Help! I am a sugar AND carb-aholic!!

PeachyCarol

thedomesticmum wrote: »

NextPage wrote: »

I find it very unusual that people talk about being addicted to carbs when they really mean that they find specific foods such as breads, sweets, soft drinks etc hard to eat in moderation. Carbs are a macro that your body needs for energy and you can make calorie wise choices such as berries, beets, vegetables, legumes, greek yogurt etc. If all these foods also can't be eaten in moderation then maybe you have a carb problem. Do you get the shakes or get angry at someone if they try to remove a plate of beans or quinoa from in front of you? Would you get on your hands and knees and lick carbs off the floor? Probably not. This is how people who are addicted to drugs or alcohol behave so I hope you can understand that saying you have an addiction might seem like a misuse of the term to those who are in recovery. Out of respect for those that have conquered serious addiction I think we should all just talk about strategies for avoiding trigger foods that we tend to overeat.

It sounds like the OP has a problem resisting food that to her taste really great. Most of us have food that we need to make sure we don't buy and bring home because we will likely eat it all at once. We may have this much self control but know that having it lying around is too much. Most of us would refer to this as something that is too tempting rather than an addiction.

I completely understand your point of view and absolutely agree that my level of addiction is no where near a substance abuse such as drugs or alcohol. However, I would agree to disagree on our views of addition, much like many other members that have taken the time to comment on my use of the word addiction. I believe there can be different levels of addiction and what I describe is minor compared to what many on here think addiction involves as a whole.

When you speak about trigger foods, a trigger food is something that is a trigger food because it triggers me/my brain to feel/react a certain way when around it or consuming it. To me...that is at the very least a mild addiction.

If you have two people who have burned themselves and one has just burned themselves on the frying pan but it is a first degree burn and you have a second person who falls into a fire and suffers from third degree burns....did the first person then not have a burn because the second persons burn was more severe? No. They both burned themselves but at different degrees that both require different treatments.

This is my own personal view as everyone else has their own as well. I am in no way invalidating severe addiction as I have lost a few family members due to severe addiction, so I am not comparing my addiction to those extremes.

I'll say this in kindness. To give you some food for thought. I've learned this through many years of experience.

A very, very large portion of successfully dealing with issues with food is a head game. You are engaging in some sabotaging self-talk right now by putting yourself in the role of a victim of foods.

I have been where you are, and my body (and the size of it) reflect that. I gave up starchy things and sugar to gain some perspective. And perhaps, for a time, maybe that will benefit you as well. During that time, do some thinking. Try to let go of the idea that foods have power over you. They really don't. All things can be incorporated into a sensible eating plan in moderation, even a plan that's geared for weight loss.

Once you are able to embrace the idea the idea that you are in charge of what goes in your mouth, that you have power over food, it is so, so liberating. At that point, you might still have some trigger foods, but I bet you'll have far less than you do now.

MorganMoreaux

Just thought that I would share a little info on the addiction model... People that are addicted to whatever tend to use/participate in despite negative consequences to their lives. They lose the ability to control certain activities once using crosses the addiction threshold. Example, crack addicts use crack despite the health, social, and financial consequences. Many end up living on the streets with no friends or family and are in terrible health. If you apply that to food I can see similarities. People will literally eat themselves into morbid obesity despite knowing the the related health affects like type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular diseases. It has been scientifically proven that certain foods or food ingredient combinations activate the pleasure centers of the brain similar to how drugs, sex, etc do. Given the fact that food can trigger dopamine responses, and most obese people are aware of the health ramifications of over eating and eating junk food but continue to engage in risky eating, perhaps there is something to that. I'm new to MFP and just started reading these forums, but a reoccurring theme I am seeing are people referencing their compulsion to over indulge in carbs, knowing that their behavior is negatively impacting their health. Prior to these forums I didn't think food could be addictive, but given the sheer number of anecdotal evidence on these forums, I am not going to be presumptuous and dismissive of their claims and chalk it up to them being lazy or what not. I am beginning to believe there absolutely may be something to that, and they may very well be addicted. Also, different substances affect different people in different ways. Millions of people can drink one beer and be done for the night and not want another one, an alcoholic person cannot. Just MY opinion, no need for anybody to respond with negativity or nastiness- though feel free to disagree politely

JoyeII

Addiction and compulsion are not the same thing.

Sugar is not a stimulant.

You don't need to limit sugar/carbs in your diet unless you're diabetic/pre-diabetic.

The only other reason to limit or eliminate "sugar carbs" is if you can't control yourself. And you can.

You need to learn portion control and how to stay within your daily caloric and macro limits for weight loss.

lemurcat12

bethjones5623 wrote: »

People that are addicted to whatever tend to use/participate in despite negative consequences to their lives.

Yes, they reach a point where they are willing to throw away everything else in their lives, because nothing else matters. (This is one reason I find the desire to claim the term puzzling. Most real addicts seem to want to reject it as long as they can get away with it, even if their know in their heart they are lying.)

If you apply that to food I can see similarities. People will literally eat themselves into morbid obesity despite knowing the the related health affects like type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular diseases.

In rare cases, yes, but the way you use it here I think there's a conflation of two dissimilar things, and that's one problem I have with the overuse of the addiction model.

Many seem to think that you NEED an addiction explanation to get at why so many people have become obese or don't just lose the weight, and I think that's pretty short sighted (and not helpful in a society that struggles so much with obesity). The explanation is actually really simple: human beings (some more than others, but all to some extent) have trouble weighing short term vs. long term benefits. What is the short term benefit of not eating a cookie? Usually, none. What is the long term benefit? Well, none except maybe a tiny feeling of self-satisfaction (that may not come) and--IF you do other things which most think will be really hard over a really long period of time--losing weight. On the other hand, what is the short term cost of eating the cookie? None. Long term? Essentially none, because the difference one cookie makes in my weight is about 0. It's always a tiny marginal difference. And, finally, what's the short term benefit? It might be huge.

This is NOT, IME, similar to the chain of reasoning that an addict goes through. The addict may well think (if she thinks) "what is the short term cost and long term cost of me taking this drink" and think "my job, my marriage, and my life" and yet take that drink (or drug or whatever). I'm an emotional eater. I even somewhat intentionally substituted food for booze in my life for a while when I stopped drinking to make things easier for myself, so I don't deny there's some sort of continuum there. Yet never, ever, would I eat a cookie in a situation where I thought it would cost me a job or loved one. My health? Sort of, but the problem is just one never does, so it's not the same. But I was fully ready at some point to toss away every other thing in my life to just drink.

I absolutely think there are people (morbidly obese compulsive overeaters) who are like that with food, but I don't think that's what temptation or even emotional eating is. And this is not a slam on people who struggle with food at all--I think being an addict makes you a terrible person (while still an active addict) in a bunch of ways, and I don't think most fat people or most who deal with food issues share any of the traits I'm thinking of.

One reason I dislike the addiction model here is that I think it's not only false (usually), but disempowering. It gives people an excuse to buy into helplessness, and to think of one slip up as failure and a basis to totally give up (at least for a while).

More significantly, focusing on the rational reasons I mentioned above (about short vs. long term costs and benefits) I think does help people figure out how to deal with their issues, to put stuff in perspective. For example, one key is making the long term benefits of eating less concrete, so for me I consciously focused on the differences in 3 months and 6 months and so on. Especially as I've gotten older, I know how fast that time seems to go, and I made plans for those periods to make them even more concrete.

Similarly, if part of the problem--and I think it is--that doing something super burdensome for 1 year seems more impossible than any extreme thing for 2 weeks (which is true for many), then make the 1 year less burdensome. Realize that losing weight need not be miserable and unpleasant. Related to this, you need not give up foods you love. Loving food is NORMAL, not the sign of illness and addiction. It just needs to be managed and to the extent it's mixed up with a maladaptive way of dealing with emotions, that needs to be addressed.

It has been scientifically proven that certain foods or food ingredient combinations activate the pleasure centers of the brain similar to how drugs, sex, etc do.

That's because they are pleasurable. Drugs coopt our pleasure responses, but that doesn't make pleasurable things like drugs because they are pleasurable.

a reoccurring theme I am seeing are people referencing their compulsion to over indulge in carbs, knowing that their behavior is negatively impacting their health.

Few or none of these foods are just carbs. Typically they are carbs and fat, and usually--like with cookies--at least as many of the calories are from fat. It's only that we are in a carb-phobic era that this is because of "carbs." In the '80s and '90s we'd probably be talking about addiction to fat, if the addiction model were popular for food back then.

Also, just speaking for myself, I overindulged in plenty of non-carb foods and have been known to crave a nice steak or rack of lamb, so, again, I'm skeptical about the focus on carbs. That said, I do think highly palatable carb-based foods tend to be easily available and for women especially seen as an answer to emotional issues AND something that we feel shamed or naughty about over indulging in, which certainly does play into the emotional issues that many develop and that can make moderation more difficult. Also, many of them are, of course, quite tasty.

This is not meant to be nasty but a stab at explaining why I think the focus on "addiction" is not useful or accurate. (I don't fault anyone for using it or even, could it be!, disagreeing with me.) ;-)

MorganMoreaux

lemurcat12 wrote: »

bethjones5623 wrote: »

People that are addicted to whatever tend to use/participate in despite negative consequences to their lives.

Yes, they reach a point where they are willing to throw away everything else in their lives, because nothing else matters. (This is one reason I find the desire to claim the term puzzling. Most real addicts seem to want to reject it as long as they can get away with it, even if their know in their heart they are lying.)

If you apply that to food I can see similarities. People will literally eat themselves into morbid obesity despite knowing the the related health affects like type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular diseases.

In rare cases, yes, but the way you use it here I think there's a conflation of two dissimilar things, and that's one problem I have with the overuse of the addiction model.

Many seem to think that you NEED an addiction explanation to get at why so many people have become obese or don't just lose the weight, and I think that's pretty short sighted (and not helpful in a society that struggles so much with obesity). The explanation is actually really simple: human beings (some more than others, but all to some extent) have trouble weighing short term vs. long term benefits. What is the short term benefit of not eating a cookie? Usually, none. What is the long term benefit? Well, none except maybe a tiny feeling of self-satisfaction (that may not come) and--IF you do other things which most think will be really hard over a really long period of time--losing weight. On the other hand, what is the short term cost of eating the cookie? None. Long term? Essentially none, because the difference one cookie makes in my weight is about 0. It's always a tiny marginal difference. And, finally, what's the short term benefit? It might be huge.

This is NOT, IME, similar to the chain of reasoning that an addict goes through. The addict may well think (if she thinks) "what is the short term cost and long term cost of me taking this drink" and think "my job, my marriage, and my life" and yet take that drink (or drug or whatever). I'm an emotional eater. I even somewhat intentionally substituted food for booze in my life for a while when I stopped drinking to make things easier for myself, so I don't deny there's some sort of continuum there. Yet never, ever, would I eat a cookie in a situation where I thought it would cost me a job or loved one. My health? Sort of, but the problem is just one never does, so it's not the same. But I was fully ready at some point to toss away every other thing in my life to just drink.

I absolutely think there are people (morbidly obese compulsive overeaters) who are like that with food, but I don't think that's what temptation or even emotional eating is. And this is not a slam on people who struggle with food at all--I think being an addict makes you a terrible person (while still an active addict) in a bunch of ways, and I don't think most fat people or most who deal with food issues share any of the traits I'm thinking of.

One reason I dislike the addiction model here is that I think it's not only false (usually), but disempowering. It gives people an excuse to buy into helplessness, and to think of one slip up as failure and a basis to totally give up (at least for a while).

More significantly, focusing on the rational reasons I mentioned above (about short vs. long term costs and benefits) I think does help people figure out how to deal with their issues, to put stuff in perspective. For example, one key is making the long term benefits of eating less concrete, so for me I consciously focused on the differences in 3 months and 6 months and so on. Especially as I've gotten older, I know how fast that time seems to go, and I made plans for those periods to make them even more concrete.

Similarly, if part of the problem--and I think it is--that doing something super burdensome for 1 year seems more impossible than any extreme thing for 2 weeks (which is true for many), then make the 1 year less burdensome. Realize that losing weight need not be miserable and unpleasant. Related to this, you need not give up foods you love. Loving food is NORMAL, not the sign of illness and addiction. It just needs to be managed and to the extent it's mixed up with a maladaptive way of dealing with emotions, that needs to be addressed.

It has been scientifically proven that certain foods or food ingredient combinations activate the pleasure centers of the brain similar to how drugs, sex, etc do.

That's because they are pleasurable. Drugs coopt our pleasure responses, but that doesn't make pleasurable things like drugs because they are pleasurable.

a reoccurring theme I am seeing are people referencing their compulsion to over indulge in carbs, knowing that their behavior is negatively impacting their health.

Few or none of these foods are just carbs. Typically they are carbs and fat, and usually--like with cookies--at least as many of the calories are from fat. It's only that we are in a carb-phobic era that this is because of "carbs." In the '80s and '90s we'd probably be talking about addiction to fat, if the addiction model were popular for food back then.

Also, just speaking for myself, I overindulged in plenty of non-carb foods and have been known to crave a nice steak or rack of lamb, so, again, I'm skeptical about the focus on carbs. That said, I do think highly palatable carb-based foods tend to be easily available and for women especially seen as an answer to emotional issues AND something that we feel shamed or naughty about over indulging in, which certainly does play into the emotional issues that many develop and that can make moderation more difficult. Also, many of them are, of course, quite tasty.

This is not meant to be nasty but a stab at explaining why I think the focus on "addiction" is not useful or accurate. (I don't fault anyone for using it or even, could it be!, disagreeing with me.) ;-)

You make very valid points and I agree with much of what you said. I don't believe that every over whirleght person is a food addict. Much of it I think is due to habits, comfort and how inconvenient and uncomfortable it is to make large lifestyle changes, particularly with something that we find so pleasurable lol. I do think though for a rare few, it could be an addiction, which is why personally I don't want to discount what others say in this forum because I don't know them, and what their situation is. One thing that does bother me about the use of the term in these forums is when people use it as a means to excuse their behavior and not make the necessary lifestyle changes to get healthy. As a recovering alcoholic I almost find it offensive when people use addiction as an excuse to not be accountable or to not change. When I was active in my addiction I knew what I was doing, and the harm I was causing to my friends, family, company, and self. I was able to remain accountable for my actions, and own up to them. Granted it was a long battle, I voluntarily sought various treatments for my addiction until I realized there was nothing more for me to do but check into rehab. I bring this up because addicts are capable of accountability, and should be treated as such. The same goes for 'food addiction'...if one feels they literally have no control over their consumption than they must muster the courage to be proactive in seeking the appropriate treatment to help them become healthy. I know from what I read on these forums many people loosely use the term addiction or use us interchangeabley with compulsion, but some of what I have read seriously sounds like they are addicted, ie the severe diabetic that continuously over indulges in foods that exasperate their condition and repeatedly have to go to the hospital. I wonder about those cases.

PeachyCarol

lemurcat12 wrote: »

bethjones5623 wrote: »

People that are addicted to whatever tend to use/participate in despite negative consequences to their lives.

Yes, they reach a point where they are willing to throw away everything else in their lives, because nothing else matters. (This is one reason I find the desire to claim the term puzzling. Most real addicts seem to want to reject it as long as they can get away with it, even if their know in their heart they are lying.)

If you apply that to food I can see similarities. People will literally eat themselves into morbid obesity despite knowing the the related health affects like type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular diseases.

In rare cases, yes, but the way you use it here I think there's a conflation of two dissimilar things, and that's one problem I have with the overuse of the addiction model.

Many seem to think that you NEED an addiction explanation to get at why so many people have become obese or don't just lose the weight, and I think that's pretty short sighted (and not helpful in a society that struggles so much with obesity). The explanation is actually really simple: human beings (some more than others, but all to some extent) have trouble weighing short term vs. long term benefits. What is the short term benefit of not eating a cookie? Usually, none. What is the long term benefit? Well, none except maybe a tiny feeling of self-satisfaction (that may not come) and--IF you do other things which most think will be really hard over a really long period of time--losing weight. On the other hand, what is the short term cost of eating the cookie? None. Long term? Essentially none, because the difference one cookie makes in my weight is about 0. It's always a tiny marginal difference. And, finally, what's the short term benefit? It might be huge.

This is NOT, IME, similar to the chain of reasoning that an addict goes through. The addict may well think (if she thinks) "what is the short term cost and long term cost of me taking this drink" and think "my job, my marriage, and my life" and yet take that drink (or drug or whatever). I'm an emotional eater. I even somewhat intentionally substituted food for booze in my life for a while when I stopped drinking to make things easier for myself, so I don't deny there's some sort of continuum there. Yet never, ever, would I eat a cookie in a situation where I thought it would cost me a job or loved one. My health? Sort of, but the problem is just one never does, so it's not the same. But I was fully ready at some point to toss away every other thing in my life to just drink.

I absolutely think there are people (morbidly obese compulsive overeaters) who are like that with food, but I don't think that's what temptation or even emotional eating is. And this is not a slam on people who struggle with food at all--I think being an addict makes you a terrible person (while still an active addict) in a bunch of ways, and I don't think most fat people or most who deal with food issues share any of the traits I'm thinking of.

One reason I dislike the addiction model here is that I think it's not only false (usually), but disempowering. It gives people an excuse to buy into helplessness, and to think of one slip up as failure and a basis to totally give up (at least for a while).

More significantly, focusing on the rational reasons I mentioned above (about short vs. long term costs and benefits) I think does help people figure out how to deal with their issues, to put stuff in perspective. For example, one key is making the long term benefits of eating less concrete, so for me I consciously focused on the differences in 3 months and 6 months and so on. Especially as I've gotten older, I know how fast that time seems to go, and I made plans for those periods to make them even more concrete.

Similarly, if part of the problem--and I think it is--that doing something super burdensome for 1 year seems more impossible than any extreme thing for 2 weeks (which is true for many), then make the 1 year less burdensome. Realize that losing weight need not be miserable and unpleasant. Related to this, you need not give up foods you love. Loving food is NORMAL, not the sign of illness and addiction. It just needs to be managed and to the extent it's mixed up with a maladaptive way of dealing with emotions, that needs to be addressed.

It has been scientifically proven that certain foods or food ingredient combinations activate the pleasure centers of the brain similar to how drugs, sex, etc do.

That's because they are pleasurable. Drugs coopt our pleasure responses, but that doesn't make pleasurable things like drugs because they are pleasurable.

a reoccurring theme I am seeing are people referencing their compulsion to over indulge in carbs, knowing that their behavior is negatively impacting their health.

Few or none of these foods are just carbs. Typically they are carbs and fat, and usually--like with cookies--at least as many of the calories are from fat. It's only that we are in a carb-phobic era that this is because of "carbs." In the '80s and '90s we'd probably be talking about addiction to fat, if the addiction model were popular for food back then.

Also, just speaking for myself, I overindulged in plenty of non-carb foods and have been known to crave a nice steak or rack of lamb, so, again, I'm skeptical about the focus on carbs. That said, I do think highly palatable carb-based foods tend to be easily available and for women especially seen as an answer to emotional issues AND something that we feel shamed or naughty about over indulging in, which certainly does play into the emotional issues that many develop and that can make moderation more difficult. Also, many of them are, of course, quite tasty.

This is not meant to be nasty but a stab at explaining why I think the focus on "addiction" is not useful or accurate. (I don't fault anyone for using it or even, could it be!, disagreeing with me.) ;-)

+1, most excellent post.