dispense. The majority doesn't. And I personally don't have to find any excuses. I am happy and I don't feel guilty because of my lifestyle at all.

My point is: if "you" (climate activists) don't like cars, planes etc., well, then just don't use it Same for sugar. If you are afraid of it, then just don't consume it. But speaking of the devil and claim bans doesn't really make sense. Some people get up in the morning and already feel bad. I get up and I feel great! I'm glad there is technology, I'm glad there is chemistry and science, I'm glad there are industries, I'm glad there is progress, I'm glad there is weather. I'm even glad there is sugar and a variety of sweets and food to chose from

I don't complain and don't try to be a "do-gooder", but others do... (almost non-stop)

PS: I was just giving an example regarding "we are not made for" or unnatural things to do/eat etc. We are not made for a lot of things. But we do them anyway and our world is highly artificial anyway. I don't blame it at all.

 

[Linguofreak]

We were acrually not designed for a lot of things. Our human world we created is almost entirely artificial and very far away from the world the Homo used to live in I think.

Doesn't only include sugar but also the smartphone I use for typing this text right now, which contributes to depletion of ressources and environmental pollution especially in regions and for people far away from my nice and wealthy home...

TBH, smartphones aren't the best modern convenience to support the point you're trying to make, as a good chunk of the people affected by their production probably have one, or at very least a mobile phone of some description. They're not really a luxury; plenty of otherwise quite poor people have them.

 

[TheShuttleExperience]

TBH, smartphones aren't the best modern convenience to support the point you're trying to make, as a good chunk of the people affected by their production probably have one, or at very least a mobile phone of some description. They're not really a luxury; plenty of otherwise quite poor people have them.

But the same actually applies to sugar

My point is that whenever people talk about something that is "unnatural" or we are not made for, they mostly forget that we're just made for eating, sleeping, taking a s**t and procreation like all other animals. I don't know if I was meant to sit in front of a computer in a room made of industrial construction materials right now, or to breathe cancer-causing benzene at a gas station, or travel in the lower stratosphere with a speed of 480 knots while burning fossil stuff. But I do. And so I do eat sugar of course. Why not?

Eating (and drinking) too much of anything bears consequences. Sugar is not an exception People always tend to pick the one famous thing and I'm just curious why this is. Especially because in the world we live in, sugar or food in general is the very last thing I would be concerned about...

 

[jedidia]

Actually not. There is no scientific proof that supports the claim that sugar is addictive (in the way like drugs unlike many people claim and even say "sugar is a drug").

The subject is not undebated in the scientific community, true. However, if you google for scientific papers on the subject, you will realise that the studies observing behavioural patterns that can be classified as addiction under the most popular definitions (since there isn't really a unified definition of addiction) are quite numerous, while you'll find only a few arguing the contrary. And their argument is not that it doesn't exist, it's that they find insufficient evidence in humans to justify establishing the term in the medical literature. Catch 22: It is obviously not ethical to conduct tests with addictive substances on humans. All tests have to be conducted with animals.
Also, studies in more recent years all lean towards indeed comparing sugar to other drugs that have dopamine deficiency as a withdrawal symptom (it's a lot less addictive than most drugs, obviously, but once the neccessary saturation for an addiciton has been reached, they find the withdrawal symptoms to be comparable).

So while I admit that there's some maneuvering space there, your off-hand dismissal just simply doesn't cut it.

Here's one study from 2016 that argues against sugar addiction: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00394-016-1229-6/#ethics
Their flagship argument is that the observed behavioural changes in animals can be explained by other means. That's pretty much all of it. Not that there were no behavioural changes or anything like that, merely that there might be other reasons for it than addiction (in their words, "most likely", that's as far as they're willing to go).

Here's one that argues decidedly for it, from 2018: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6234835/
Compared to older studies, which were mostly behavioural, this one focuses on neurochemistry. I'll just leave the introductory statement from the conclusions here:

The FA framework for understanding obesity is the notion that highly processed “hyperpalatable” foods have hijacked the reward centers in the brain thus impairing the decision-making process, similar to drugs of abuse. The major assumption is that biochemistry drives behavior. The sugar addiction theory bridges current gaps between food science and neuroscience, and between nutrition and psychology. This theory was originally developed from animal studies, however there is no shortage of compelling human data.

I could post several more studies that consider sugar addiction to be likely, but I think this is the most poignant one, and also one of the newest ones. In order to post more studies arguing against sugar addiction, I might have to do quite a bit more digging. They're nowhere near as numerous...

So, if you'd have said "The subject of suggar addiction isn't quite clear-cut, and I tend to believe the conterarguments", I'd have cut you some slack. However, you said that there is no scientific proof, which is just flat out wrong.

 

[TheShuttleExperience]

The subject is not undebated in the scientific community, true. However, if you google for scientific papers on the subject, you will realise that the studies observing behavioural patterns that can be classified as addiction under the most popular definitions (since there isn't really a unified definition of addiction) are quite numerous, while you'll find only a few arguing the contrary. And their argument is not that it doesn't exist, it's that they find insufficient evidence in humans to justify establishing the term in the medical literature. Catch 22: It is obviously not ethical to conduct tests with addictive substances on humans. All tests have to be conducted with animals.
Also, studies in more recent years all lean towards indeed comparing sugar to other drugs that have dopamine deficiency as a withdrawal symptom (it's a lot less addictive than most drugs, obviously, but once the neccessary saturation for an addiciton has been reached, they find the withdrawal symptoms to be comparable).

So while I admit that there's some maneuvering space there, your off-hand dismissal just simply doesn't cut it.

Here's one study from 2016 that argues against sugar addiction: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00394-016-1229-6/#ethics
Their flagship argument is that the observed behavioural changes in animals can be explained by other means. That's pretty much all of it. Not that there were no behavioural changes or anything like that, merely that there might be other reasons for it than addiction (in their words, "most likely", that's as far as they're willing to go).

Here's one that argues decidedly for it, from 2018: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6234835/
Compared to older studies, which were mostly behavioural, this one focuses on neurochemistry. I'll just leave the introductory statement from the conclusions here:


I could post several more studies that consider sugar addiction to be likely, but I think this is the most poignant one, and also one of the newest ones. In order to post more studies arguing against sugar addiction, I might have to do quite a bit more digging. They're nowhere near as numerous...

So, if you'd have said "The subject of suggar addiction isn't quite clear-cut, and I tend to believe the conterarguments", I'd have cut you some slack. However, you said that there is no scientific proof, which is just flat out wrong.

As you figured out, all existing studies are based on experiments with rodents so they are actually insignificant. Which is why I said there is no scientific proof and why even my health insurance says on its website that "sugar addiction" has never been observed (and they should be the first one to start campaigns against "sugar addiction" to cut the costs). Also, I don't think it would be not ethical to test sugar on humans at all since this is not an "addictive substance" or some kind of drug or whatsoever but simply foodstuff After all it seems to be ethically fine to become a test person for medicines and even get paid for it...

I think, apart from controversial scientific arguments, that there is a reason why AFAIK no one is taken to a rehab clinic or psychiatry due to "sugar addiction" What would be the "withdrawal symptom"? Eating ten Twix all at once with shivering hands? It would seem rather weird by the way. In fact there are therapies for treating obesity but it's not due to sugar or any specific kind of food but due to psychosocial and mental issues that cause self-destructive behaviour i. e. food addiction -> compulsive overeating.

So I just think that saying "sugar is addictive" or there is something like a "sugar addiction" is just nonsense, as long as it is meant to be comparable to alcohol, drugs and tobacco. I know there are a lot of blogs and websites that suggest how to get rid of "sugar addiction" (because a lot of people do believe in it). But that's just the same nonsense like suggesting a bowel cleanse to remove "slag" from your body... and all such rubbish.

In fact almost everything can make you "addictive", in everyday language/kitchen sink psychology. Even buying shoes (thinking of my girlfriend...).

No, Sugar Isn’t the New Heroin - Behavioral Scientist

More so than fat or calories themselves, sugar is considered the most dangerous thing you can consume and has been compared, even by scientists, to heroin.

behavioralscientist.org

 

[jedidia]

all existing studies are based on experiments with rodents so they are actually insignificant.

I'm done here...

 

[Notebook]

Still digging them up.

Watch: WW2 bomb blast as seen from three angles

Nobody was injured when the unplanned detonation happened in Great Yarmouth.

www.bbc.co.uk

No one was injured.

 

[Urwumpe]

Still digging them up.

Watch: WW2 bomb blast as seen from three angles

Nobody was injured when the unplanned detonation happened in Great Yarmouth.

www.bbc.co.uk

No one was injured.

Better than the bombs digging themselves up. Luckily nobody was injured again, but we should never underestimate them. They age pretty well...

 

[Urwumpe]

As you figured out, all existing studies are based on experiments with rodents so they are actually insignificant.

And that is a pretty good sign, that you are talking about things WAY outside your knowledge base and just claim to know better than scientists, because hey, you have some experience with staying alive, right? Well, everybody does, until he doesn't. Real scientists have the same experience about not getting eaten by raptors AND studied a lot more knowledge about the functional units of your body (And how to murder you without leaving traces).

Almost all medications and vaccinations had been only tested on male test subjects so far. Why? Because its simpler, because women are way more complicated. And because these complications have an effect on how the medications work, which could disturb the tests, they simply ignored them.... Notice the problem? And that is a real problem today, after we finally decided that women are EQUAL and systematic knowledge about which drugs work and which don't is important. Tests on children? Too high legal limits, often not done until the remaining paperwork is only a small step. Tests in teenagers? By the gods, are you crazy?

Because of those many problems, animals are the easier victi...test subject and contrary to you, there are people who know way more and detailled differences between rats and humans. And they even know, which parts of this kind of mammal are exactly the same. And there is a lot.

 

[steph]

I still don't think shooting down an actual UFO as in alien vehicle would be that impossible, provided they actually exiat. Suppose it's an exploration mission and/or unmanned. We don't put defensive measures on our probes either. Until we truly get to know thebSolar System, the probability is low, but never zero, that, of all the failures that are unexplained, some may have been via aggressive action from an alien species, be it advanced and not wanting to be seen or primitive, acting out of curiosity or to destroy what it considers threatening

After all, the people in the Andaman tribes only know that they're visited by weird people in flying machines and instinctively act against it because foreign and strange is instinctually bad. They may shoot down an ultralight (or balloon) with arrows and think it's a great achievement that they finally brought one down, but they won't know trying to do the same to a warplane etc would have a very different result, and if the powers that be woukdn't be so tolerant of them due to their unique status, they could be blown to pieces and they wouldn't even know what hit them.

Then again , if aliens are in fact the genetic descendants of humans, it would be understandable that they avoid contact, for the same reasons that most of South America's population died when the colonists arrived. Not to mention possibly not wanting to mess with the timeline too much. If there was an event akin to the extinction of the dinosaurs between now and their time, they also sure won't want to reveal, accidentally or not, what it is. Would you risk someone accidentally poofing your species out of existence by informing, willingly or under torture, to the equivalent of a sentient primitive dinosaur, that they need to get their s**t together because the big one is coming in roughly x years/centuries/millenia? Probably not

But if information/records have been lost, due to time or some other event, they would have no way of knowing not to send probe serial number XYZ to the year of the Probe 2023 because it will get a whoopin' and cause an international incident. And, if they can't send communicate real time, it would be the equivalent of losing subs at sea. You know something has happened, but looking at the wreck may be not so feasible, with the added risk of having the rescue crews disappear as well. They'd basically just mark that date&area as 'not good' and move on

 

[TheShuttleExperience]

Because of those many problems, animals are the easier victi...test subject and contrary to you, there are people who know way more and detailled differences between rats and humans. And they even know, which parts of this kind of mammal are exactly the same. And there is a lot.

There are certainly many people, also non-scientists, that know way more than I ever will.

But the thing is, as I pointed out, that there is no sufficient evidence, AFAIK anywhere in the world, that supports the claim that sugar is addictive to humans. Nowhere in the scientific community and literature is it clearly defined as such based on evidence

 

[Urwumpe]

But the thing is, as I pointed out, that there is no sufficient evidence...

...according to your moving of the goalposts.

Or who do you think, is required to decide, how much evidence is sufficient?

 

[TheShuttleExperience]

...according to your moving of the goalposts.

Or who do you think, is required to decide, how much evidence is sufficient?

The scientific community I think. Certainly not single individuals.

I guess if it would happen, the WHO and likely the health care insueances would be the first ones to promote it and start campaigns, followed by politics.

But as far as I know, sugar is not on the list of addictive substances Would seem very strange anyway. One might put wheat and salt on it too then...

 

[Urwumpe]

The scientific community I think. Certainly not single individuals.

First of all, even that is wrong. The only thing that comes close to a vote there is how an article is cited and used for further research. And as jedidia pointed out already: That has already happened, since articles researching the addictive effects of sugar are more common. There is also criticism of the studies. Also, there are studies that relate the possible addition to sugar to the possible addiction to fatty food, maybe a general case for high-energy food. But now the big issue: That is science in the making. If you are not understanding the medical background, you can't even follow it. And if you have no scientific background at all, you cant even estimate the coarse quality of the study.

Thus your argument of "not sufficient evidence" is pretty much missing the point: If there wouldn't be sufficient evidence, a study wouldn't be worth of getting cited.

I guess if it would happen, the WHO and likely the health care insueances would be the first ones to promote it and start campaigns, followed by politics.

Guideline: sugars intake for adults and children

This guideline provides updated global, evidence-informed recommendations on the intake of free sugars to reduce the risk of NCDs in adults and children, with a particular focus on the prevention and control of unhealthy weight gain and dental caries.

www.who.int

WHO guideline : sugar consumption recommendation

WHO guideline recommends adults and children reduce their daily intake of free sugars to less than 10% of their total energy intake.

www.who.int

But as far as I know, sugar is not on the list of addictive substances Would seem very strange anyway. One might put wheat and salt on it too then...

Which list? The ICD-10 listing only cares for psychotropic substances - drugs which consumption alters the mind. This can't apply to sugar, but applies to cocoa.

 

[steph]

Which list? The ICD-10 listing only cares for psychotropic substances - drugs which consumption alters the mind. This can't apply to sugar, but applies to cocoa.

Wouldn't have imagined cocoa is psychoactive. As far as personal experience goes, it is addictive, at least in the habit sense. As in waking up and going &damn, a cold pepsi would be nice. For some reason, when I gave up the beer, sugar intake went through the roof. Also, energizer drinks also can give a sort of high, felt it after downing two or three Monster drinks (not that it was wise). But I guess the approach is different with substances that the body normally needs from time to time rather than alcohol etc which is not naturally necessary.

One caution against sugary drinks, besides the usual stuff, is that drinking one before exercise is a good way to sabotage said exercise. I sometimes used to get hypoglicemia during runs if I drank a cola before. Supposedly, the body overcompensates for all the sugar. It's not like normal fatigue, it feels more like the battery going out completely. And it doesn't always happen at the start, so it kinda sucks when it hits 5 milea out

 

[Urwumpe]

One caution against sugary drinks, besides the usual stuff, is that drinking one before exercise is a good way to sabotage said exercise. I sometimes used to get hypoglicemia during runs if I drank a cola before. Supposedly, the body overcompensates for all the sugar. It's not like normal fatigue, it feels more like the battery going out completely. And it doesn't always happen at the start, so it kinda sucks when it hits 5 milea out

That is why I prefer to exercise before breakfast or dinner. (Lunch is just for business for me now). And yeah, running out of the short-term energy reserves really hits hard, but exactly that is why training before filling them up is better: If you take sugar or most carbohydrates before running, you feel much more energized and faster and go beyond your actual sustainable limits. Because if your cells run out of sugar, its really feels like suddenly running through waist-high water. And have some sugar intake before sports and you arrive with your body screaming for way more sugar than actually need for recovery.

Its our real stone age heritage (not that Paleo diet bullshittery): Doing too intensive training feel to our body like we had been running away from a predator or beeing hunting ourselves, and our body in first place expects us to be running again soon, so refueling as quickly as possible is needed: Sugar, Fat, High protein. And as much as possible in a short time.

 

[steph]

Its our real stone age heritage (not that Paleo diet bullshittery): Doing too intensive training feel to our body like we had been running away from a predator or beeing hunting ourselves, and our body in first place expects us to be running again soon, so refueling as quickly as possible is needed: Sugar, Fat, High protein. And as much as possible in a short time.

Can be done on the go as well. I used to do my runs basically 'dry(, only carrying phone, keys, headphones. That changed after a nasty hyperthermia event in summer to include a bottle of water (back in the day, I could take a route that went by, or had a natural spring on a hill as it's turnaround point, so I could refill it there and maybe pause and drink more water on really hot days. But it really is a case of giving the body what it needs asap. Nowadays, I drink some hydrate powder type of thing before running and it actually helps a lot with the run itself. I wouldn't imagine taking anything during my 7min/km 3-4km slogs nowadays, but back when I did run a marathon, I think it was the glucose pills and the hydration that actually made it bearable and manageable. I hit the wall harder during training than during the actual run. Usually I couldn't go past 30km 'dry', even while training for the marathon. Once did 35, but it was grueling. But add some fuel along the way and it all gets better.

Same goes for the bike runs. I sometimes do long cycling trips to the sea. We're talking 80km or more, but I leave at 9am and come back in the evening, so it's manageable. Of course, I used to bring water etc, but that's it. It was a good way to self-sabotage myself into some pretty exhausting stuff, since often enough I arrive there while having to pedal into the wind most of the time, then I stay too long for photos etc, and in the afternoon/evening, the wind dies down and now I'm also facing a long ,steady climb back. So, the trip back usually meant I pedalled on basically low-energy safe mode and ended up getting home at 10-11 PM etc, but actually bringing snacks and putting that hydration powder in water meant that I could actually keep a constant cadence and speed going back, even if not super-fast etc. And that change was noticeable in a timeframe of a week, so it wasn't a case of my legs adapting etc