Food addiction
Replies
-
skinnyinnotime wrote: »I find it hard to believe. Gluttony, now that exists
Is it still considered gluttony when someone is doing it but wishingthey weren't? Idk I always thought of gluttony as when someone is indulging because they like it and want more. Not necessarily just eating a lot. Idk the actual definition though.0 -
Are we doubting the honesty of users on here who've reported their experiences with craving and longing for certain foods?
In my mind, the distinction between naming this situation of helplessly obsessing/craving/indulging in food as "addiction" or not doesn't really matter. The point is that some people find that certain foods trigger their behavior/thoughts in certain ways. Therefore, whether you're going to call it technically an addiction or not, it makes sense for these people to attempt to remove those triggers or otherwise take steps to avoid the obsess/crave/indulge/regret cycle.
As was said earlier in the thread, lots of people have this crave/indulge behavior with many different things. I remember that one thing that the DSM (manual of psychology) often says about the threshold for diagnosing certain conditions as mental illnesses is that the condition must "significantly interfere with regular functioning" or "significantly reduce quality of life" or "cause significant distress to the sufferer" or something like that. Maybe that's the threshold at which "internet addiction" or "food addiction" or whatever else should officially be called an addiction - if it significantly interferes with daily activities or causes significant distress to the person who has it.
I don't think that it diminishes the meaningfulness of the word "addiction" if someone who is truly suffering with their urges, as users here have documented, chooses to use the word "addiction" - whether or not science would call it that.0 -
skinnyinnotime wrote: »I find it hard to believe. Gluttony, now that exists
Is it still considered gluttony when someone is doing it but wishingthey weren't?
Yes.
0 -
I don't think that it diminishes the meaningfulness of the word "addiction" if someone who is truly suffering with their urges, as users here have documented, chooses to use the word "addiction" - whether or not science would call it that.
If it doesn't really matter, then lets use the right words. If that's a problem, then clearly it matters.
This is not an addiction. If you feel you need to label this as an addiction, I think the only relevant question is...why?
0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »If you are getting those kinds of responses to foods that are chemically basically identical to foods that do not result in the same cravings -- and that's how it is with almost all trigger foods that people identify, since foods really aren't all that distinctive on a chemical level -- then it has to be some combination of taste response plus the psychological meaning you place in the food. (That's it's psychological doesn't make it less real; it just suggests that maybe it's something that could be overcome if you cared to do so. Not saying you should.)
Really often, thinking you can't control yourself around a food makes it true.
White pasta is essentially identical to any other processed grain, especially wheat-based -- for example, bread. It's also not that different from most whole wheat pastas, because the difference in the amount of fiber is not particularly high. (I eat whole wheat pasta because I like it just as well usually and it has slight nutritional advantages IMO, but the effect on me is identical.) If you combine it with fat (i.e., cheese) then it becomes chemically about the same as any other combination of processed grain and fat -- bagel and cream cheese or a butter cookie or even a Kit Kat, I think. But there are always psychological meanings that foods have -- mac and cheese certainly could be a comfort food.
Anyway, who knows why one thing becomes a trigger vs. another -- contrary to the usual dogma around here, for me it's no more likely to be a carb-based food that I have trouble not overeating than something else. I think it's complicated and a real thing. I simply DON'T think it's really about the physical reaction to the food, as people will claim a reaction to, say, donuts and not cake. Thus, we aren't talking about addiction.
I don't spend a ton of time thinking about it. They created cravings I didn't want to deal with and they got eliminated.
If it were a lack of self-control, the lack of self-control would manifest itself when I ate things I liked eating. The more I liked them, the harder it would be to control myself. That just isn't the case.
It's an issue with the white bread and pasta, not with my ability to exercise self-control.
Self-control isn't always universal.
I used to be able to exercise restraint with many things, but when it came to certain things? Nope.
Lemurcat is right. If you don't have a similar reaction to a food that's essentially the same chemical/ingredient composition, you're the problem, not the pasta.
I had to admit this to myself when I realized I had no trouble stopping at 2 chocolate chip cookies, but could not help myself when it came to brownies.
Why do you think a person can have excellent self-control when it comes to foods that they love, but less control over foods that they just like? And why does that lack of self-control only kick in with two kinds of foods and only after they've been eaten?
I don't think you're right, but I'm willing to consider the possibility.
Bear in mind that I didn't actually give in and eat the stuff. I just kept craving it. So, there is self-control in that regard.0 -
So the Bob Saget, have you ever sucked feet for it school of addiction?Do you believe it's real? Why or why not?
I'm talking addiction in the sense that you can't control it and it hinders your life. Like beyond emotional eating.
I've never heard of fat people robbing stores to pay for their Little Debbie habit. Unless there is evidence of that, clearly food addiction is something different than meth or heroin addiction.
I don't see it as a particularly useful distinction though. I'm pretty sure people have been committing robbery over food for quiet some time in human history.
The biggest reason you see people committing crime for hard drugs is legal, social, and economical - while people do commit robbery to fuel alcoholism, we don't hear anywhere near as much about it. This is because
1. There's nothing illegal about adults 21+ drinking in the US. Being on drugs means you already consider yourself a criminal. Threshhold is lowered.
2. Again, being legal, alcohol addiction is treated very differently and not assumed for all alcoholics. There are functioning cocaine and heroine addicts, they don't make the news, but if someone was found out to be on them, the assumption would be any use is addiction. It is also easier to seek help for the addiction.
3. Economically, food and alcohol are both relatively cheap. Making it illegal raises the price and thus changes the economics of being an addict. One hit of cocaine should buy a month of Little Debbie's I would think, though I'd have to admit I don't have first hand experience with the price of either of those goods.0 -
This would be where the actual discussion of dopamine comes in instead of talking about the pleasure centers lighting in the brain. Dopamine is elicited more by novelty, so controlling a frequently eaten food could be easier than controlling a food that seems both delicious and interesting.PeachyCarol wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »If you are getting those kinds of responses to foods that are chemically basically identical to foods that do not result in the same cravings -- and that's how it is with almost all trigger foods that people identify, since foods really aren't all that distinctive on a chemical level -- then it has to be some combination of taste response plus the psychological meaning you place in the food. (That's it's psychological doesn't make it less real; it just suggests that maybe it's something that could be overcome if you cared to do so. Not saying you should.)
Really often, thinking you can't control yourself around a food makes it true.
White pasta is essentially identical to any other processed grain, especially wheat-based -- for example, bread. It's also not that different from most whole wheat pastas, because the difference in the amount of fiber is not particularly high. (I eat whole wheat pasta because I like it just as well usually and it has slight nutritional advantages IMO, but the effect on me is identical.) If you combine it with fat (i.e., cheese) then it becomes chemically about the same as any other combination of processed grain and fat -- bagel and cream cheese or a butter cookie or even a Kit Kat, I think. But there are always psychological meanings that foods have -- mac and cheese certainly could be a comfort food.
Anyway, who knows why one thing becomes a trigger vs. another -- contrary to the usual dogma around here, for me it's no more likely to be a carb-based food that I have trouble not overeating than something else. I think it's complicated and a real thing. I simply DON'T think it's really about the physical reaction to the food, as people will claim a reaction to, say, donuts and not cake. Thus, we aren't talking about addiction.
I don't spend a ton of time thinking about it. They created cravings I didn't want to deal with and they got eliminated.
If it were a lack of self-control, the lack of self-control would manifest itself when I ate things I liked eating. The more I liked them, the harder it would be to control myself. That just isn't the case.
It's an issue with the white bread and pasta, not with my ability to exercise self-control.
Self-control isn't always universal.
I used to be able to exercise restraint with many things, but when it came to certain things? Nope.
Lemurcat is right. If you don't have a similar reaction to a food that's essentially the same chemical/ingredient composition, you're the problem, not the pasta.
I had to admit this to myself when I realized I had no trouble stopping at 2 chocolate chip cookies, but could not help myself when it came to brownies.
Why do you think a person can have excellent self-control when it comes to foods that they love, but less control over foods that they just like? And why does that lack of self-control only kick in with two kinds of foods and only after they've been eaten?
I don't think you're right, but I'm willing to consider the possibility.
Bear in mind that I didn't actually give in and eat the stuff. I just kept craving it. So, there is self-control in that regard.
I don't have it off-hand, but I recall at least one study that showed that increasing the variety of foods available to a person increases the chance they'll eat more.0 -
So the Bob Saget, have you ever sucked feet for it school of addiction?Do you believe it's real? Why or why not?
I'm talking addiction in the sense that you can't control it and it hinders your life. Like beyond emotional eating.
I've never heard of fat people robbing stores to pay for their Little Debbie habit. Unless there is evidence of that, clearly food addiction is something different than meth or heroin addiction.
I have no idea what that means.
0 -
In the movie Half Baked, Dave Chappelle's character seeks help for marijuana addiction and Bob Saget's character mocks him saying something like "Marijuana isn't an addiction. I've sucked *feet* for coke. Have you ever sucked *feet* for marijuana?" The wording is a little different if it isn't being censored by Comedy Central.
So the Bob Saget, have you ever sucked feet for it school of addiction?Do you believe it's real? Why or why not?
I'm talking addiction in the sense that you can't control it and it hinders your life. Like beyond emotional eating.
I've never heard of fat people robbing stores to pay for their Little Debbie habit. Unless there is evidence of that, clearly food addiction is something different than meth or heroin addiction.
I have no idea what that means.
0 -
Agree!! ^^LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »IMO it's like gluten intolerance: it exists but almost everyone who claims to have it is mistaken.
Answer your question OP, NO!!!
It's lack of self control!!
That's not really true. I believe that it's your opinion - not calling you a liar! But I think you're very wrong.
I have self-control. I can eat a little if many things and will not crave them. There won't be anything nagging at me all day if I eat, say, a Kit Kat. And I like Kit-Kats very much more than Mac n cheese.
But if I have the white pasta, it will create a craving. A real craving. I will want more and it won't stop bugging me. Even if I am busy washing the floor, not thinking about it, it will pop into my head that I should eat more of it.
I don't think it's an addiction. Wouldn't go that far.
But it isn't just a lack of control. If that were the case, then I'd crave things I really liked a lot as much as the white pasta.
@Kalikel Your problem (and perhaps the OP's) is a psychological one.
"Addiction" implies a physical problem. As senecarr and others have shown, there is no physical or hormonal activity that creates a physical need when it comes to eating erratically.
May I kindly suggest that you stop telling yourself white pasta creates a craving? You're absolving yourself of your responsibility, and letting yourself be weak by saying you do this every time.
Tell yourself you can control what you eat. Ignore the thought that says you have a craving - "Don't believe everything you think".
Log everything. If you don't want to log 500g of white pasta, don't eat 500g of white pasta. Just enjoy 100 g! You'll enjoy it more if you only eat that much.
You can do it! And I don't want to hear any excuses.
0 -
Agree!! ^^LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »IMO it's like gluten intolerance: it exists but almost everyone who claims to have it is mistaken.
Answer your question OP, NO!!!
It's lack of self control!!
That's not really true. I believe that it's your opinion - not calling you a liar! But I think you're very wrong.
I have self-control. I can eat a little if many things and will not crave them. There won't be anything nagging at me all day if I eat, say, a Kit Kat. And I like Kit-Kats very much more than Mac n cheese.
But if I have the white pasta, it will create a craving. A real craving. I will want more and it won't stop bugging me. Even if I am busy washing the floor, not thinking about it, it will pop into my head that I should eat more of it.
I don't think it's an addiction. Wouldn't go that far.
But it isn't just a lack of control. If that were the case, then I'd crave things I really liked a lot as much as the white pasta.
@Kalikel Your problem (and perhaps the OP's) is a psychological one.
"Addiction" implies a physical problem. As senecarr and others have shown, there is no physical or hormonal activity that creates a physical need when it comes to eating erratically.
May I kindly suggest that you stop telling yourself white pasta creates a craving? You're absolving yourself of your responsibility, and letting yourself be weak by saying you do this every time.
Tell yourself you can control what you eat. Ignore the thought that says you have a craving - "Don't believe everything you think".
Log everything. If you don't want to log 500g of white pasta, don't eat 500g of white pasta. Just enjoy 100 g! You'll enjoy it more if you only eat that much.
You can do it! And I don't want to hear any excuses.
I never said it was an addiction. I don't believe that it is.
I don't have to tell myself that I can control what I eat. I can and do control what I eat. I kicked the pasta not because I caved in and ate it but because I couldn't stand the cravings. They're annoying and dealing with them was frustrating.
I didn't go into it thinking I had a craving, which then caused a self-fulfilling prophecy. It's something I noticed as I went along. The issue arose before I put it together, not vice versa.
I know I can do it. I have done it. I just don't enjoy the cravings that come later. It's maddening. The cravings remain until I've slept. Sleep is the only thing that ends it.
I didn't quit the pasta because I can't stop myself from eating it. I quit the pasta because the cravings suck. 0 -
Wow. All the excuses.-1
-
rushbabe0214 wrote: »PumpJockeyy wrote: »True addiction, IMO, means quitting has some physical effect, some kind of uncomfortable withdrawal. Even caffeine, with it's painful withdrawal headaches would count as an addiction...a mild one, but it qualifies. My pasta issue doesn't.
This.
Binge eating/lack of self control isn't "addiction".
^^ All of the above.
So... Even though we do not psychologically yearn coffee as much as we physically do, it is an addiction. However, psychologically desiring certain food while having emotional/behavioral issues about it is not? I have never really been "addicted" to any food in the sense that I go bat crazy without it. Yeah, sometimes I make bad decisions even though I know what the outcome will be. But food is not comforting to me. Well...not really. I have this thing where I will have to start the meal with the show I watch when watching tv while eating. I am not sure if that is emotional or the logical side of the brain of mine thinking linearly. Aside from that, I can't really think of anything that I go to to help with other issues in my life.
I don't really have any serious issues in my life right now, though, and I am quite fit for being somewhat overweight. What about heavier people? Why do they continue to get larger and larger? Is it lack of education about food physiology, or is it something to fall back on, kind of like an alcoholic relapsing because they dont know how to deal with the troubles in their lives?
I cannot compare the degree of food addiction to the magnitude of a drug or alcohol addiction. They are very different and drug/alcohol addiction carries more weight in affecting a person's life in a negative way, no pun intended. But shift the paradigm to the non-drug addict and compare. If that person has a lack of self control in their life, and use food as something to latch onto that makes them forget about things and feel good, is that different than the alcoholic going to the bar?
If there is no attached negative involvement and the person is otherwise healthy, then I think the cravings (if unstimulated) are just random memory recall, which can activate the senses and cause one to crave something. If you dont indulge, the memory flash will go away, and sensitivity to it will decrease. This is exemplified in visual sexual memories. Images of a recent lover can make a person aroused, because the body remembers how it felt (much like how it remembers how a food tasted) and that person will crave sex with the person they are thinking about because the senses are activated. But the further that person is displaced from the person in mind, the less arousing the thought becomes because the memory of the feeling is fading, the senses are not as activated and consequently the desire to indulge is reduced.
0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »If you are getting those kinds of responses to foods that are chemically basically identical to foods that do not result in the same cravings -- and that's how it is with almost all trigger foods that people identify, since foods really aren't all that distinctive on a chemical level -- then it has to be some combination of taste response plus the psychological meaning you place in the food. (That's it's psychological doesn't make it less real; it just suggests that maybe it's something that could be overcome if you cared to do so. Not saying you should.)
Really often, thinking you can't control yourself around a food makes it true.
White pasta is essentially identical to any other processed grain, especially wheat-based -- for example, bread. It's also not that different from most whole wheat pastas, because the difference in the amount of fiber is not particularly high. (I eat whole wheat pasta because I like it just as well usually and it has slight nutritional advantages IMO, but the effect on me is identical.) If you combine it with fat (i.e., cheese) then it becomes chemically about the same as any other combination of processed grain and fat -- bagel and cream cheese or a butter cookie or even a Kit Kat, I think. But there are always psychological meanings that foods have -- mac and cheese certainly could be a comfort food.
Anyway, who knows why one thing becomes a trigger vs. another -- contrary to the usual dogma around here, for me it's no more likely to be a carb-based food that I have trouble not overeating than something else. I think it's complicated and a real thing. I simply DON'T think it's really about the physical reaction to the food, as people will claim a reaction to, say, donuts and not cake. Thus, we aren't talking about addiction.
I don't spend a ton of time thinking about it. They created cravings I didn't want to deal with and they got eliminated.
If it were a lack of self-control, the lack of self-control would manifest itself when I ate things I liked eating. The more I liked them, the harder it would be to control myself. That just isn't the case.
It's an issue with the white bread and pasta, not with my ability to exercise self-control.
Self-control isn't always universal.
I used to be able to exercise restraint with many things, but when it came to certain things? Nope.
Lemurcat is right. If you don't have a similar reaction to a food that's essentially the same chemical/ingredient composition, you're the problem, not the pasta.
I had to admit this to myself when I realized I had no trouble stopping at 2 chocolate chip cookies, but could not help myself when it came to brownies.
Why do you think a person can have excellent self-control when it comes to foods that they love, but less control over foods that they just like? And why does that lack of self-control only kick in with two kinds of foods and only after they've been eaten?
I don't think you're right, but I'm willing to consider the possibility.
Bear in mind that I didn't actually give in and eat the stuff. I just kept craving it. So, there is self-control in that regard.
It could be for lots of reasons, something as simple as the mouth feel being pleasurable on a level you haven't analyzed yet, or the way it felt in your stomach, or some other association you had with a pasta meal.
0 -
This would be where the actual discussion of dopamine comes in instead of talking about the pleasure centers lighting in the brain. Dopamine is elicited more by novelty, so controlling a frequently eaten food could be easier than controlling a food that seems both delicious and interesting.PeachyCarol wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »If you are getting those kinds of responses to foods that are chemically basically identical to foods that do not result in the same cravings -- and that's how it is with almost all trigger foods that people identify, since foods really aren't all that distinctive on a chemical level -- then it has to be some combination of taste response plus the psychological meaning you place in the food. (That's it's psychological doesn't make it less real; it just suggests that maybe it's something that could be overcome if you cared to do so. Not saying you should.)
Really often, thinking you can't control yourself around a food makes it true.
White pasta is essentially identical to any other processed grain, especially wheat-based -- for example, bread. It's also not that different from most whole wheat pastas, because the difference in the amount of fiber is not particularly high. (I eat whole wheat pasta because I like it just as well usually and it has slight nutritional advantages IMO, but the effect on me is identical.) If you combine it with fat (i.e., cheese) then it becomes chemically about the same as any other combination of processed grain and fat -- bagel and cream cheese or a butter cookie or even a Kit Kat, I think. But there are always psychological meanings that foods have -- mac and cheese certainly could be a comfort food.
Anyway, who knows why one thing becomes a trigger vs. another -- contrary to the usual dogma around here, for me it's no more likely to be a carb-based food that I have trouble not overeating than something else. I think it's complicated and a real thing. I simply DON'T think it's really about the physical reaction to the food, as people will claim a reaction to, say, donuts and not cake. Thus, we aren't talking about addiction.
I don't spend a ton of time thinking about it. They created cravings I didn't want to deal with and they got eliminated.
If it were a lack of self-control, the lack of self-control would manifest itself when I ate things I liked eating. The more I liked them, the harder it would be to control myself. That just isn't the case.
It's an issue with the white bread and pasta, not with my ability to exercise self-control.
Self-control isn't always universal.
I used to be able to exercise restraint with many things, but when it came to certain things? Nope.
Lemurcat is right. If you don't have a similar reaction to a food that's essentially the same chemical/ingredient composition, you're the problem, not the pasta.
I had to admit this to myself when I realized I had no trouble stopping at 2 chocolate chip cookies, but could not help myself when it came to brownies.
Why do you think a person can have excellent self-control when it comes to foods that they love, but less control over foods that they just like? And why does that lack of self-control only kick in with two kinds of foods and only after they've been eaten?
I don't think you're right, but I'm willing to consider the possibility.
Bear in mind that I didn't actually give in and eat the stuff. I just kept craving it. So, there is self-control in that regard.
I don't have it off-hand, but I recall at least one study that showed that increasing the variety of foods available to a person increases the chance they'll eat more.
Somewhat related to that last bit--the people on the National Weight Control Registry tend to eat a limited variety of food.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15919842?dopt=Abstract
0 -
Food is definitely addictive. Especially high calorie foods like carbs, especially sugar. Studies have been done on brain activity and food. High calorie food lights up the 'pleasure' areas in your brain, in exactly the same way cocaine does. Trouble is the more you do it the bigger the 'hit' you need as you build up a tolerance. It's not fair to say that emotional addiction to food doesn't count. There is a chemical reaction in your brain that gives you pleasure when you eat and people use food to find this. It's basic substance abuse. And if anyone on here has cut the carbs cold turkey before you know how rubbish you feel for a few days so yes it definitely is addictive.
Your body resonates the same dopamine response with anything enjoyable.. sex, petting animals, etc..
Just because your body releases dopamine, doesn't mean you are addicted, it means you enjoy it.
No. It is not pleasurable to not being able to stop doing something even though your health is at stake from it. You want to stop, but the substance seems to be stronger than you.
Personally I think drugs and alcohol aren't addicitve, it's just a matter of lack of self control. Because I've never had a problem with those things.0 -
RockstarWilson wrote: »So... Even though we do not psychologically yearn coffee as much as we physically do, it is an addiction.
I'm not sure what you are saying here, but caffeine is a drug that can create a dependence, yes, although the withdrawal symptoms aren't particularly hard to deal with and not dangerous. Dependence does not equal addiction. Sugar or carbs do not create a dependence, so they are not analogous. (However, when people find quitting pop difficult and speak of physical symptoms like low energy and headaches, it's usually due to the caffeine.)However, psychologically desiring certain food while having emotional/behavioral issues about it is not?
Well, OP distinguished addiction from emotional eating in her first post, and I'd say yes, that humans are prone to emotional issues and disordered thinking about food quite often does not mean that this is an "addiction." The word is being used incorrectly, and I think that distracts from a more productive way of thinking about the specific issues the person is having.I have this thing where I will have to start the meal with the show I watch when watching tv while eating. I am not sure if that is emotional or the logical side of the brain of mine thinking linearly.
Sounds like a habit--quite common, and in all areas of life, not just food. Significant, but not addiction, although it can make addiction harder to kick.
For example, there are lots of things I used to do while drinking wine. Even now sometimes when I do them I will have a strong desire to drink wine (which I don't anymore). That itself is not addiction, although they are stumbling blocks when working on an addiction--things to be aware of and to watch out for.
Again, that we have these things with things that are NOT addictions -- when I am at work late at night and no one else is there, the situation in which I used to eat lots and lots of snacks, I REALLY want to eat sometimes, because my mind thinks this is a situation in which I do that. Not an addiction, not even tired to specific foods (although it certainly could be). Does it create a challenge and a desire to eat? Sure.What about heavier people? Why do they continue to get larger and larger?
It varies; there are lots of reasons and usually a combination of them.
One big overarching issue is that humans are often quite bad at properly valuing short term pleasure vs. long term reward in the moment.But shift the paradigm to the non-drug addict and compare. If that person has a lack of self control in their life, and use food as something to latch onto that makes them forget about things and feel good, is that different than the alcoholic going to the bar?
IMO, very different, yes. My experience is that food can certainly be used to bury emotions and avoid dealing with them as can alcohol--and sometimes even as a substitution for alcohol--but the physical nature of this isn't the same. I think that may be less the case when we are talking about true binge eating disorder or the rare cases of eating addiction (which is NOT being addicted to some foodstuff that is chemically basically the same as many others that don't affect you that way). With the food I think the key aspect of it for most people is the habit stuff I mentioned above, as well as the feeling that the short term pleasure is deserved and needed and a failure to trust the long term rewards if they don't eat the food. With alcohol it goes beyond that.0 -
My quote:But shift the paradigm to the non-drug addict and compare. If that person has a lack of self control in their life, and use food as something to latch onto that makes them forget about things and feel good, is that different than the alcoholic going to the bar?
Quoting LemurCat:
IMO, very different, yes. My experience is that food can certainly be used to bury emotions and avoid dealing with them as can alcohol--and sometimes even as a substitution for alcohol--but the physical nature of this isn't the same. I think that may be less the case when we are talking about true binge eating disorder or the rare cases of eating addiction (which is NOT being addicted to some foodstuff that is chemically basically the same as many others that don't affect you that way). With the food I think the key aspect of it for most people is the habit stuff I mentioned above, as well as the feeling that the short term pleasure is deserved and needed and a failure to trust the long term rewards if they don't eat the food. With alcohol it goes beyond that.[/quote]
My post:
I agree, the physicality of it is different as the overall effects are not the same, but when this behavior has the same patterns (and as I mentioned in my op, it is NOT to the same degree) can it not be considered an addiction as a coping strategy, much like alcohol is? Maybe they dont crave the food itself, but the actual satisfaction and relief the food gives? Could those parts of the brain not be activated via the same neuropathways (I.e. Consumption, digestion, neurological response)?
I think if food is an addiction for some people, it is not so much about the food as much as the neurological response to the food. Same as alcohol, in my opinion. A lot of people become alcoholics because of hard issues in their lives, and when they spend their last dimes on booze instead of things they need, they are labeled as such. The non-drinker may turn to food in this scenario, and although may not have as much money problems, but will be less caring about their health and self esteem. And when self esteem goes down....watch out. I would venture to say that maybe that could lead to bigger things...like drinking.0 -
RockstarWilson wrote: »I agree, the physicality of it is different as the overall effects are not the same, but when this behavior has the same patterns (and as I mentioned in my op, it is NOT to the same degree) can it not be considered an addiction as a coping strategy, much like alcohol is?
I don't think alcoholism can be classified as an addiction simply because alcohol can be abused, used as part of a dysfunctional coping mechanism or the like. That's the point I was trying to make by contrasting habitual associations and addiction.Maybe they dont crave the food itself, but the actual satisfaction and relief the food gives? Could those parts of the brain not be activated via the same neuropathways (I.e. Consumption, digestion, neurological response)?
I think there's something of a continuum rather than a hard break, but I'd be inclined to say BED is somewhat similar to an alcohol or drug addiction in some ways, since it's a compulsion, not merely a dysfunctional form of self comfort. But overeating for the pleasure of it or simply because of a craving isn't the same thing, even if one is self comforting. (Again, OP made the same distinction by excluding emotional eating, which is what you seem to be talking about.)I think if food is an addiction for some people, it is not so much about the food as much as the neurological response to the food.
I actually don't think it has anything to do with the food (other than that food is pleasurable). I think it's about the act of eating and as such is probably more like a sex addiction (if there is such a thing--I'm undecided). And again I think it's pretty rare and not this "oh, I'm addicted to cookies" stuff you get endlessly on MFP.A lot of people become alcoholics because of hard issues in their lives
Not really true. People are probably more willing to abuse alcohol and drugs (whether they are addicted or not) and more apt to not care when their lives otherwise suck or they are running away from emotions, but I think alcoholism is about a physiological response to alcohol (as well as cultural and familial patterns that predispose one). Contrary to popular opinion, one need not have deep-seated emotional issues or have suffered hardship or have low self-esteem to be a drunk. Also, of course, being an alcoholic doesn't mean you can't help drinking.
One significant factor for me is that an addict has the substance (or activity, I guess) in question in the center of his or her life, such that it's the main and eventually the only thing, the love that replaces all else. This is why addicts are generally not great people--they will sacrifice what they should care about (loyalties, family, etc.) to the addiction. I don't think this is remotely true for people who simply overeat, even when they feel somewhat out of control in their eating. Human beings simply aren't going to feel in control all the time when it comes to our ability to rationally make decisions regarding short and long term rewards, balancing reason vs. desire/instinct and so on. I don't think it makes sense or is remotely accurate to conceptualize all areas where reason (or longer term goals) doesn't seem to win out as addiction. If that were the case, anyone who blew off an assignment to watch TV or hang out with friends or go to a party is an addict. No, they are just focusing on shorter term/immediate pleasure or letting desire outweigh a more theoretical goal.
(I think this is why finding ways to make the results of weight loss seem more real and believable can make the sacrifices so much easier, even for those who will say they aren't in control of their eating choices.)0 -
I watched a video this morning where UCSF addiction researcher Laura A. Schmidt answers the question: Is sugar addictive? She says the jury is still out, research is ongoing (for sugar and other hyper palatable foods) and shares what they do know. If anyone is interested here's the short segment on addiction.0
-
I see your point, Lemurcat. A strong addiction will interrupt someone's social existence, to the point that nothing else matters. Food will not ever do that to someone, at least not to the level that it will be visibly apparent. I also agree with you that it is overstated here on the forums because a lot of those posts are made in the moment of struggle.
However, eating things "for the pleasure of it" is what got us to where we are today. Over-commercialization of crappy food persuaded people to not care about the stuff they put inside. The companies trained people to focus on how it makes them feel. If everyone ate based on the ingredients list, 2/3 of the food at the supermarket would remain on the shelves, and companies would go bankrupt. I mean, just look at the yogurt ingredients from Yoplait. Who wants to get a nice spoonful of Red 40 or Yellow 6? Can the fruits themselves not provide enough color to the white yogurt?
So if you take emotional and life issues completely out of it....humans are still prone to be persuaded one way or the other. 2/3 of America is overweight/obese because they (me included) have been allowed to be persuaded to not pay attention to the calories, and government intervention has been pretty much useless to this point. So it may not be an outright addiction much like cigarettes or drugs, but from an abstract point of view, it still could be. The tides are a-changing, people are getting more educated, and in the coming decades you will see a change in the statistics. But it will take twice as long to change when talking about numbers so astronomical.
Thank you for pointing out my misdirected thoughts reflecting on eating as a directly dependent variable instead of an independent one.
To relate this to something, I am a compulsive eater when it comes to sugary foods. I will eat cookies the same exact way I will eat oranges or grapefruits or pineapples. I will have 2-3 grapefruits in one sitting, just as I will eat the ENTIRE pineapple. Two hours later, I am hungry again. Eating those things causes me to overconsume. Therefore, I limit my sugar intake of any form. Sugar impedes my progress unless I use it as a tool, such as for muscle restoration. But if my senses are alerted to things...it gets harder to control, thats for damn sure.0 -
RockstarWilson wrote: »2/3 of America is overweight/obese because they (me included) have been allowed to be persuaded to not pay attention to the calories...
I disagree with that statement. Pretty strongly, in fact.
You can attribute the first 10 pounds of excess fat to that, maybe. Everything after that - every single pound - is a choice made by the person getting fat.
0 -
RockstarWilson wrote: »2/3 of America is overweight/obese because they (me included) have been allowed to be persuaded to not pay attention to the calories...
I disagree with that statement. Pretty strongly, in fact.
You can attribute the first 10 pounds of excess fat to that, maybe. Everything after that - every single pound - is a choice made by the person getting fat.
Can you elaborate a little? What would justify that being solely the case?0 -
RockstarWilson wrote: »RockstarWilson wrote: »2/3 of America is overweight/obese because they (me included) have been allowed to be persuaded to not pay attention to the calories...
I disagree with that statement. Pretty strongly, in fact.
You can attribute the first 10 pounds of excess fat to that, maybe. Everything after that - every single pound - is a choice made by the person getting fat.
Can you elaborate a little? What would justify that being solely the case?
Because 10 pounds is noticeable every time you put on a pair of jeans. Saying (in effect) food "snuck up on me" only works until the first time you have to go out shopping to upsize your wardrobe.
From that point on, it's on the eater, not on someone "persuading" them to eat.
0 -
I'm not sure what you're asking. If you're asking me to justify my choice, I'm not going to do that for obvious reasons.RockstarWilson wrote: »RockstarWilson wrote: »2/3 of America is overweight/obese because they (me included) have been allowed to be persuaded to not pay attention to the calories...
I disagree with that statement. Pretty strongly, in fact.
You can attribute the first 10 pounds of excess fat to that, maybe. Everything after that - every single pound - is a choice made by the person getting fat.
Can you elaborate a little? What would justify that being solely the case?
If you're asking what it is that makes me crave it after I've eaten it, I don't know. All I know is that eating more just satisfies it for a little bit, then it comes back. Not eating more means it just goes on. Either way, it continues until I sleep. After I've slept, it's all good. The stuff can sit in the fridge and mold for all I care. But if I eat some, I will crave more until I sleep.
Again, this is not something I'd expected. I didn't look for it. I noticed it because it was happening, not vice-versa.
I am a little interested in the Why, but not enough to ask someone to find out if anyone knows. I noticed it, cut it out and the annoyance is over, so I'm good, KWIM?
0 -
Sorry, Kalikel, the question was intended for Mr Knight. I did not know your quote was tagged on.
Mr Knight, so if a person grows a clothing size, then they are always actively saying, "yes, I want to be heavier because it is my choice"? I think that is part of it, because we actively weigh pros and cons all the time. Eating food that will cause us to overeat overall is definitely outweighed by the pleasure of eating the food. Doesn't that active choice have to stem from some way of thinking somewhere? The choice to say "I am eating this with no control even though I know it will possibly make me gain weight" does not come to be without outside influence. It cant. It is a sociological concept, and most people are a product of their environment. How many times do we enact something from a television show, such as a phrase or action that gets laughs? It is pop culture. How is food any different? So, to say that people cannot be persuaded because something changes, and once it changes the decisions of that person are completely self-manifested is false, in my opinion. That is because human behavior is constantly being altered by outside influence. The way we speak, the interests we have, the things we do and even the way we think are always, to some degree, influenced by the environment, despite new education (i.e. Knowledge that more food = bigger pants).0 -
It is all about power. How much power does one have over their environmental influences? As for me, I -think- I have a lot. Of course, that may be because I don't have a huge social life and am infatuated with education, whereby making this power a paradoxical product of the environment itself, but a lot of my actions are based on my education about the nature of them. What will this action do and how will it affect other people's environment?0
-
I think lots of people keep eating too much despite knowing they need to lose weight because they are in denial about how much they are eating, weight gain is gradual enough that they figure it's a choice between eating whatever and staying as is or having to deprive themselves of all pleasures to maintain a thin figure (one reason why I think it's good to know you can control calories while having a non-diety way of eating), or it's hard to think that one eating decision is going to make that much difference. This last is that broader human difficulty of measuring longterm reward vs. shortterm pleasure that I mentioned above.
This is also why so many people think a really hardcore 2 week fad diet is more deal-with-able than 6 months of a moderate deficit. Results in 2 weeks is something they can imagine and that feels concrete, whereas 6 months from now is so far away it becomes hard to give it weight when deciding whether or not to eat a cookie--it's easy to think that today and tomorrow are just the same.
Beyond this, lots of people really don't understand or believe that changing their eating will change the way they look. When I first got fat (after not having to think about my weight until my late 20s), I was able to read about how it worked and had faith in science and all that, and yet even so I didn't really believe I could change how I looked just by diet and exercise (I know that sounds weird). I had to convince myself to do it because I'd be healthy, at least, and then when I started losing that made it easy to stay motivated. But before then I was someone who thought the fad diets sounded easier (although I never was motivated enough to try one).0 -
That is great input, Lemur. ..It is very hard for the human mind to conceive long term results. I catch myself doing this all the time, thinking in short time frames, like "It has to happen now!" I haven't a clue as to why that is the case.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions