Is anyone else addicted to SUGAR?!?

IndigoSue13

Thank you Baconslave and Blueseraphchaos for your sensitive and insightful input.

lemurcat12

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.

baconslave

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.

mccindy72

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.

Blueseraphchaos

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. Lol

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.

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?

JoRocka

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.

lemurcat12

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.