Sugar and carb addiction addiction
Options
Replies
-
hahahahahahahahh the crap people write.0
-
tincanonastring wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
What's really unhelpful is feeding someone's misguided beliefs about a food in order to protect his feels.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »thorsmom01 wrote: »Love this post ! It should be a sticky !
Geez, I sure hope MFP wouldn't make such a mocking post a sticky.
I injected humor into my writing because that is my style and what I think of as entertaining on what can otherwise be a rather dry subject (neurobiology) for most people. I don't consider disagreeing with people the same as mocking. I was pretty clear in the outset of the writing, none of this is to say foods can't be a problem for people, nor that they can need help, I just find it unhelpful to call a person an addict and consider it akin to being on cocaine.
Humor about someone else's problem is certainly close to mocking. And is likely to be found unhelpful by all who feel addicted to a food.
Yes, that is likely true. But mocking or humor at their perception isn't the only way to tell someone they are mistaken.
The downfall of our society began when everyone decided that self-esteem needed protection, and enabling began. Everyone sat back and said, "Nothing is my fault," and everyone got a medal for effort. No one has to actually put in effort for success because everyone deserves recognition just for showing up, and a pat on the head. Winners get the same as everyone else, so there's no reward for actual effort. Anyone with a problem doesn't have to take any responsibility for it, because they can just point a finger to some issue in the past that caused it, and continue whatever bad behavior makes them feel better and helps them forget about it.
Seen Wall-E? That's humanity's future, if no one steps up and starts making people taking some responsibility for their actions, and face the fact that sometimes life is hard.
being an addict is independent of self esteem. you can be an addict and have low self esteem but the two are not mutually inclusive. no one is asking you to give them warm milk and rub their belly
As I'm not accepting food, sex or gambling 'addiction' as such.... I'm clarifying my earlier point. Addiction to a substance like drugs is different than using something to cover up your need to hide from something difficult in your life, which is what people who overeat, use sex or gambling excessively are doing. There's usually an underlying reason people have that behavior.
there is often an underlying reason to using the illicit drug as well.
what counts as an addiction to me: has my/your/one's life become unmanageable because of it. do you realize this and realize you have little power over your ability to the cessation of said thing? addictions treated at least two sided, if not three sided are more likely to succeed. I've heard another person say that their addiction is an abnormal response to a substance/action.
one can relapse at any time. people have thrown away 40 years sober for a beer and then another and another. it's not like they didn't realize the destructive nature of alcohol on their lives.
Minimizing an issue because you don't feel like it's valid, doesn't make it any less problematic for the people in the midst of this struggle. and doesn't keep it from killing people who do not make a change in their lives
that being said. I do feel like "addiction" is thrown around to easily.
Difference being that addiction to a substance - relapse happens because of the addiction itself, not because of the underlying cause. Once you treat the cause, for food/sex/gambling/etc, you often have a cure. People with emotional trauma can be treated and cured. Narcotics and alcoholic addictions are lifelong battles that can be in remission, but typically those people when exposed to their substance, relapse due to the physical properties of the addiction itself. We are talking about substances, in the case of some narcotics, that are addictive the first time they are used. To compare that level of addiction to say, the comfort of eating a burrito for emotional distress is insulting to the drug addict. One is not like the other. Both do need to be treated, but completely differently. And one is addiction, the other is not.
who is to say that they are eating it for emotional support any more than the heroin addict had an abusive childhood and started because of that.
the point is that both people could be classified as a person who reacts abnormally to something.
as some addicts say, their drug of choice is more. some brains are just wired differently
That's the thing though. Despite us all wanting to be special flowers, our brains do not, in fact, react the same way to food as they do to drugs. "Abnormal reaction" to past trauma does not mean someone is addicted. That's an important distinction.
our brains can in fact react the same live science
no emotional eating does not equal addiction but neither does emotional drug abuse. those are independent-ish of the abuse of an object/action.
some people abuse things, but that in and of itself is not addiction...
Neurochemically, the bolded bit does not appear to be the case.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Ok, so you're a sugar addict or food addict.
What's the solution?
redefining your relationship with the food. food is fuel. what sort of fuel do you want to use in your engine?
also realizing food is neither good or bad and just is. food does not care how you feel. there is a lot of foot work and a lot of retraining that happens from my understanding
Seems a reasonable way to approach it for lots of people.
Also like it's not an addiction but an emotional attachment or dysfunction.
addiction means so many things to so many people it's so hard to take it for it's denotative meaning :the fact or condition of being physically and mentally dependent on a particular substance, and unable to stop taking it without incurring adverse effects, to a particular substance, thing, or activity.
I believe it is a dyfunction. a malfunctioning of a "normal" system. an irregularity. I look at it like a disorder like depression. brain doesn't work the same way for a person as it does for the general population
Logically, that's not going to work when it comes to things like food and sex. Things like drugs and alcohol are not natural and necessary to the body to function, and can be given up without adverse reactions.
Addiction to food? Well, technically we could say we're all addicted to food, because we need it to live, and crave it if we try to go without it for too long. I'm not going to buy into an addiction to a substance that the body needs and can't be given up. Tell me next you're addicted to water. The mind is a powerful thing and can develop an unnatural relationship with virtually anything, and that relationship needs to be addressed through therapy. That doesn't make it an addiction. A stalker isn't 'addicted' to his or her victim.0 -
Drugs and alcohol absolutely *are* natural.
0 -
I wrote up an a whole article about why those kind of articles are oversimplified and represent journalism that doesn't understand the subject. You are now replying by linking to more of the same science. I know it is long, but have you read the OP? I promise, I tried (not necessarily succeeded) to put in humor to make it a better read. I probably shouldn't put in that tried, it is self-deprecating, which means I'm mocking myself.tincanonastring wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
What's really unhelpful is feeding someone's misguided beliefs about a food in order to protect his feels.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »thorsmom01 wrote: »Love this post ! It should be a sticky !
Geez, I sure hope MFP wouldn't make such a mocking post a sticky.
I injected humor into my writing because that is my style and what I think of as entertaining on what can otherwise be a rather dry subject (neurobiology) for most people. I don't consider disagreeing with people the same as mocking. I was pretty clear in the outset of the writing, none of this is to say foods can't be a problem for people, nor that they can need help, I just find it unhelpful to call a person an addict and consider it akin to being on cocaine.
Humor about someone else's problem is certainly close to mocking. And is likely to be found unhelpful by all who feel addicted to a food.
Yes, that is likely true. But mocking or humor at their perception isn't the only way to tell someone they are mistaken.
The downfall of our society began when everyone decided that self-esteem needed protection, and enabling began. Everyone sat back and said, "Nothing is my fault," and everyone got a medal for effort. No one has to actually put in effort for success because everyone deserves recognition just for showing up, and a pat on the head. Winners get the same as everyone else, so there's no reward for actual effort. Anyone with a problem doesn't have to take any responsibility for it, because they can just point a finger to some issue in the past that caused it, and continue whatever bad behavior makes them feel better and helps them forget about it.
Seen Wall-E? That's humanity's future, if no one steps up and starts making people taking some responsibility for their actions, and face the fact that sometimes life is hard.
being an addict is independent of self esteem. you can be an addict and have low self esteem but the two are not mutually inclusive. no one is asking you to give them warm milk and rub their belly
As I'm not accepting food, sex or gambling 'addiction' as such.... I'm clarifying my earlier point. Addiction to a substance like drugs is different than using something to cover up your need to hide from something difficult in your life, which is what people who overeat, use sex or gambling excessively are doing. There's usually an underlying reason people have that behavior.
there is often an underlying reason to using the illicit drug as well.
what counts as an addiction to me: has my/your/one's life become unmanageable because of it. do you realize this and realize you have little power over your ability to the cessation of said thing? addictions treated at least two sided, if not three sided are more likely to succeed. I've heard another person say that their addiction is an abnormal response to a substance/action.
one can relapse at any time. people have thrown away 40 years sober for a beer and then another and another. it's not like they didn't realize the destructive nature of alcohol on their lives.
Minimizing an issue because you don't feel like it's valid, doesn't make it any less problematic for the people in the midst of this struggle. and doesn't keep it from killing people who do not make a change in their lives
that being said. I do feel like "addiction" is thrown around to easily.
Difference being that addiction to a substance - relapse happens because of the addiction itself, not because of the underlying cause. Once you treat the cause, for food/sex/gambling/etc, you often have a cure. People with emotional trauma can be treated and cured. Narcotics and alcoholic addictions are lifelong battles that can be in remission, but typically those people when exposed to their substance, relapse due to the physical properties of the addiction itself. We are talking about substances, in the case of some narcotics, that are addictive the first time they are used. To compare that level of addiction to say, the comfort of eating a burrito for emotional distress is insulting to the drug addict. One is not like the other. Both do need to be treated, but completely differently. And one is addiction, the other is not.
who is to say that they are eating it for emotional support any more than the heroin addict had an abusive childhood and started because of that.
the point is that both people could be classified as a person who reacts abnormally to something.
as some addicts say, their drug of choice is more. some brains are just wired differently
That's the thing though. Despite us all wanting to be special flowers, our brains do not, in fact, react the same way to food as they do to drugs. "Abnormal reaction" to past trauma does not mean someone is addicted. That's an important distinction.
our brains can in fact react the same live science
no emotional eating does not equal addiction but neither does emotional drug abuse. those are independent-ish of the abuse of an object/action.
some people abuse things, but that in and of itself is not addiction...0 -
it's about the dopamine.
also note in the livescience where it said "A 2011 study found that the brains of people with "food addiction" reacted to junk food the same way that the brains of people with drug addictions react to drugs."
that in and of itself does not make one addicted per se but it can lead to pathological obsesity which they say "There are clear similarities between pathological obesity that involves uncontrolled eating, and addictions," London said." also "People who are obese have fewer dopamine receptors in a brain region called the striatum, which is also a characteristic of people who are addicted to drugs, London said." Also, in the summary, "But a small percentage of people may truly become addicted, experiencing the type of loss of control around food that is characteristic of addiction, Frascella said."
and again I will say that I believe people in general use addiction too lightly
I don't follow with all of what this post says but I do agree with some of the alignments. I find that it is even more relevant as the author is a recovering person
similarities0 -
it's about the dopamine.
also note in the livescience where it said "A 2011 study found that the brains of people with "food addiction" reacted to junk food the same way that the brains of people with drug addictions react to drugs."
that in and of itself does not make one addicted per se but it can lead to pathological obsesity which they say "There are clear similarities between pathological obesity that involves uncontrolled eating, and addictions," London said." also "People who are obese have fewer dopamine receptors in a brain region called the striatum, which is also a characteristic of people who are addicted to drugs, London said." Also, in the summary, "But a small percentage of people may truly become addicted, experiencing the type of loss of control around food that is characteristic of addiction, Frascella said."
and again I will say that I believe people in general use addiction too lightly
I don't follow with all of what this post says but I do agree with some of the alignments. I find that it is even more relevant as the author is a recovering person
similarities
Saying that the reaction of the brain to the food (it's all about the dopamine) qualifies food reception in the body as an addiction is ridiculous. Scans show chemical reactions in the brain when people pet puppies, see each other, smell certain scents, hear certain music.... are all those things addictions as well? And the level shouldn't matter, either. Composers have higher levels of chemicals when music is heard than the common layperson, are they music addicts? I don't think so. It just makes them more adept at composing music.
I find it less relevant that the author is a recovering person. Of course he's going to want his data to prove the theory that he believes- that he was an addict and helpless to control himself.0 -
it's about the dopamine.
also note in the livescience where it said "A 2011 study found that the brains of people with "food addiction" reacted to junk food the same way that the brains of people with drug addictions react to drugs."
that in and of itself does not make one addicted per se but it can lead to pathological obsesity which they say "There are clear similarities between pathological obesity that involves uncontrolled eating, and addictions," London said." also "People who are obese have fewer dopamine receptors in a brain region called the striatum, which is also a characteristic of people who are addicted to drugs, London said." Also, in the summary, "But a small percentage of people may truly become addicted, experiencing the type of loss of control around food that is characteristic of addiction, Frascella said."
and again I will say that I believe people in general use addiction too lightly
I don't follow with all of what this post says but I do agree with some of the alignments. I find that it is even more relevant as the author is a recovering person
similarities
In this case, though, words matter and there's a big dfference between similar to and the same when it comes to addiction and uncontrolled eating.
The dopamine thing was addressed in the OP and is the entire basis for this post.0 -
it's about the dopamine.
also note in the livescience where it said "A 2011 study found that the brains of people with "food addiction" reacted to junk food the same way that the brains of people with drug addictions react to drugs."
that in and of itself does not make one addicted per se but it can lead to pathological obsesity which they say "There are clear similarities between pathological obesity that involves uncontrolled eating, and addictions," London said." also "People who are obese have fewer dopamine receptors in a brain region called the striatum, which is also a characteristic of people who are addicted to drugs, London said." Also, in the summary, "But a small percentage of people may truly become addicted, experiencing the type of loss of control around food that is characteristic of addiction, Frascella said."
and again I will say that I believe people in general use addiction too lightly
I don't follow with all of what this post says but I do agree with some of the alignments. I find that it is even more relevant as the author is a recovering person
similarities
Everything that causes reward anticipation spikes dopamine. If you read my OP, you'd see that dogs that are trained to salivate when they hear a bell also have dopamine spike when they hear the bell. So now do we say food is liking hearing bells?
I also explained, in cocaine, your brain's dopamine remains elevated, as does serotonin, and neuropenphrine. This all happens AFTER the drug is taken.
When you eat, your brain increases in dopamine BEFORE eating. When eating, you get a serotonin rise that actually supresses the dopamine effect. It is an evolved feedback loop to get people to stop searching for food while it is available.0 -
I understand that a release in and of itself does not mean addiction. consider the post as a whole instead of cherry picking
"But a small percentage of people may truly become addicted, experiencing the type of loss of control around food that is characteristic of addiction, Frascella said."
in normal people, normal things happen in their brains, but for some people their brains react abnormally. and this can be/lead to addiction.
0 -
You're still not getting it. The dopamine rising happens in food because it is viewed as a reward. This happens to an extent for almost all humans, and in fact nearly all mammals. It also lowers afterwards.I understand that a release in and of itself does not mean addiction. consider the post as a whole instead of cherry picking
"But a small percentage of people may truly become addicted, experiencing the type of loss of control around food that is characteristic of addiction, Frascella said."
in normal people, normal things happen in their brains, but for some people their brains react abnormally. and this can be/lead to addiction.
Cocaine isn't just anticipation. It takes the systems that remove dopamine from the brain, and it turns them off to force it to stay incredibly high. It is chemically, not just biologically, forcing dopamine to rise.
To say food is like cocaine is to say prozac is like happiness.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Ok, so you're a sugar addict or food addict.
What's the solution?
redefining your relationship with the food. food is fuel. what sort of fuel do you want to use in your engine?
also realizing food is neither good or bad and just is. food does not care how you feel. there is a lot of foot work and a lot of retraining that happens from my understanding
Seems a reasonable way to approach it for lots of people.
Also like it's not an addiction but an emotional attachment or dysfunction.
addiction means so many things to so many people it's so hard to take it for it's denotative meaning :the fact or condition of being physically and mentally dependent on a particular substance, and unable to stop taking it without incurring adverse effects, to a particular substance, thing, or activity.
I believe it is a dyfunction. a malfunctioning of a "normal" system. an irregularity. I look at it like a disorder like depression. brain doesn't work the same way for a person as it does for the general population
One of my problem with the addiction language in the food context is that most of the time we are talking about things that are quite common and normal. For example, my example upthread of someone having a habit of grabbing a bag of cookies while watching TV (because they weren't concerned about calories) and later wanting to eat less after developing a habit. The addiction thing makes them assume they aren't "normal," that they are eating these cookies because there's something wrong with them, they are different from others, when in fact they are responding in a normal human way to the circumstances and should focus on the habit they've built up and ways in which they are making things hard for themselves (eating out of the bag).0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
I've weighed as much as 310 lb in my life, and was 285 before I started losing weight this time around. I'm not sure how this is someone else's problem. I'm very much not mocking people for having a hard time with losing weight or issues of losing weight. What I will mock is the concept that comparing food to cocaine is true because of a gross misunderstanding of brain scans, and I will definitely mock people who think this will actually help people lose weight by treating food as an addiction akin to cocaine instead of as a unique problem.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »thorsmom01 wrote: »Love this post ! It should be a sticky !
Geez, I sure hope MFP wouldn't make such a mocking post a sticky.
I injected humor into my writing because that is my style and what I think of as entertaining on what can otherwise be a rather dry subject (neurobiology) for most people. I don't consider disagreeing with people the same as mocking. I was pretty clear in the outset of the writing, none of this is to say foods can't be a problem for people, nor that they can need help, I just find it unhelpful to call a person an addict and consider it akin to being on cocaine.
Humor about someone else's problem is certainly close to mocking. And is likely to be found unhelpful by all who feel addicted to a food.
My understanding is that mocking is against MFP forum rules regardless of the reason.
No one is mocking. Could you please point out where this occurred if you insist on continuing to bring this up?
The poster specifically said "...and I will definitely mock people who..."lemurcat12 wrote:Are people seriously at the point where mocking a concept is equated with mocking the people who buy into that concept?
See above...That's no longer just a....concept.
This is what the poster said:I'm very much not mocking people for having a hard time with losing weight or issues of losing weight. What I will mock is the concept that comparing food to cocaine is true because of a gross misunderstanding of brain scans, and I will definitely mock people who think this will actually help people lose weight by treating food as an addiction akin to cocaine instead of as a unique problem.
He's mocking the concept.
The people he then goes on to say he's mocking (which I skimmed by, admittedly) are NOT those struggling, as was claimed, but those pretending that promotion of a false idea is justifiable on the grounds that it is helpful to those struggling.0 -
I always ask this question and get no answers. If addiction to sugar ( or any food substance) is a true addiction, when the food substance is not available do the "addicted" seek it in other forms? Say if you're addicted to sugar, and it's the middle of the night and you're out of sweets, do you start drinking pasta sauce and salad dressings to get your "fix"? Do you pour yourself a cup of BBQ sauce? Why do some of the people who think they are addicted to sugar feel that fruits are not a suitable replacement for the "real thing" when dose of sugar they provide can be comparable to the real thing? I know I would smoke the most disgusting brand of cigarettes if I had nothing else available, while complaining how disgusting it is and then ask for a second cigarette after a while (that actually happened).0
-
For me, I am not ready to say food addiction does not exist, however I do believe it is very rare even though every 2.2 seconds a new thread is started where someone claims to be a food or sugar or carb addict. I find that highly doubtful. And if you do think you are an addict, you should be in treatment. If I look at the diagnostic criteria for substance dependence, I would find it highly unlikely that most people who are overweight would meet the qualifications.
This is exactly how I feel.
I suspect that some with compulsive overeating issues (the people who get to 500 lbs or so) and also some with binge eating disorder have an "eating addiction" (NOT really a food addiction and certainly not a sugar addiction) that is similar to other activity-based addictions (like gambling). I think it's a horrible thing, from the accounts I've read from people who struggled with those. Sounds very similar to other addictions, to me.
The issues with overeating or control over specific foods that prompt the 500 threads a day here claiming "addiction" do not. And I do find it rather insensitive at best to claim it's just like (or often "worse") a heroin addiction, although as I explained above I am trying to come around to the idea that those who make such claims are often the victims of the diet industry and diet gurus current need to portray relatively normal human behavior as "addiction" that requires "treatment" (specifically, their diets or "detoxes" or "cleanses").
I do think it's harmful and distracts from a sensible discussion of what's really going on in a particular case.0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »If addiction to sugar ( or any food substance) is a true addiction, when the food substance is not available do the "addicted" seek it in other forms?
Yes, they do. They'll make sugar sandwiches, eat syrup out of the bottle, go in the trash and eat food they threw away so they wouldn't eat it, eat their children's snacks, steal money from their elderly parents bank account to buy secret food... the examples are endless if you listen.
That doesn't automatically make it an addiction but it does check off some of the criteria for addiction and there are recovering drug addicts who have said that for them the feelings and behaviors were exactly the same.
0 -
If that were actually the case, we would have never figured out how to produce our own version of the "natural" stuff.
Alcohol is natural.
Getting drunk on alcohol is natural.
Intentionally seeking out alcohol to get drunk is natural.
I still don't understand what the point of this discussion is. Whether someone does or doesn't consider themselves a sugar addict, the course of action to deal with it is the same.
So really, what difference does it make?
0 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »If addiction to sugar ( or any food substance) is a true addiction, when the food substance is not available do the "addicted" seek it in other forms?
Yes, they do. They'll make sugar sandwiches, eat syrup out of the bottle, go in the trash and eat food they threw away so they wouldn't eat it, eat their children's snacks, steal money from their elderly parents bank account to buy secret food... the examples are endless if you listen.
That doesn't automatically make it an addiction but it does check off some of the criteria for addiction and there are recovering drug addicts who have said that for them the feelings and behaviors were exactly the same.
I understand what you are saying. This is no doubt disordered behaviour. But all the things you mentioned are sweet and taste good. My question was that do they consider it an addiction to the taste or to the substance itself? Say, would sugar pills provide some relief the way an e-cig would?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 914 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions