I, Sugar

I make myself really angry sometimes...

I've been formulating this argument against sugar for a while in my head. Today, I decided to read up about it and just typed in "sugar" into google. The results were kind of depressing.

There's wikipedia, of course. And on the right you can buy sugar for like $0.78 per pound. And then there's a top entry that's clearly trying to defuse the well-known arguments against the sugar and food industries by starting off with "the body turns sugar into glucose, which is a necessary chemical used by the brain and muscles." Really? That's what google says about sugar at a glance?

And then wikipedia cites a scientific study that showed that sugar isn't addictive. Great. Mind blown. What does that study entail? Well, it starts out with the scientists having a lengthy discussion on the definition of the word "addiction".

You know, it's like, words have definitions, right? And we should continue to agree on what these definitions are. I don't think that's an extreme viewpoint to have, but if we need to redefine words at the beginning of every day, then I think something might be wrong.

But, maybe we do need to redefine them. I'm no scientist, what do I know? Maybe my common sense is rubbing up against the damn internet and the friction is making me frustrated. Here's how I think about addiction:

Addiction is being in the habit of doing something that you don't need to do.

Here's webster's:

the fact or condition of being addicted to a particular substance, thing, or activity.

See? I'm pretty close. Didn't need to have a discussion with scientists about it. The reason I phrased it slightly differently is because I think that it is possible to be addicted to things in a positive way. And furthermore, I think that people who are predisposed to being addicted to harmful substances would benefit from adopting some addictive behaviors that are healthy.

Going for a 10 minute run first thing in the morning can be an addiction. It's not absolutely necessary for survival. It's not obvious why you would want to do it in the first place. It can even be potentially dangerous, thinking about traffic, rain, catching a cold, etc. But common sense looks at the person who rolls over for 5 minutes more of sleep before lazily going for a 30 minute hot shower and the person who runs and says that the person who runs wins.

Yes, but we must define the variables and measure things and have a control group to do the proper science!

Yeah, you would have to do that if that was necessary. But, luckily common sense doesn't need the grant money. And common sense says that if there is a substance found in food that makes people predisposed to buy more of it, and that the food that has the most of this substance is the cheapest food, and that when you eat a lot of this food you get a short high similar to having just had an orgasm, followed by a deep sense of nausea and hunger...then that is a bad substance!

So, maybe sugar isn't addictive like heroin is addictive. It doesn't really have to be, does it? The person who eats sugar every now and then without thinking about it, but generally avoids it will do fine. But someone who is predisposed to addictive behaviors will need to guard themselves against substances, things, ideas, and activities that can be pathologically harmful to them.

Your brain produces dopamine all the time, for a lot of reasons. Your brain doesn't really know healthy behavior from unhealthy behavior. As far as dopamine goes, it is simply the tool that evolution used to get things moving. You think of a thing to do, get a little dopamine, you follow a methodical behavior pattern that you either learned or that was programmed in your DNA, and BAM! The big dopamine payoff. Rinse and repeat.

So, you don't just get the one dopamine hit after eating that 1/2 off box of Pop Tarts. You got one when you bought it at the store because you got a better deal and that was a reward. You got some dopamine when you parked because you saw where you needed to go and went there and that was a reward. You got some dopamine when you opened the box because you started going through a physical motion and completed in and, yeah you got that dopamine reward for that, too. These things all give us dopamine, just in different amounts. But the important thing is that it's all wrapped up in the same neurochemical language.

My parents are both morbidly obese. So, when I say that I think it is a bad idea to eat sugar because it makes you fat, I'm not saying it in a mean way or to belittle people. I say it because I see the deteriorating health of my parents firsthand and it inspires me to be blunt about this subject.

"But, Grahame...you're making a fallacy! You can't blame the world's problems on one thing. Don't be cynical."

Sure, it's not like sugar can be blamed for everything. But it represents just one of many tiny devices that evil uses to cause ruin in our lives. That's probably the least scientific statement that I would make, so let me try to say that another way:

Behavioral addictions like consuming sugar, being on facebook, and watching pornography are not clearly harmful in the short term, but repeated use of these things deteriorates the mind and body in a significant way. People develop dopamine pathways that create a dependence on these behaviors. When the rewarding habits are triggered, it becomes difficult to stop the actions that take place in order for the dopamine to be released. So, especially addictive behaviors that cause tiny, immeasurable amounts of harm build up over time and as a person becomes more addicted, the harm becomes more obvious and the behavior becomes more difficult to stop.

I like the common sense version better. Even though the word "evil" is quite the religious concept, and I'm not a huge fan of religion, I am a fan of common sense. People need to understand above all else. Science leads us to great places in terms of our technology, and it helps us understand essential things about how the universe, biology, and human behavior works. But in terms of guiding our personal choices, hard science seems to fall short in many ways. Everyone needs a framework. Those with a simpler, more effective, and more true framework are likely to win.

Obesity, depression, behavioral addiction, pathologically lying to yourself...I think all of these things are related. I think there is no goverment or scientist that can really have an impact on these problems at the level of the individual. I think what the world needs is more common sense.

If a thing that you are doing habitually is hurting you or others, it's a harmful addiction and it should stop.

So, next time take your grant money and put it towards Alzheimer's research or maybe music education instead of trying to lessen the negative perception of one of the most reprehensible industries in the world.

Here's the scientific article, if you want to read it and point out important parts that I missed:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763414002140?via%3Dihub