Is anyone else addicted to SUGAR?!?
Replies
-
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
What I found was: when I cut it out initially, it lost its allure. Now I don't really crave it or think about it, so it became more of a lifestyle. All the better for me.baconslave wrote: »I have always loved sugar and had a hard time limiting my intake. I found that moderating it by setting rules for myself worked. For instance, I can only have something sweet in the evening after dinner. For items that I have a hard time not eating too much of, I limit the amount that I have in the house (like buy a little 6 pack of oreos instead of a big pack). This works for me, but for some people it doesn't because they find it hard to control the urge to just keep eating whatever is at hand.
Some people find that they have to abstain completely in order to control their sugar cravings. Some say they cut out sweets entirely, some just cut out certain sweet foods. Some people try this, however, and find that it leads to overindulgence later.
My words of wisdom are try all of the above and see what works for you in the long run. I recommend starting with moderating just because why deprive yourself when you don't have to? But if you find that it just can't work, I don't see anything wrong with choosing to abstain from certain foods as long as you feel it is something that you can maintain long term. Finally, if this is a really huge struggle for you, you may consider talking to a counselor that deals with food issues. Sometimes the root of the issue is more emotional than anything.
The bolded part.
All you need in a nutshell, OP.
I personally had to cut added sugar out completely for the time being. It FELT like an addiction, but really wasn't. I could now probably reintroduce in moderation if I wanted, but being divorced from it for so long, I feel really "meh" toward it now and would rather spend my calories eating other foods and drinking occasionally. And I can't deny that I feel really well now. So if it ain't broke...
Exactly. It loses it's allure. So if we really want it, we CAN have it. But we don't want it, so we don't eat it.
The key is training yourself to moderate. The specific technique varies by person.0 -
baconslave wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Prepare for folks to nitpick your use of the word "addicted" and for folks to declare that everything in moderation is the only preferable option.
Didn't take long for a post like this to show up. Well done.
Forewarned is forearmed?
She did not say that these things OP will hear aren't true. But it IS what OP should expect to hear. Lo' and behold, it happened. In accordance with the prophecy.
Prophecy, or did she invoke the devil by mentioning him? lol.0 -
baconslave wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Prepare for folks to nitpick your use of the word "addicted" and for folks to declare that everything in moderation is the only preferable option.
Didn't take long for a post like this to show up. Well done.
Forewarned is forearmed?
She did not say that these things OP will hear aren't true. But it IS what OP should expect to hear. Lo' and behold, it happened. In accordance with the prophecy.
Prophecy, or did she invoke the devil by mentioning him? lol.
Hmmmm...good question.
But I don't think so. MFP peeps will not abide unaddressed sugar or addiction posts for long. It is known.0 -
Honestly... I love sugar. I love desserts. Moderation is fine 90% of the time, but those 10% are ruining my progress, lol. Unfortunately, it's pretty much linked to my hormones, so it's easier not to have the stuff I'm likely to binge on in the house at all, or just not to take that first bite that will unleash Hell.0
-
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
What I found was: when I cut it out initially, it lost its allure. Now I don't really crave it or think about it, so it became more of a lifestyle. All the better for me.baconslave wrote: »I have always loved sugar and had a hard time limiting my intake. I found that moderating it by setting rules for myself worked. For instance, I can only have something sweet in the evening after dinner. For items that I have a hard time not eating too much of, I limit the amount that I have in the house (like buy a little 6 pack of oreos instead of a big pack). This works for me, but for some people it doesn't because they find it hard to control the urge to just keep eating whatever is at hand.
Some people find that they have to abstain completely in order to control their sugar cravings. Some say they cut out sweets entirely, some just cut out certain sweet foods. Some people try this, however, and find that it leads to overindulgence later.
My words of wisdom are try all of the above and see what works for you in the long run. I recommend starting with moderating just because why deprive yourself when you don't have to? But if you find that it just can't work, I don't see anything wrong with choosing to abstain from certain foods as long as you feel it is something that you can maintain long term. Finally, if this is a really huge struggle for you, you may consider talking to a counselor that deals with food issues. Sometimes the root of the issue is more emotional than anything.
The bolded part.
All you need in a nutshell, OP.
I personally had to cut added sugar out completely for the time being. It FELT like an addiction, but really wasn't. I could now probably reintroduce in moderation if I wanted, but being divorced from it for so long, I feel really "meh" toward it now and would rather spend my calories eating other foods and drinking occasionally. And I can't deny that I feel really well now. So if it ain't broke...
Yep pretty much this for me!!
0 -
Moderation.0
-
BombshellPhoenix wrote: »Moderation.
For most things.....yes. For some people, if it is a trigger, they just let it alone.
0 -
_Terrapin_ wrote: »BombshellPhoenix wrote: »Moderation.
For most things.....yes. For some people, if it is a trigger, they just let it alone.
You're talking to a girl who can eat a half a pan of peanut butter bars. I'm well aware. And I still advocate moderation.0 -
Nice avatar!baconslave wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
What I found was: when I cut it out initially, it lost its allure. Now I don't really crave it or think about it, so it became more of a lifestyle. All the better for me.baconslave wrote: »I have always loved sugar and had a hard time limiting my intake. I found that moderating it by setting rules for myself worked. For instance, I can only have something sweet in the evening after dinner. For items that I have a hard time not eating too much of, I limit the amount that I have in the house (like buy a little 6 pack of oreos instead of a big pack). This works for me, but for some people it doesn't because they find it hard to control the urge to just keep eating whatever is at hand.
Some people find that they have to abstain completely in order to control their sugar cravings. Some say they cut out sweets entirely, some just cut out certain sweet foods. Some people try this, however, and find that it leads to overindulgence later.
My words of wisdom are try all of the above and see what works for you in the long run. I recommend starting with moderating just because why deprive yourself when you don't have to? But if you find that it just can't work, I don't see anything wrong with choosing to abstain from certain foods as long as you feel it is something that you can maintain long term. Finally, if this is a really huge struggle for you, you may consider talking to a counselor that deals with food issues. Sometimes the root of the issue is more emotional than anything.
The bolded part.
All you need in a nutshell, OP.
I personally had to cut added sugar out completely for the time being. It FELT like an addiction, but really wasn't. I could now probably reintroduce in moderation if I wanted, but being divorced from it for so long, I feel really "meh" toward it now and would rather spend my calories eating other foods and drinking occasionally. And I can't deny that I feel really well now. So if it ain't broke...
Exactly. It loses it's allure. So if we really want it, we CAN have it. But we don't want it, so we don't eat it.
The key is training yourself to moderate. The specific technique varies by person.
And agreed. And for me, it's easier to go without, most of the time.0 -
That would be The Spider Who Couldn't Hide! There's a voiceover on the original video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLw-9dpHtcU
0 -
My words of wisdom are try all of the above and see what works for you in the long run. I recommend starting with moderating just because why deprive yourself when you don't have to? But if you find that it just can't work, I don't see anything wrong with choosing to abstain from certain foods as long as you feel it is something that you can maintain long term. Finally, if this is a really huge struggle for you, you may consider talking to a counselor that deals with food issues. Sometimes the root of the issue is more emotional than anything.
Good advice.
0 -
I am a TOTAL sugar addict but recently instead of having a desert, if I get really really needy for a sweet treat I cut an orange in half (long ways) and remove the gross middle bit. Sprinkle on a teaspoon or very small amount of raw sugar and microwave for 30 seconds to 1 minute. Its warm and sweet and delish! It also takes some work to eat so you're not just mindlessly eating. Works with grapefruit too but I prefer oranges (less bitter). Even using a huge orange it will always be under 100cal too!
0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Prepare for folks to nitpick your use of the word "addicted" and for folks to declare that everything in moderation is the only preferable option.
Good luck. I used to waste tons of calories on sugary snacks and drinks. I ultimately decided to cut out added sugars pretty much cold turkey for a few weeks. I still limit added sugars to 3 grams per serving. In the beginning it took a lot of label reading (they call sugar many things and add tons of it to things that don't need it other than for industrial purposes).
Best thing I ever did for myself, tbh.
You need to figure out what works for you for the long haul. Everyone's different. cheers!
Sabine...a member that always has something intelligent to share on the forums! I always enjoy hearing what got you where you are... you inspire me!
0 -
EatsNotTreats wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »TheVirgoddess wrote: »If you can't do moderation for something (make fun of the term all you want, I'm 59 pounds down because of it), then you need to cut it out entirely. Those are literally your only two options.
Who mocks moderation?
Everything in moderation.... including... moderation.
even mocking moderation should be done in moderation- because moderation.
0 -
Out of curiosity, anyone care to explain why gambling addiction is an addiction despite having no physical symptoms and no physical withdrawal symptoms, while sugar is not a "real" addiction despite having obvious psychological symptoms (like gambling addicting)? (I guess this also applies to anything classified as an addiction without having any physical symptoms or physical withdrawal symptoms, like sex) on the same note, why are certain medications not considered addictive even though tolerance increases and people go through horrible withdrawal symptoms when they stop taking the medications (antidepressants being one example)?
It seems to me to be a big game of semantics. People use the term sugar addiction here and get bashed for it all the time, but I'm having a very hard time figuring out why that is, except for the game of semantics....if addiction is defined by withdrawal symptoms after increasing tolerance, leading a user to use more to prevent withdrawal, then gambling, sex, etc cannot be defined as addictions. I've read that addiction is defined, however, as a desire for more despite negative consequences....so in that case, why can sugar not be an addiction?
I'm sure I'm just going to get a bunch of crap for this. But it's a serious question. Personally, i believe it's possible to be addicted to anything according to the definition that I've read, since it seems that addiction is a set of behaviors and not so much a set of physical symptoms. But some people obviously have a different definition of addiction.
Also, the whole thing about it being a smack in the face to people who were addicted to heroin....studies have shown that people typically age out of addiction even if they continue to use moderately after that...and just because heroin has terrible physical withdrawal doesn't diminish the struggle of people who say they are addicted to sugar, food, or what have you.
Just some questions.0 -
"Moderation" is very subjective and the amounts of added refined sugars in single servings of many popular processed food items is alarming. I wonder if CocaCola Inc. is concerned in the least that "Moderate" use of their products will lead to their customers increased risk for Diabetes Type 2. Do yourself a favor drop the added sugar and in a couple of days re-discover the variety of surprising flavors in food not overburdened with sweetness. Good Luck in your endeavors.0
-
Blueseraphchaos wrote: »Out of curiosity, anyone care to explain why gambling addiction is an addiction despite having no physical symptoms and no physical withdrawal symptoms, while sugar is not a "real" addiction despite having obvious psychological symptoms (like gambling addicting)?
This goes back to that study that was discussed a month or so ago, about how one can be "addicted" to eating, arguably--and why EDs like binge eating disorder seem to be akin to addictions of some types--but that that's different than "I'm addicted to sugar" or the like. It's not the sugar itself that is the issue, but how eating gets abused, essentially, and presumably then it's likely to not be limited to sugar (indeed, it typically isn't sugar, but certain kinds of desserts that are the trigger foods even for those with specific trigger foods).if addiction is defined by withdrawal symptoms after increasing tolerance, leading a user to use more to prevent withdrawal, then gambling, sex, etc cannot be defined as addictions.
Yeah, I don't think the psychological definition of addiction requires physical addiction.I've read that addiction is defined, however, as a desire for more despite negative consequences....so in that case, why can sugar not be an addiction?
Because people use that too casually and there's more to it. Part of being human is doing stuff despite negative consequences, because longer term consequences tend to be more remote to us than immediate consequences. Eating something tasty even though you know you will have to have less to eat later, perhaps, or gain weight is not the kind of "doing something despite negative consequences" that is considered psychologically a sign of an addiction, unless me deciding to go to bed because I'm tired (or screw around on the internet a bit because I find it fun) vs. working when I have a project due and know the result will be more stress and a harder day the next day means I'm addicted to sleeping or the internet. In fact, deciding that I want to relax with a drink vs. continuing to work doesn't mean I'm an alcoholic either, although I can easily describe other examples of where drinking behavior would seem obvious signs of alcoholism.
I'm not giving you crap, but trying to engage in a serious discussion.Also, the whole thing about it being a smack in the face to people who were addicted to heroin....studies have shown that people typically age out of addiction even if they continue to use moderately after that...and just because heroin has terrible physical withdrawal doesn't diminish the struggle of people who say they are addicted to sugar, food, or what have you.
Plenty of people remain addicts 'til they die, so I don't think it's nothing to worry about, not that serious, people age out, if that's what you are trying to convey, and frankly comparing what most people are talking about when they say they are "sugar addicts" to true addiction does seem to me to be insensitive or to minimize how horrible addiction for everyone involved. Typically what people talking about "sugar addiction" are talking about is the fact that they have a tendency to overeat dessert type items and feel a bit out of control (i.e., have trouble not overeating) when they do eat it (and perhaps have trouble resisting a delicious-looking piece of cake). And yes, being fat can be a huge bummer. That's still not the kind of "I guess I'll throw my life in the toilet" experience of addiction.
I think binge eating disorder, on the other hand, or other kinds of behaviors related to eating can be basically the same or similar, however. There is someone here who used to be morbidly obese and has written movingly about his experience with food where food had essentially become the center of his life, in a way that nearly crowded out everything else, and that's the kind of relationship--where eating (or drinking or taking the substance in question) isn't even fun anymore, it's just the only thing that makes it like addiction as I understand it.
Saying "I just really love food" (or "love pizza" or "love cake") doesn't make one an addict. I did, at one point, love wine and know a lot about it and so on. That's not what made me a drunk. (Also, saying "I'm a sugar addict" but then acknowledging the "addiction" is only for certain sweet treats (since almost no one claims to have that reaction to fruit or even to eating sugar straight) is rather like claiming to be a pinot noir addict, but not have any issue with any other kind of alcohol, which is obviously absurd.) What seems most off re some of the efforts to claim sugar is like an addictive substance is the assumption that it being super enjoyable is what means it's addictive. The essence of addiction isn't that using the substance is fun or pleasurable.0 -
Also, the whole thing about it being a smack in the face to people who were addicted to heroin....studies have shown that people typically age out of addiction even if they continue t
Plenty of people remain addicts 'til they die, so I don't think it's nothing to worry about, not that serious, people age out, if that's what you are trying to convey, and frankly comparing what most people are talking about when they say they are "sugar addicts" to true addiction does seem to me to be insensitive or to minimize how horrible addiction for everyone involved. Typically what people talking about "sugar addiction" are talking about is the fact that they have a tendency to overeat dessert type items and feel a bit out of control (i.e., have trouble not overeating) when they do eat it (and perhaps have trouble resisting a delicious-looking piece of cake). And yes, being fat can be a huge bummer. That's still not the kind of "I guess I'll throw my life in the toilet" experience of addiction.
I think binge eating disorder, on the other hand, or other kinds of behaviors related to eating can be basically the same or similar, however. There is someone here who used to be morbidly obese and has written movingly about his experience with food where food had essentially become the center of his life, in a way that nearly crowded out everything else, and that's the kind of relationship--where eating (or drinking or taking the substance in question) isn't even fun anymore, it's just the only thing that makes it like addiction as I understand it.
Saying "I just really love food" (or "love pizza" or "love cake") doesn't make one an addict. I did, at one point, love wine and know a lot about it and so on. That's not what made me a drunk. (Also, saying "I'm a sugar addict" but then acknowledging the "addiction" is only for certain sweet treats (since almost no one claims to have that reaction to fruit or even to eating sugar straight) is rather like claiming to be a pinot noir addict, but not have any issue with any other kind of alcohol, which is obviously absurd.) What seems most off re some of the efforts to claim sugar is like an addictive substance is the assumption that it being super enjoyable is what means it's addictive. The essence of addiction isn't that using the substance is fun or pleasurable.
I'm not trying to downplay heroin addiction or any other addiction. Coming from the town with the highest per-capita heroin addiction in the country, being a former addict myself, i understand all too well what all that crap is. I have watched friends die from heroin...I've also watched them age out. It's kind of a crap shoot at best. The people like me tend never to define themselves as having been addicts even though they have all the markets and diagnostic criteria for it. my point in saying that most ppl actually age out of addiction is that there are plenty of former addicts, like me, who would not view someone saying they're addicted to food as a slap in the face.
I just see people on here all the time saying that addiction to food or sugar or what have you isn't real....but i think it is. I won't deny that the term most likely does get thrown around too loosely, but i just find it terrible that people are so nasty to other people who say they're addicted to sugar...especially if the person hasn't given many or any details (do they binge, sneak large amounts of food, etc). A lot of behaviors i see on here are so close to addiction that they might as well be functionally defined as addiction. I guess I'd have to add a component of compulsion to doing things with negative consequences (where deciding to go to sleep despite having a big project due isn't addiction but eating large amounts of sugar without even making the decision to do so could be considered addiction, just like gambling large amounts of money because you feel compelled to could be considered addiction).
At the risk being "that person," i guess this would be more of a "why are people so nasty for no reason" post, haha. Everyone is here for a reason, people come to the forums because they're struggling with someone, and other people reply with nastiness because semantics! If someone is struggling, just help them....there's no need to pitch fits about the use of the word addiction and say it's not possible when, arguably, it very well IS possible because we don't know life stories. A question like, "anyone else addicted to sugar? How did you handle it?" could just be answered instead of being blown up into a bunch of crap.
I'm not a very overly-sensitive person, so i don't throw a fit at the use of the word addicted when someone most likely isn't truly addicted. Maybe that's the issue. I just get mad when people act like compete *kitten* on here (or when people read something, twist it pretty much beyond recognition, then reply rudely on here). Maybe I'll start another "mean people" thread.0 -
Blueseraphchaos wrote: »Also, the whole thing about it being a smack in the face to people who were addicted to heroin....studies have shown that people typically age out of addiction even if they continue t
Plenty of people remain addicts 'til they die, so I don't think it's nothing to worry about, not that serious, people age out, if that's what you are trying to convey, and frankly comparing what most people are talking about when they say they are "sugar addicts" to true addiction does seem to me to be insensitive or to minimize how horrible addiction for everyone involved. Typically what people talking about "sugar addiction" are talking about is the fact that they have a tendency to overeat dessert type items and feel a bit out of control (i.e., have trouble not overeating) when they do eat it (and perhaps have trouble resisting a delicious-looking piece of cake). And yes, being fat can be a huge bummer. That's still not the kind of "I guess I'll throw my life in the toilet" experience of addiction.
I think binge eating disorder, on the other hand, or other kinds of behaviors related to eating can be basically the same or similar, however. There is someone here who used to be morbidly obese and has written movingly about his experience with food where food had essentially become the center of his life, in a way that nearly crowded out everything else, and that's the kind of relationship--where eating (or drinking or taking the substance in question) isn't even fun anymore, it's just the only thing that makes it like addiction as I understand it.
Saying "I just really love food" (or "love pizza" or "love cake") doesn't make one an addict. I did, at one point, love wine and know a lot about it and so on. That's not what made me a drunk. (Also, saying "I'm a sugar addict" but then acknowledging the "addiction" is only for certain sweet treats (since almost no one claims to have that reaction to fruit or even to eating sugar straight) is rather like claiming to be a pinot noir addict, but not have any issue with any other kind of alcohol, which is obviously absurd.) What seems most off re some of the efforts to claim sugar is like an addictive substance is the assumption that it being super enjoyable is what means it's addictive. The essence of addiction isn't that using the substance is fun or pleasurable.
I'm not trying to downplay heroin addiction or any other addiction. Coming from the town with the highest per-capita heroin addiction in the country, being a former addict myself, i understand all too well what all that crap is. I have watched friends die from heroin...I've also watched them age out. It's kind of a crap shoot at best. The people like me tend never to define themselves as having been addicts even though they have all the markets and diagnostic criteria for it. my point in saying that most ppl actually age out of addiction is that there are plenty of former addicts, like me, who would not view someone saying they're addicted to food as a slap in the face.
I just see people on here all the time saying that addiction to food or sugar or what have you isn't real....but i think it is. I won't deny that the term most likely does get thrown around too loosely, but i just find it terrible that people are so nasty to other people who say they're addicted to sugar...especially if the person hasn't given many or any details (do they binge, sneak large amounts of food, etc). A lot of behaviors i see on here are so close to addiction that they might as well be functionally defined as addiction. I guess I'd have to add a component of compulsion to doing things with negative consequences (where deciding to go to sleep despite having a big project due isn't addiction but eating large amounts of sugar without even making the decision to do so could be considered addiction, just like gambling large amounts of money because you feel compelled to could be considered addiction).
At the risk being "that person," i guess this would be more of a "why are people so nasty for no reason" post, haha. Everyone is here for a reason, people come to the forums because they're struggling with someone, and other people reply with nastiness because semantics! If someone is struggling, just help them....there's no need to pitch fits about the use of the word addiction and say it's not possible when, arguably, it very well IS possible because we don't know life stories. A question like, "anyone else addicted to sugar? How did you handle it?" could just be answered instead of being blown up into a bunch of crap.
I'm not a very overly-sensitive person, so i don't throw a fit at the use of the word addicted when someone most likely isn't truly addicted. Maybe that's the issue. I just get mad when people act like compete *kitten* on here (or when people read something, twist it pretty much beyond recognition, then reply rudely on here). Maybe I'll start another "mean people" thread.
Why are people nasty on here? I think they have someone in their lives that pisses in their Cheerios on the daily, and they are bothered by it enough to pay it forward. That's my theory any way.
While a person may not be "addicted" to sugar, it DOES feel like an addiction to the person. Especially if you were like me: binging on it until you are sick, eating in hiding and hiding the evidence, buying more in secret, and hating yourself because the cravings for more seem uncontrollably compelling. And of course there was the negative consequence of getting to be close to 100lbs overweight because of these actions you feel hopeless to control. I was pretty much eating myself to death. What you have to do is STOP IT. It isn't that easy for some people. I tried just having "a little bit." (Miserable failure. ) Many people feel like they can't and don't know how to just stop.
I agree the back and forth on the distinction of addiction is ridiculous. That isn't the point. The point is that people are having serious trouble and need help. A lot of them feel desperate, out of control, and hopeless. They are after help and aren't trying to insult anyone who has ever had a legitimate addiction. This isn't just a few people. How many people are obese now worldwide? And how many of them are obese because of overeating foods with added sugar in particular? Why are so many people doing this? Is it because they are all lazy stupid slobs with poor morals? No. It's a mass problem needing a solution. And something to think about. Why is it so hard for so many people to just STOP IT?
I personally cut sugar out, cold-turkey (for now. It's in the house. The kids have some in moderation. Hubs is one of those people who don't care about sweets at all. I just don't touch it now. I'd rather use my calories on something I find more filling...or save my calories for my occasional booze-a-thons. Priorities.
). Others keep only small amounts in the house, eat some, and don't go buy more when it's gone. Others replace the added sugar foods with fruits. Some can even have those foods around, set a goal for themselves, and stick to it with little trouble. I'm hoping, OP, that you found the helpful posts and are able to apply them to your individual situation.
0 -
baconslave wrote: »Blueseraphchaos wrote: »Also, the whole thing about it being a smack in the face to people who were addicted to heroin....studies have shown that people typically age out of addiction even if they continue t
Plenty of people remain addicts 'til they die, so I don't think it's nothing to worry about, not that serious, people age out, if that's what you are trying to convey, and frankly comparing what most people are talking about when they say they are "sugar addicts" to true addiction does seem to me to be insensitive or to minimize how horrible addiction for everyone involved. Typically what people talking about "sugar addiction" are talking about is the fact that they have a tendency to overeat dessert type items and feel a bit out of control (i.e., have trouble not overeating) when they do eat it (and perhaps have trouble resisting a delicious-looking piece of cake). And yes, being fat can be a huge bummer. That's still not the kind of "I guess I'll throw my life in the toilet" experience of addiction.
I think binge eating disorder, on the other hand, or other kinds of behaviors related to eating can be basically the same or similar, however. There is someone here who used to be morbidly obese and has written movingly about his experience with food where food had essentially become the center of his life, in a way that nearly crowded out everything else, and that's the kind of relationship--where eating (or drinking or taking the substance in question) isn't even fun anymore, it's just the only thing that makes it like addiction as I understand it.
Saying "I just really love food" (or "love pizza" or "love cake") doesn't make one an addict. I did, at one point, love wine and know a lot about it and so on. That's not what made me a drunk. (Also, saying "I'm a sugar addict" but then acknowledging the "addiction" is only for certain sweet treats (since almost no one claims to have that reaction to fruit or even to eating sugar straight) is rather like claiming to be a pinot noir addict, but not have any issue with any other kind of alcohol, which is obviously absurd.) What seems most off re some of the efforts to claim sugar is like an addictive substance is the assumption that it being super enjoyable is what means it's addictive. The essence of addiction isn't that using the substance is fun or pleasurable.
I'm not trying to downplay heroin addiction or any other addiction. Coming from the town with the highest per-capita heroin addiction in the country, being a former addict myself, i understand all too well what all that crap is. I have watched friends die from heroin...I've also watched them age out. It's kind of a crap shoot at best. The people like me tend never to define themselves as having been addicts even though they have all the markets and diagnostic criteria for it. my point in saying that most ppl actually age out of addiction is that there are plenty of former addicts, like me, who would not view someone saying they're addicted to food as a slap in the face.
I just see people on here all the time saying that addiction to food or sugar or what have you isn't real....but i think it is. I won't deny that the term most likely does get thrown around too loosely, but i just find it terrible that people are so nasty to other people who say they're addicted to sugar...especially if the person hasn't given many or any details (do they binge, sneak large amounts of food, etc). A lot of behaviors i see on here are so close to addiction that they might as well be functionally defined as addiction. I guess I'd have to add a component of compulsion to doing things with negative consequences (where deciding to go to sleep despite having a big project due isn't addiction but eating large amounts of sugar without even making the decision to do so could be considered addiction, just like gambling large amounts of money because you feel compelled to could be considered addiction).
At the risk being "that person," i guess this would be more of a "why are people so nasty for no reason" post, haha. Everyone is here for a reason, people come to the forums because they're struggling with someone, and other people reply with nastiness because semantics! If someone is struggling, just help them....there's no need to pitch fits about the use of the word addiction and say it's not possible when, arguably, it very well IS possible because we don't know life stories. A question like, "anyone else addicted to sugar? How did you handle it?" could just be answered instead of being blown up into a bunch of crap.
I'm not a very overly-sensitive person, so i don't throw a fit at the use of the word addicted when someone most likely isn't truly addicted. Maybe that's the issue. I just get mad when people act like compete *kitten* on here (or when people read something, twist it pretty much beyond recognition, then reply rudely on here). Maybe I'll start another "mean people" thread.
Why are people nasty on here? I think they have someone in their lives that pisses in their Cheerios on the daily, and they are bothered by it enough to pay it forward. That's my theory any way.
While a person may not be "addicted" to sugar, it DOES feel like an addiction to the person. Especially if you were like me: binging on it until you are sick, eating in hiding and hiding the evidence, buying more in secret, and hating yourself because the cravings for more seem uncontrollably compelling. And of course there was the negative consequence of getting to be close to 100lbs overweight because of these actions you feel hopeless to control. I was pretty much eating myself to death. What you have to do is STOP IT. It isn't that easy for some people. I tried just having "a little bit." (Miserable failure. ) Many people feel like they can't and don't know how to just stop.
I agree the back and forth on the distinction of addiction is ridiculous. That isn't the point. The point is that people are having serious trouble and need help. A lot of them feel desperate, out of control, and hopeless. They are after help and aren't trying to insult anyone who has ever had a legitimate addiction. This isn't just a few people. How many people are obese now worldwide? And how many of them are obese because of overeating foods with added sugar in particular? Why are so many people doing this? Is it because they are all lazy stupid slobs with poor morals? No. It's a mass problem needing a solution. And something to think about. Why is it so hard for so many people to just STOP IT?
I personally cut sugar out, cold-turkey (for now. It's in the house. The kids have some in moderation. Hubs is one of those people who don't care about sweets at all. I just don't touch it now. I'd rather use my calories on something I find more filling...or save my calories for my occasional booze-a-thons. Priorities. ). Others keep only small amounts in the house, eat some, and don't go buy more when it's gone. Others replace the added sugar foods with fruits. Some can even have those foods around, set a goal for themselves, and stick to it with little trouble. I'm hoping, OP, that you found the helpful posts and are able to apply them to your individual situation.
What are people nasty? - lots of reasons! Inferiority, people are nasty to them in the real world (so they're just kicking the cat), they are just wired that way, they have very poor interpersonal skills - they're misunderstood and are really trying to be helpful, but just suck at it............take your pick.
I suppose the main reason is that this is the internet and the OP's are faceless people and most of the people being nasty don't really view them as having feelings or if they do, they don't care - I think they flower it up under the term 'tough love' lol.
Also the fact that people are getting upset over the term addiction is a little sad! We all know what these OP's means 'tough to kick' !!
I had a friend with me at lunch the other day that when I asked what he was eating said ' i don't know yet, but I'm starving, I could eat a horse'.
My immediate thought wasn't - how rude and belittling my friend was being to people in the world that actually were starving, nor did I take his comment of eating a horse literally.
I just said 'he'd need to move to France if he wanted to do that' - we stopped eating horse in the UK last year.
0 -
Thank you Baconslave and Blueseraphchaos for your sensitive and insightful input. 0
-
there are plenty of former addicts, like me, who would not view someone saying they're addicted to food as a slap in the face.
Sure. There are lots of things I'm not sensitive about either (including stuff people say about addiction, in fact), but I don't think that means that it's false to say that others are and that it's insensitive to them to compare what they dealt with to some of the casual uses of the term.
In fact, I don't think most people mind the truly casual uses of the term. If I said "I'm addicted to Brussels sprouts, they are so tasty," I think everyone would get that I just mean "I really like them," and not get bothered.
Why people get bothered about the use of "addiction" in the usual sugar thread is that it is supposed to mean something else, that your physical reaction to sugar is akin to that of an addict, and thus it is fair game, I think, to explore that, especially since the arguments are often so different from what addiction really is, for all the reasons I identified above. And, even more significantly, because it's usually used to mean "I can't help it," and the fact is even an addict can help it, it's just what has to be done is different. Indeed, as someone who feels strongly that acknowledging an addiction is a step toward stopping the behavior, and not an excuse or basis to say "I can't help it," that it is so often used in that way when invoked in connection with food is bothersome.I just see people on here all the time saying that addiction to food or sugar or what have you isn't real....but i think it is.
We disagree, then. I think binge eating disorder and eating addiction (which could be called food addiction) is real. The first seems not especially uncommon, but also seems quite difference than having a weakness for sugary treats, and the latter is, I think, quite uncommon but does seem to be related especially to some cases of morbid obesity. Having been an emotional eater myself, I don't think that's the same thing, and that seems to be one area where it's often used. However, arguably there's a continuum and if we stop with the effort to deny personal responsibility I actually do think (and always say) that some addiction-related tactics probably can help with things like emotional eating too. They have for me. And related to this, certainly OA may help people, and I'm in favor of people trying stuff like that if they feel unable to get a handle on their eating behaviors.
But none of this is generally what is discussed in the sugar addiction threads. Instead, the claim is made that sugar is a substance that causes physical addiction, etc., and somehow this is so even though the reaction is limited to stuff like cake and not fruit, dairy, or sugar from the jar. (In one such thread a participant even suggested to me that I might be "addicted" to naan, but not other bread, which shows how irrational this use of the term "addiction" is.)i just find it terrible that people are so nasty to other people who say they're addicted to sugar...especially if the person hasn't given many or any details (do they binge, sneak large amounts of food, etc
I haven't noticed lots of nastiness. I certainly don't think I am, and would like to see what you think is nasty in any of my posts, if you disagree. Usually there are helpful responses combined with statements that we don't believe it's really addiction or questions about the specifics. And lots of people always jump in to say it's addiction and because of sugar which causes withdrawal symptoms and such nonsense, which tends to take the thread off the real topic, which is how to deal with the specific struggles, usually.eating large amounts of sugar without even making the decision to do so could be considered addiction, just like gambling large amounts of money because you feel compelled to could be considered addiction).
What is not making the decision to do so? For example, mostly I gained weight due to overeating not directly related to sugar, but after I was fat again and while involved in some really stressful work stuff, I would make the decision to, say, just have ice cream for dinner, and that would not infrequently involve eating the whole pint. I knew that would likely lead to me gaining more weight, but at the time the payoff was worth it to me, so I did it. Now I'd say that was a decision that led to bad consequences, but did it require addiction? Certainly not. Binging IMO is different, but people who binge know they have a binging disorder. They don't say it's about sugar, really, so I don't think that's what we are talking about.Why are people nasty on here? I think they have someone in their lives that pisses in their Cheerios on the daily, and they are bothered by it enough to pay it forward. That's my theory any way.
Eh, sometimes I think people are inconsiderate because they are used to dealing with certain questions and tired of certain kinds of claims. I've done that, probably, although I really do try to be helpful even when expressing my objection to certain things.
But for the most part I don't think people are nasty or even all that inconsiderate. I think a LOT of the time some people interpret any disagreement as nastiness, even if it's on a factual matter expressed. It's like a book site I used to post on where for the most part there would be good discussions but there was a faction who would take "Faulkner is overrated" as a personal insult (okay, it wasn't usually the Faulkner fans who got butthurt, but I don't want to start a side argument). That's kind of how I take the people who read some of these discussions as mean. If you post on a factual topic on any message board I think you have to assume there will be debate and I guess I just don't perceive debate as insulting or not supportive. It's like insisting that if you say "Rand Paul is super great" on a political message board I have to either not say something or agree even if I can't stand the policies Paul supports or else be accused of being non-supportive or mean.What you have to do is STOP IT. It isn't that easy for some people. I tried just having "a little bit." (Miserable failure. ) Many people feel like they can't and don't know how to just stop.
I agree with this, and think that's been acknowledged in my posts and the posts of many others on this thread, including those who disagree with the use of the term "addiction." In fact, one problem I have with the use of the term (although you can disagree) is that I think it's counterproductive. I think deciding that you are addicted often means that you are more likely to lose control if tempted and certainly if you indulge a bit. That happened to me with alcohol, and I think I was, in fact, addicted to alcohol. Even so, acknowledging that, while necessary, did not have purely positive effects. To have the same thing happen with something you aren't in fact addicted to would be unfortunate. That doesn't mean you need to keep eating it if that strategy doesn't work for you, obviously, as everyone has said.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »there are plenty of former addicts, like me, who would not view someone saying they're addicted to food as a slap in the face.
Sure. There are lots of things I'm not sensitive about either (including stuff people say about addiction, in fact), but I don't think that means that it's false to say that others are and that it's insensitive to them to compare what they dealt with to some of the casual uses of the term.
In fact, I don't think most people mind the truly casual uses of the term. If I said "I'm addicted to Brussels sprouts, they are so tasty," I think everyone would get that I just mean "I really like them," and not get bothered.
Why people get bothered about the use of "addiction" in the usual sugar thread is that it is supposed to mean something else, that your physical reaction to sugar is akin to that of an addict, and thus it is fair game, I think, to explore that, especially since the arguments are often so different from what addiction really is, for all the reasons I identified above. And, even more significantly, because it's usually used to mean "I can't help it," and the fact is even an addict can help it, it's just what has to be done is different. Indeed, as someone who feels strongly that acknowledging an addiction is a step toward stopping the behavior, and not an excuse or basis to say "I can't help it," that it is so often used in that way when invoked in connection with food is bothersome.I just see people on here all the time saying that addiction to food or sugar or what have you isn't real....but i think it is.
We disagree, then. I think binge eating disorder and eating addiction (which could be called food addiction) is real. The first seems not especially uncommon, but also seems quite difference than having a weakness for sugary treats, and the latter is, I think, quite uncommon but does seem to be related especially to some cases of morbid obesity. Having been an emotional eater myself, I don't think that's the same thing, and that seems to be one area where it's often used. However, arguably there's a continuum and if we stop with the effort to deny personal responsibility I actually do think (and always say) that some addiction-related tactics probably can help with things like emotional eating too. They have for me. And related to this, certainly OA may help people, and I'm in favor of people trying stuff like that if they feel unable to get a handle on their eating behaviors.
But none of this is generally what is discussed in the sugar addiction threads. Instead, the claim is made that sugar is a substance that causes physical addiction, etc., and somehow this is so even though the reaction is limited to stuff like cake and not fruit, dairy, or sugar from the jar. (In one such thread a participant even suggested to me that I might be "addicted" to naan, but not other bread, which shows how irrational this use of the term "addiction" is.)i just find it terrible that people are so nasty to other people who say they're addicted to sugar...especially if the person hasn't given many or any details (do they binge, sneak large amounts of food, etc
I haven't noticed lots of nastiness. I certainly don't think I am, and would like to see what you think is nasty in any of my posts, if you disagree. Usually there are helpful responses combined with statements that we don't believe it's really addiction or questions about the specifics. And lots of people always jump in to say it's addiction and because of sugar which causes withdrawal symptoms and such nonsense, which tends to take the thread off the real topic, which is how to deal with the specific struggles, usually.eating large amounts of sugar without even making the decision to do so could be considered addiction, just like gambling large amounts of money because you feel compelled to could be considered addiction).
What is not making the decision to do so? For example, mostly I gained weight due to overeating not directly related to sugar, but after I was fat again and while involved in some really stressful work stuff, I would make the decision to, say, just have ice cream for dinner, and that would not infrequently involve eating the whole pint. I knew that would likely lead to me gaining more weight, but at the time the payoff was worth it to me, so I did it. Now I'd say that was a decision that led to bad consequences, but did it require addiction? Certainly not. Binging IMO is different, but people who binge know they have a binging disorder. They don't say it's about sugar, really, so I don't think that's what we are talking about.Why are people nasty on here? I think they have someone in their lives that pisses in their Cheerios on the daily, and they are bothered by it enough to pay it forward. That's my theory any way.
Eh, sometimes I think people are inconsiderate because they are used to dealing with certain questions and tired of certain kinds of claims. I've done that, probably, although I really do try to be helpful even when expressing my objection to certain things.
But for the most part I don't think people are nasty or even all that inconsiderate. I think a LOT of the time some people interpret any disagreement as nastiness, even if it's on a factual matter expressed. It's like a book site I used to post on where for the most part there would be good discussions but there was a faction who would take "Faulkner is overrated" as a personal insult (okay, it wasn't usually the Faulkner fans who got butthurt, but I don't want to start a side argument). That's kind of how I take the people who read some of these discussions as mean. If you post on a factual topic on any message board I think you have to assume there will be debate and I guess I just don't perceive debate as insulting or not supportive. It's like insisting that if you say "Rand Paul is super great" on a political message board I have to either not say something or agree even if I can't stand the policies Paul supports or else be accused of being non-supportive or mean.What you have to do is STOP IT. It isn't that easy for some people. I tried just having "a little bit." (Miserable failure. ) Many people feel like they can't and don't know how to just stop.
I agree with this, and think that's been acknowledged in my posts and the posts of many others on this thread, including those who disagree with the use of the term "addiction." In fact, one problem I have with the use of the term (although you can disagree) is that I think it's counterproductive. I think deciding that you are addicted often means that you are more likely to lose control if tempted and certainly if you indulge a bit. That happened to me with alcohol, and I think I was, in fact, addicted to alcohol. Even so, acknowledging that, while necessary, did not have purely positive effects. To have the same thing happen with something you aren't in fact addicted to would be unfortunate. That doesn't mean you need to keep eating it if that strategy doesn't work for you, obviously, as everyone has said.
I agree there hasn't been nastiness on this thread. I think Blueseraphchaos was talking about other addiction threads where there IS nastiness.
We seem to be, here and in other addiction threads, in agreement on our view of this topic. I've yet to be able to fault your rationale. And I do agree that it isn't helpful to convince yourself you are addicted, like I had, it just feeds the feeling of lack of control and hopelessness. You CAN stop it. And, yes, it IS hard. People don't realize they have the power. They trap themselves in the defeatist thinking and hamstring themselves. What they need is to find a workable strategy. It may take trying a few different ones. But they absolutely CAN do it. They just need to figure this out. To me it's amazing how empowered I was once I discovered this.0 -
What if someone had a problem with sugary foods like brownies and cookies and cake (I'm not talking fruit here, I know it has sugar in it too), and decided not to eat it anymore, and it worked for that person..... and what if someone else just ate sugary stuff in moderation, and that worked for that someone else.
So what?
Good for both of them!
Success for both of them! I used to argue the moderation side of things ALL the time too. But really, you know what I decided? Ultimately what matters is what works for each person. Everyone has to find their own path to success. Maybe giving it up for a while will work, and eventually that person will be able to have a sugary snack again without worrying about a binge.
It's fun to argue about it - I'll be the first to admit it - but it doesn't help anyone who's truly looking for help to get lost in a big old he-said she-said argument of eat/don't eat. Whether it's truly an addiction or not, it feels like one to the person who is overeating the food in question.0 -
We disagree, then. I think binge eating disorder and eating addiction (which could be called food addiction) is real. The first seems not especially uncommon, but also seems quite difference than having a weakness for sugary treats, and the latter is, I think, quite uncommon but does seem to be related especially to some cases of morbid obesity.
I didn't say actual sugar or food addiction is common, just that i think it does exist...which appears to be what you are also saying? In which case, we aren't actually disagreeing....unless i misread something there.I haven't noticed lots of nastiness. I certainly don't think I am, and would like to see what you think is nasty in any of my posts, if you disagree.
Didn't necessarily mean this thread.And lots of people always jump in to say it's addiction and because of sugar which causes withdrawal symptoms and such nonsense, which tends to take the thread off the real topic, which is how to deal with the specific struggles, usually.
And that's the gist of my point...perhaps take away the idea of being offended and simply HELP. Take away the game of semantics and all the offense that comes with it. Honestly, it reminds me of the Happy Holidays vs Merry Christmas war. LolWhat is not making the decision to do so? For example, mostly I gained weight due to overeating not directly related to sugar, but after I was fat again and while involved in some really stressful work stuff, I would make the decision to, say, just have ice cream for dinner, and that would not infrequently involve eating the whole pint. I knew that would likely lead to me gaining more weight, but at the time the payoff was worth it to me, so I did it. Now I'd say that was a decision that led to bad consequences, but did it require addiction? Certainly not. Binging IMO is different, but people who binge know they have a binging disorder. They don't say it's about sugar, really, so I don't think that's what we are talking about.
I actually meant people who binge, and who typically binge on sugar specifically. Sorry for not clarifying. And yes, in this case it is not exactly an addiction to sugar but an addiction to eating, but if the person finds himself or herself eating large quantities of sugar with no conscious decision to do so (hence the idea of eating without even making the decision to do so), they could easily perceive that as a sugar addiction. Whether it is or not is a determination that I'd prefer to leave to the experts (where there would still be disagreement, I'm sure).Eh, sometimes I think people are inconsiderate because they are used to dealing with certain questions and tired of certain kinds of claims. I've done that, probably, although I really do try to be helpful even when expressing my objection to certain things.
But for the most part I don't think people are nasty or even all that inconsiderate. I think a LOT of the time some people interpret any disagreement as nastiness, even if it's on a factual matter expressed. It's like a book site I used to post on where for the most part there would be good discussions but there was a faction who would take "Faulkner is overrated" as a personal insult (okay, it wasn't usually the Faulkner fans who got butthurt, but I don't want to start a side argument). That's kind of how I take the people who read some of these discussions as mean.
I don't view disagreement as being mean. I view name-calling and arbitrary marking of posts as spam or abuse that aren't even CLOSE to spam or abuse as being nasty. I have a few very specific people in mind, some of whom are speaking on this thread. (Way to waste moderators' time, btw, good job!) also, receiving nasty private messages because the person sending them doesn't want to open herself up to being banned from the boards is childish, petty, and, again, nasty. (Obviously, i have some interesting experiences on these forums, which is why i so rarely post on them anymore.)
I think if you're sick of seeing the same question over and over, maybe it's time to step away from the keyboard (or phone) if you're unable to scroll past and pretend you didn't read the question. Or if you feel compelled to answer, answer with how you yourself solved the problem, or post some evidence that backs up your answer, or whatever...saying it's not possible to be addicted to sugar with no backing evidence is very unhelpful and comes off as being rude (and also opens up the question i asked earlier, about how it's possible to be addicted to gambling sex, etc, but not certain other stuff).
Like i said, i am not a very sensitive person, i actually don't take offense to much at all, but some of the stuff i see on here, whoo. And messages, lol. I actually think that most of the sugar addiction threads i see on here are not true addiction. But i don't care because they asked for help, not a grammar or science lesson. And while labeling yourself as an addict can have negative consequences, i don't see those consequences as being any different than what's already happening, which is that they indulge a bit, then quickly go overboard and feel like they have no control. It happens all the time to ppl who would never use the term "sugar addict," so to me, it really doesn't matter what you decide to say...the consequences are the same and you've likely been doing this for quite awhile anyway. Same difference.....real addicts don't feel like they have "an out" any more so than non-addicts, i don't think. All the addicts i know never said "it doesn't matter if i do this because I'm an addict and i can't help it" because they knew they could help it. Denial isn't just for addicts.
On a side note, i know addicts (former addicts?) even now who can use heroin, have a drink, what have you, casually without backsliding into full-blown addiction again. (You should see where i live, lol!) so labeling yourself as an addict doesn't necessarily carry the stigma that many people would think. I also know plenty of people who have never labeled themselves addict, yet one drink will lead to a slippery slope, so they abstain. I figure the same can be said of added sugar (and i actually know a few people who don't even feel like they can eat fruit without going into a full-blown "any sugar i can get my hands on" frenzy).
Tl;dr....we are not exactly in disagreement, the term probably does get misused here, but why not simply help the person's original problem instead of being disparaging and unhelpful and giving them a grammar or science lesson?
-1 -
I think why people balk at the word addiction is that it implies there are forces outside your control that you are now fighting.
Sugar isn't one of those things. Cravings =/= addiction in that you can control those.
And even people who are past the physical addiction of say- smoking- still battle the phsycological addiction to habit- people break those habits.
That's the issue.
Once you start throwing addiction around it becomes less about "what I can do" and more about "why I can't do it"
I think THAT'S really the crux of the issue.0 -
Blueseraphchaos wrote: »I didn't say actual sugar or food addiction is common, just that i think it does exist...which appears to be what you are also saying? In which case, we aren't actually disagreeing....unless i misread something there.
I don't think sugar addiction is real, no. I think there can be a behavioral kind of addiction to eating and that binging disorders have many commonalities with addiction (and I don't much care whether they are or not--that's really an argument for those who classify such things). My disagreement is when people start asserting that there's something in sugar that is physically addictive, which is quite common in these threads. (The sugar = heroin stuff.)And that's the gist of my point...perhaps take away the idea of being offended and simply HELP.
I always do try to help (I think I did in this thread and I certainly agreed with good advice given by others, including baconslave). However, I think calling it an addiction is typically not helpful, which is why I make that point (and I think I do it kind of gently, normally). Again, extremely often "addiction" gets used to say they can't help it.I view name-calling and arbitrary marking of posts as spam or abuse that aren't even CLOSE to spam or abuse as being nasty.
I don't get the flagging, but it seems to be at least equal on both sides of this debate, since I've seen my posts get pointlessly flagged and same for many others making similar points to me.
Name-calling, yes, I agree. But I don't think that's a common response to the addiction threads.
And your lecture makes me wonder if you actually read my posts, which I don't think are nasty at all.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions