Sugar and carb addiction addiction
Replies
-
tincanonastring wrote: »
But is that for truly wild fruit, or domesticated fruits?
I think the meaning is refined alcohol tends to be a product of civilization. Yes, fruit ferments and makes "wine", but the percent alcohol by weight/volume/calories is usually rather low.
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.
Naturally occurring fermenting fruit has an ABV of between 4-7% - higher than the alcohol content of the most popular beer in the US.
And what, exactly, is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?
I think the meaning is refined alcohol tends to be a product of civilization. Yes, fruit ferments and makes "wine", but the percent alcohol by weight/volume/calories is usually rather low.
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.
Naturally occurring fermenting fruit has an ABV of between 4-7% - higher than the alcohol content of the most popular beer in the US.
When was the last time you happened upon a batch of fermented fruit laying around in the forest?
Before asking that, you should probably know I actually live next to a forest (and I do mean a forest - not a "park with tall trees").
So the answer to your question is...yesterday morning.
Which is probably related to the fact that a momma bear has taken up temporary residence about 150m from my back door.
Lousy alcoholic bears. At least she won't ruin your home value as badly as someone setting up a bakery (or sugar lab as the addicts call them) in your area.0 -
I work in a clinic that treats opiate addiction. Without opiates the person goes into physical withdrawal. Opiates are physically addicting. From brain scans that I have seen cocaine and sugar light up the same pathways in the brain. Cocaine however is not physically addicting like opiates such as heroin. Withdrawal symptoms can include fatigue, agitation, and depressed mood. I personally happen to be insulin resistant. When I went on a LCHF diet I went through the same withdrawal symptoms that a cocaine addict might experience. Now I feel great and the thought of my old way of eating has no appeal to me. Is sugar addicting? From my personal experience with opiate addicts and my own diet conundrums sugar is not physically addicting but for certain people it can be difficult to control. The best thing to do for me personally is to avoid it. I am not an addict but my physiology doesn't react well to it.
Sounds a lot like the misconceptions I explained in the first post. It is a bit long, but actually addresses the problems with what you wrote.
Cocaine does not act like food simply because dopamine is involved in both. The neurotransmitter oxytocin is released both during breast feeding and sexual arousal, but no one goes around comparing the two - well other than some very specific fetishists.0 -
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.
0 -
...or eating right of the sugar bowl/bag.amusedmonkey wrote: »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 -
Bump.0
-
Second – I’ll admit, I’m not a neuroscientist
----
you don't say.0 -
I work in a clinic that treats opiate addiction. Without opiates the person goes into physical withdrawal. Opiates are physically addicting. From brain scans that I have seen cocaine and sugar light up the same pathways in the brain. Cocaine however is not physically addicting like opiates such as heroin. Withdrawal symptoms can include fatigue, agitation, and depressed mood. I personally happen to be insulin resistant. When I went on a LCHF diet I went through the same withdrawal symptoms that a cocaine addict might experience. Now I feel great and the thought of my old way of eating has no appeal to me. Is sugar addicting? From my personal experience with opiate addicts and my own diet conundrums sugar is not physically addicting but for certain people it can be difficult to control. The best thing to do for me personally is to avoid it. I am not an addict but my physiology doesn't react well to it.
Sounds a lot like the misconceptions I explained in the first post. It is a bit long, but actually addresses the problems with what you wrote.
Cocaine does not act like food simply because dopamine is involved in both. The neurotransmitter oxytocin is released both during breast feeding and sexual arousal, but no one goes around comparing the two - well other than some very specific fetishists.
And a whole lot of Freudians, but those don't count.
0 -
I don't think it plays much into the food addiction stuff. Protein can easily raise insulin, yet we don't hear about people talking about being addicted to chicken breast. Just quickly looking into research in the area, while insulin definitely crosses the blood-brain barrier, it doesn't actually appear to alter the brain's glucose metabolic rate. It looks like an area that is still under research.nvsmomketo wrote: »Good lesson. I would have liked to have seen you work insulin into that mix too since it can affect leptin, and alos because many people with carb issues appear to be insulin resistance to some degree.
What are your thoughts on insulin's affects on diet?
I think in terms of tying insulin, ghrelin, and leptin into neurotransmitters, they're more likely to interact with glucocorticoids like cortisol, and thus only play an indirect role.
I'll readily admit, much of my neuro-chemistry knoweldge comes from the primary angle of studying it in depression and pharmaceutical treatment, and learning about it in appetite is secondary.
You leave out one factor, the psychological, and act as if addiction is a purely physiological reaction to stimulants. There are signs that most of "addiction" is psychological, not physical. Meaning that people change their addictive behaviour if their circumstances change. E.g. there are quite a bit of heroin users, who use for a time, in a certain soclal setting, then get off it, as their circumstances change. Your view of what addiction is, is highly reductionistic. And that's where your lack of a scientific view shows itself, because to one who only owns a hammer, everything seems like a nail.
Thank you.0 -
Rodents binge and become cross-addicted (sensitization) to other substances. I binge, and I suspect if I don't watch it I could become cross-addicted, too (that last one is a new wrinkle in my years of weight loss, and not one I'm at all happy about). I don't care if you call it addiction or green eggs and ham, it's a real issue for me.
The bleh feeling and moodiness for a few days aren't that bad. But the cravings are severely annoying.
Meanwhile, the rats can definitely become addicted to sugar. So call me a rat then, like I give a rat's patootie. We're arguing semantics at this point.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2235907/
...or eating right of the sugar bowl/bag.amusedmonkey wrote: »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).
Done it. Not that long ago, in fact. If nothing better is available and I'm set off by high carb/high sugar a day or two before, I will eat it out of the bag. I prefer brown or maple sugar, though.0 -
Rodents binge and become cross-addicted (sensitization) to other substances. I binge, and I suspect if I don't watch it I could become cross-addicted, too (that last one is a new wrinkle in my years of weight loss, and not one I'm at all happy about). I don't care if you call it addiction or green eggs and ham, it's a real issue for me.
The bleh feeling and moodiness for a few days aren't that bad. But the cravings are severely annoying.
Meanwhile, the rats can definitely become addicted to sugar. So call me a rat then, like I give a rat's patootie. We're arguing semantics at this point.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2235907/
...or eating right of the sugar bowl/bag.amusedmonkey wrote: »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).
Done it. Not that long ago, in fact. If nothing better is available and I'm set off by high carb/high sugar a day or two before, I will eat it out of the bag. I prefer brown or maple sugar, though.
The rat studies all prove out. Human studies never have. Call yourself a rat then....
However, what I would challenge you to do is actually seek out therapy and delve into the reason that you turn to food rather than face whatever it is you're 'treating' by consuming sugar. Even most drug users (and yes, this is proven in numerous studies) started using their drugs of choice to treat some underlying pain or condition they couldn't face. If sugar really is your drug of choice, you're covering up something in your life you'd rather not face. You need to face that with therapy, or you'll never be able to actually get over your problem.0 -
Rodents binge and become cross-addicted (sensitization) to other substances. I binge, and I suspect if I don't watch it I could become cross-addicted, too (that last one is a new wrinkle in my years of weight loss, and not one I'm at all happy about). I don't care if you call it addiction or green eggs and ham, it's a real issue for me.
The bleh feeling and moodiness for a few days aren't that bad. But the cravings are severely annoying.
Meanwhile, the rats can definitely become addicted to sugar. So call me a rat then, like I give a rat's patootie. We're arguing semantics at this point.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2235907/
...or eating right of the sugar bowl/bag.amusedmonkey wrote: »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).
Done it. Not that long ago, in fact. If nothing better is available and I'm set off by high carb/high sugar a day or two before, I will eat it out of the bag. I prefer brown or maple sugar, though.
The rat studies all prove out. Human studies never have. Call yourself a rat then....
However, what I would challenge you to do is actually seek out therapy and delve into the reason that you turn to food rather than face whatever it is you're 'treating' by consuming sugar. Even most drug users (and yes, this is proven in numerous studies) started using their drugs of choice to treat some underlying pain or condition they couldn't face. If sugar really is your drug of choice, you're covering up something in your life you'd rather not face. You need to face that with therapy, or you'll never be able to actually get over your problem.
I already know what's going on with me emotionally and mentally. I'm bored out of my skull, I need a change of environment and meaningful work that challenges me.
Sure, I can go talk someone's ear off about it, and I will if what I'm doing now doesn't work (I won't take their drugs, though, talk about substituting one thing for another).
I even think a good shrink adept in cognitive behavioral therapy would be quite useful for me. Maybe one day I'll win the lottery and find out. Meanwhile, I'm going to do what works for me, and call it what it is, for me, and when the human studies do prove out (I'm sure they will), people can quit quibbling about what I already know from personal experience. It's not a big deal.0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »
But is that for truly wild fruit, or domesticated fruits?
I think the meaning is refined alcohol tends to be a product of civilization. Yes, fruit ferments and makes "wine", but the percent alcohol by weight/volume/calories is usually rather low.
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.
Naturally occurring fermenting fruit has an ABV of between 4-7% - higher than the alcohol content of the most popular beer in the US.
And what, exactly, is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?
I think the meaning is refined alcohol tends to be a product of civilization. Yes, fruit ferments and makes "wine", but the percent alcohol by weight/volume/calories is usually rather low.
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.
Naturally occurring fermenting fruit has an ABV of between 4-7% - higher than the alcohol content of the most popular beer in the US.
When was the last time you happened upon a batch of fermented fruit laying around in the forest?
Before asking that, you should probably know I actually live next to a forest (and I do mean a forest - not a "park with tall trees").
So the answer to your question is...yesterday morning.
Which is probably related to the fact that a momma bear has taken up temporary residence about 150m from my back door.
at a college i went to, we had trees that had fruit that would stay attached to the tree. and over winter the fruit would ferment. come spring we would have a bunch of birds wobbling around or passed out on the ground0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »
But is that for truly wild fruit, or domesticated fruits?
I think the meaning is refined alcohol tends to be a product of civilization. Yes, fruit ferments and makes "wine", but the percent alcohol by weight/volume/calories is usually rather low.
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.
Naturally occurring fermenting fruit has an ABV of between 4-7% - higher than the alcohol content of the most popular beer in the US.
And what, exactly, is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?
I think the meaning is refined alcohol tends to be a product of civilization. Yes, fruit ferments and makes "wine", but the percent alcohol by weight/volume/calories is usually rather low.
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.
Naturally occurring fermenting fruit has an ABV of between 4-7% - higher than the alcohol content of the most popular beer in the US.
When was the last time you happened upon a batch of fermented fruit laying around in the forest?
Before asking that, you should probably know I actually live next to a forest (and I do mean a forest - not a "park with tall trees").
So the answer to your question is...yesterday morning.
Which is probably related to the fact that a momma bear has taken up temporary residence about 150m from my back door.
Lousy alcoholic bears. At least she won't ruin your home value as badly as someone setting up a bakery (or sugar lab as the addicts call them) in your area.
I'm going to be in an area with bears all weekend (seen a momma and babies in the yard, not thirty feet away!). I hope if they eat that fruit that they're at least happy drunks and not mean ones!0 -
Rodents binge and become cross-addicted (sensitization) to other substances. I binge, and I suspect if I don't watch it I could become cross-addicted, too (that last one is a new wrinkle in my years of weight loss, and not one I'm at all happy about). I don't care if you call it addiction or green eggs and ham, it's a real issue for me.
The bleh feeling and moodiness for a few days aren't that bad. But the cravings are severely annoying.
Meanwhile, the rats can definitely become addicted to sugar. So call me a rat then, like I give a rat's patootie. We're arguing semantics at this point.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2235907/
...or eating right of the sugar bowl/bag.amusedmonkey wrote: »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).
Done it. Not that long ago, in fact. If nothing better is available and I'm set off by high carb/high sugar a day or two before, I will eat it out of the bag. I prefer brown or maple sugar, though.
The rat studies all prove out. Human studies never have. Call yourself a rat then....
However, what I would challenge you to do is actually seek out therapy and delve into the reason that you turn to food rather than face whatever it is you're 'treating' by consuming sugar. Even most drug users (and yes, this is proven in numerous studies) started using their drugs of choice to treat some underlying pain or condition they couldn't face. If sugar really is your drug of choice, you're covering up something in your life you'd rather not face. You need to face that with therapy, or you'll never be able to actually get over your problem.
I already know what's going on with me emotionally and mentally. I'm bored out of my skull, I need a change of environment and meaningful work that challenges me.
Sure, I can go talk someone's ear off about it, and I will if what I'm doing now doesn't work (I won't take their drugs, though, talk about substituting one thing for another).
I even think a good shrink adept in cognitive behavioral therapy would be quite useful for me. Maybe one day I'll win the lottery and find out. Meanwhile, I'm going to do what works for me, and call it what it is, for me, and when the human studies do prove out (I'm sure they will), people can quit quibbling about what I already know from personal experience. It's not a big deal.
Decades of studies haven't. they won't. Boredom doesn't make you eat out of the sugar bowl, sorry. And it certainly doesn't take the lottery to seek behavioral therapy these days. The ACA ensures that. The days of claiming inability to be insured are over.
It's obviously a big deal if you're on here posting about it. The reason I continue to debate with you about it isn't just about you, personally. It's also for all the lurkers out there who read these threads. I don't want the people who read and don't post reading your posts and thinking that it's perfectly fine to just eat out of the sugar bowl and that's just boredom, because it's not.0 -
Rodents binge and become cross-addicted (sensitization) to other substances. I binge, and I suspect if I don't watch it I could become cross-addicted, too (that last one is a new wrinkle in my years of weight loss, and not one I'm at all happy about). I don't care if you call it addiction or green eggs and ham, it's a real issue for me.
The bleh feeling and moodiness for a few days aren't that bad. But the cravings are severely annoying.
Meanwhile, the rats can definitely become addicted to sugar. So call me a rat then, like I give a rat's patootie. We're arguing semantics at this point.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2235907/
...or eating right of the sugar bowl/bag.amusedmonkey wrote: »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).
Done it. Not that long ago, in fact. If nothing better is available and I'm set off by high carb/high sugar a day or two before, I will eat it out of the bag. I prefer brown or maple sugar, though.
The rat studies all prove out. Human studies never have. Call yourself a rat then....
However, what I would challenge you to do is actually seek out therapy and delve into the reason that you turn to food rather than face whatever it is you're 'treating' by consuming sugar. Even most drug users (and yes, this is proven in numerous studies) started using their drugs of choice to treat some underlying pain or condition they couldn't face. If sugar really is your drug of choice, you're covering up something in your life you'd rather not face. You need to face that with therapy, or you'll never be able to actually get over your problem.
I already know what's going on with me emotionally and mentally. I'm bored out of my skull, I need a change of environment and meaningful work that challenges me.
Sure, I can go talk someone's ear off about it, and I will if what I'm doing now doesn't work (I won't take their drugs, though, talk about substituting one thing for another).
I even think a good shrink adept in cognitive behavioral therapy would be quite useful for me. Maybe one day I'll win the lottery and find out. Meanwhile, I'm going to do what works for me, and call it what it is, for me, and when the human studies do prove out (I'm sure they will), people can quit quibbling about what I already know from personal experience. It's not a big deal.
Decades of studies haven't. they won't. Boredom doesn't make you eat out of the sugar bowl, sorry. And it certainly doesn't take the lottery to seek behavioral therapy these days. The ACA ensures that. The days of claiming inability to be insured are over.
It's obviously a big deal if you're on here posting about it. The reason I continue to debate with you about it isn't just about you, personally. It's also for all the lurkers out there who read these threads. I don't want the people who read and don't post reading your posts and thinking that it's perfectly fine to just eat out of the sugar bowl and that's just boredom, because it's not.
My state didn't take the full ACA.
Decades of studies have shown some addictive potential, brain scans and such. We would know more if so much of science wasn't utterly corrupted by money.
It's not a big deal, I'm just practicing my written communication skills.
Also, someone is wrong on the internet. Can't be having with that.
I didn't say it was just boredom when I eat out of a sugar bowl, I specifically said it was in response to a craving from eating carbs/sugar in the days before.0 -
I don't think it plays much into the food addiction stuff. Protein can easily raise insulin, yet we don't hear about people talking about being addicted to chicken breast. Just quickly looking into research in the area, while insulin definitely crosses the blood-brain barrier, it doesn't actually appear to alter the brain's glucose metabolic rate. It looks like an area that is still under research.nvsmomketo wrote: »Good lesson. I would have liked to have seen you work insulin into that mix too since it can affect leptin, and alos because many people with carb issues appear to be insulin resistance to some degree.
What are your thoughts on insulin's affects on diet?
I think in terms of tying insulin, ghrelin, and leptin into neurotransmitters, they're more likely to interact with glucocorticoids like cortisol, and thus only play an indirect role.
I'll readily admit, much of my neuro-chemistry knoweldge comes from the primary angle of studying it in depression and pharmaceutical treatment, and learning about it in appetite is secondary.
You leave out one factor, the psychological, and act as if addiction is a purely physiological reaction to stimulants. There are signs that most of "addiction" is psychological, not physical. Meaning that people change their addictive behaviour if their circumstances change. E.g. there are quite a bit of heroin users, who use for a time, in a certain soclal setting, then get off it, as their circumstances change. Your view of what addiction is, is highly reductionistic. And that's where your lack of a scientific view shows itself, because to one who only owns a hammer, everything seems like a nail.
Thank you.
Missed notifications at first as hot thread buried them.
Except it isn't excessively reductionist because it actually addresses the problem with saying dopamine and serotonin light up when we take cocaine, and dopamine and serotonin light up when we take food, therefore cocaine and sugar are both clearly addictive substances.
I'm also not sure I said addiction is purely chemistry. But I seriously don't think food addiction is a thing, and isn't productive. Even for researchers heavily invested in the topic, the best I see is some discussion of eating addiction being a thing, similar to gambling addiction - it isn't about food, it is about eating, which is an important distinction.
As much as my view might be reductionist, part of that comes in you trying to expand its explanatory power beyond anything I assigned to it. I certainly see you scoffing at my not a neurochemist, and yet, I don't see you addressing an actual issue with the neurochemistry of it.0 -
Chiming in here to say I will repost my original addiction behavior post if need be and the excellent Eating Addiction Research Review. There's a difference between seeing foods as addictive substances and having addictive behavior with one's eating. A huge difference.
The first difference being that there's some support in the scientific community for the second paradigm in humans, but there's none for the first.0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »Chiming in here to say I will repost my original addiction behavior post if need be and the excellent Eating Addiction Research Review. There's a difference between seeing foods as addictive substances and having addictive behavior with one's eating. A huge difference.
The first difference being that there's some support in the scientific community for the second paradigm in humans, but there's none for the first.
Here is what I propose for those determined to differentiate:
Come up with one word to describe the addictive behavior. One word. We are lazy. We like to give a single word to such phenomenon. And none exists. Come up with it, get it accepted everywhere, good to go. Be glad to use it. Cocaine users, meth users, gamblers, and other users of anything but alcohol and opiates should use the new word, too. Because if we're really going to categorize, the only two substances worthy of being called addictive are alcohol and opiates. One has potentially lethal withdrawal, the other has a painful one. In fact, they should be distinguished, too.0 -
To distinguish between the common usage and things that actually physically activate things, the term often used is "physical dependence".PeachyCarol wrote: »Chiming in here to say I will repost my original addiction behavior post if need be and the excellent Eating Addiction Research Review. There's a difference between seeing foods as addictive substances and having addictive behavior with one's eating. A huge difference.
The first difference being that there's some support in the scientific community for the second paradigm in humans, but there's none for the first.
Here is what I propose for those determined to differentiate:
Come up with one word to describe the addictive behavior. One word. We are lazy. We like to give a single word to such phenomenon. And none exists. Come up with it, get it accepted everywhere, good to go. Be glad to use it. Cocaine users, meth users, gamblers, and other users of anything but alcohol and opiates should use the new word, too. Because if we're really going to categorize, the only two substances worthy of being called addictive are alcohol and opiates. One has potentially lethal withdrawal, the other has a painful one. In fact, they should be distinguished, too.
I'm not sure why you categorize alcohol and opiates as different. Cocaine has physical dependence. My recollection would be that amphetamines have physical dependence. Heck, even caffeine has physical dependence and because of that it is often brought up as some kind of trump card by people, though I feel talking about caffeine as an addiction is a little disingenuous.
Carbohydrates, including sugar, do not have physical dependence. You cannot detox out of them - their will always be glucose in a living human body. Having the keto flu is not withdrawal. It is an actual physiological response, but it is not withdrawl.
And physical dependence has the interesting counterpoint to the idea of drug addiction being a social phenomena. If you give an unconscious person a drug they have a physical dependence on, they will remain physically dependent, no matter what they do with their conscious actions. The chemical reactions will still take place. You cannot see this phenomena by giving people food that bypasses eating, and that is part of why food addiction seems implausible, but there is discussion of eating addiction as a behavioral addiction akin to gambling addiction. Personally, I haven't search why or what discussion took place about it, but I wonder why gambling did not become some other term separate from addiction, such as calling it habituated repetitive reward hyperstimulation. At least that would be my proposal for a name for actions that the DSM would classify as addictive behaviors.0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »Chiming in here to say I will repost my original addiction behavior post if need be and the excellent Eating Addiction Research Review. There's a difference between seeing foods as addictive substances and having addictive behavior with one's eating. A huge difference.
The first difference being that there's some support in the scientific community for the second paradigm in humans, but there's none for the first.
Here is what I propose for those determined to differentiate:
Come up with one word to describe the addictive behavior. One word. We are lazy. We like to give a single word to such phenomenon. And none exists. Come up with it, get it accepted everywhere, good to go. Be glad to use it. Cocaine users, meth users, gamblers, and other users of anything but alcohol and opiates should use the new word, too. Because if we're really going to categorize, the only two substances worthy of being called addictive are alcohol and opiates. One has potentially lethal withdrawal, the other has a painful one. In fact, they should be distinguished, too.
Root of the problem, right there. Stop being lazy, pull up the boostraps and do the work. Using laziness as a reason to not do anything is not okay.0 -
The issue people have with the idea of addiction being a disease is the issue of choice. I always can choose to eat poorly, drink too much, use drugs, ad absurdum. All addictions start with a choice and revolve around choice. It is the idea that a person is not capable, without outside influence, of over coming addiction that spawned a victim mentality with regards to drug use and over eating. I like drinking, my brother, twin, has never had a drop of alcohol. I accept that it is my choice to drink, and to like the lucid feeling of being drunk, my brother has no desire. Since we are almost genetically identically, I would think we would both have the same propensities, or at least some, since disease is largely genetics based. Yet, I am the alone on my binges.
The disease of alcoholism or over-eating is a disease of will power and choice. You can choose to drink or not. You can't choose cancer. It denigrates the people who have lost tons of weight and those trying to lose weight to say overeating is a disease, because it means if you overcame it without medication and 12-step you were just faking it to begin with.
None of that means people don't deserve sympathy, compassion, and assistance, if they want to break an addiction but the belief that your choices are outside your control is dangerous.0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »Chiming in here to say I will repost my original addiction behavior post if need be and the excellent Eating Addiction Research Review. There's a difference between seeing foods as addictive substances and having addictive behavior with one's eating. A huge difference.
The first difference being that there's some support in the scientific community for the second paradigm in humans, but there's none for the first.
Here is what I propose for those determined to differentiate:
Come up with one word to describe the addictive behavior. One word. We are lazy. We like to give a single word to such phenomenon. And none exists. Come up with it, get it accepted everywhere, good to go. Be glad to use it. Cocaine users, meth users, gamblers, and other users of anything but alcohol and opiates should use the new word, too. Because if we're really going to categorize, the only two substances worthy of being called addictive are alcohol and opiates. One has potentially lethal withdrawal, the other has a painful one. In fact, they should be distinguished, too.
Root of the problem, right there. Stop being lazy, pull up the boostraps and do the work. Using laziness as a reason to not do anything is not okay.
Not what I meant. Humans are linguistically lazy. Took a college class on it once. Made sense.
To distinguish between the common usage and things that actually physically activate things, the term often used is "physical dependence".PeachyCarol wrote: »Chiming in here to say I will repost my original addiction behavior post if need be and the excellent Eating Addiction Research Review. There's a difference between seeing foods as addictive substances and having addictive behavior with one's eating. A huge difference.
The first difference being that there's some support in the scientific community for the second paradigm in humans, but there's none for the first.
Here is what I propose for those determined to differentiate:
Come up with one word to describe the addictive behavior. One word. We are lazy. We like to give a single word to such phenomenon. And none exists. Come up with it, get it accepted everywhere, good to go. Be glad to use it. Cocaine users, meth users, gamblers, and other users of anything but alcohol and opiates should use the new word, too. Because if we're really going to categorize, the only two substances worthy of being called addictive are alcohol and opiates. One has potentially lethal withdrawal, the other has a painful one. In fact, they should be distinguished, too.
I'm not sure why you categorize alcohol and opiates as different. Cocaine has physical dependence. My recollection would be that amphetamines have physical dependence. Heck, even caffeine has physical dependence and because of that it is often brought up as some kind of trump card by people, though I feel talking about caffeine as an addiction is a little disingenuous.
Carbohydrates, including sugar, do not have physical dependence. You cannot detox out of them - their will always be glucose in a living human body. Having the keto flu is not withdrawal. It is an actual physiological response, but it is not withdrawl.
And physical dependence has the interesting counterpoint to the idea of drug addiction being a social phenomena. If you give an unconscious person a drug they have a physical dependence on, they will remain physically dependent, no matter what they do with their conscious actions. The chemical reactions will still take place. You cannot see this phenomena by giving people food that bypasses eating, and that is part of why food addiction seems implausible, but there is discussion of eating addiction as a behavioral addiction akin to gambling addiction. Personally, I haven't search why or what discussion took place about it, but I wonder why gambling did not become some other term separate from addiction, such as calling it habituated repetitive reward hyperstimulation. At least that would be my proposal for a name for actions that the DSM would classify as addictive behaviors.
You're right as far as it goes, you say I'm addicted to caffeine no one freaks they just nod and go uh huh, pass the creamer! You say I'm addicted to sugar, it's a dog turd storm. I'm frustrated about that. I know what I mean when I use the word addiction in different contexts (I did an internship in an inpatient detox). I know that cocaine, heroin, gambling, opiate addiction (btw drugs used to treat opiate addiction also curb appetite, an interesting fact which in no way makes sugar equal to heroin), alcohol addiction, and food addiction are all very different. But there is no distinguishing word. It's annoying, and not the fault of anyone discussing it on this forum. I'm not trying to nitpick, I'm just trying to pinpoint my frustration with it.
I want to say compulsive eating, but eating what? I won't compulsively eat broccoli. Some people might, though. Maybe it's just a failure of enough non-biased, quality research with enough subjects and then a good name for this particular issue which many of us human beings do have. I don't get mad when people argue it shouldn't be called 'addiction' so much as I get mad when people say it doesn't exist at all.0 -
Interesting you mention broccoli. It and other vegetables and fruit contain sugar but as has been repeatedly observed, no one seems to mean those when they call sugar addictive.PeachyCarol wrote: »Chiming in here to say I will repost my original addiction behavior post if need be and the excellent Eating Addiction Research Review. There's a difference between seeing foods as addictive substances and having addictive behavior with one's eating. A huge difference.
The first difference being that there's some support in the scientific community for the second paradigm in humans, but there's none for the first.
Here is what I propose for those determined to differentiate:
Come up with one word to describe the addictive behavior. One word. We are lazy. We like to give a single word to such phenomenon. And none exists. Come up with it, get it accepted everywhere, good to go. Be glad to use it. Cocaine users, meth users, gamblers, and other users of anything but alcohol and opiates should use the new word, too. Because if we're really going to categorize, the only two substances worthy of being called addictive are alcohol and opiates. One has potentially lethal withdrawal, the other has a painful one. In fact, they should be distinguished, too.
Root of the problem, right there. Stop being lazy, pull up the boostraps and do the work. Using laziness as a reason to not do anything is not okay.
Not what I meant. Humans are linguistically lazy. Took a college class on it once. Made sense.
To distinguish between the common usage and things that actually physically activate things, the term often used is "physical dependence".PeachyCarol wrote: »Chiming in here to say I will repost my original addiction behavior post if need be and the excellent Eating Addiction Research Review. There's a difference between seeing foods as addictive substances and having addictive behavior with one's eating. A huge difference.
The first difference being that there's some support in the scientific community for the second paradigm in humans, but there's none for the first.
Here is what I propose for those determined to differentiate:
Come up with one word to describe the addictive behavior. One word. We are lazy. We like to give a single word to such phenomenon. And none exists. Come up with it, get it accepted everywhere, good to go. Be glad to use it. Cocaine users, meth users, gamblers, and other users of anything but alcohol and opiates should use the new word, too. Because if we're really going to categorize, the only two substances worthy of being called addictive are alcohol and opiates. One has potentially lethal withdrawal, the other has a painful one. In fact, they should be distinguished, too.
I'm not sure why you categorize alcohol and opiates as different. Cocaine has physical dependence. My recollection would be that amphetamines have physical dependence. Heck, even caffeine has physical dependence and because of that it is often brought up as some kind of trump card by people, though I feel talking about caffeine as an addiction is a little disingenuous.
Carbohydrates, including sugar, do not have physical dependence. You cannot detox out of them - their will always be glucose in a living human body. Having the keto flu is not withdrawal. It is an actual physiological response, but it is not withdrawl.
And physical dependence has the interesting counterpoint to the idea of drug addiction being a social phenomena. If you give an unconscious person a drug they have a physical dependence on, they will remain physically dependent, no matter what they do with their conscious actions. The chemical reactions will still take place. You cannot see this phenomena by giving people food that bypasses eating, and that is part of why food addiction seems implausible, but there is discussion of eating addiction as a behavioral addiction akin to gambling addiction. Personally, I haven't search why or what discussion took place about it, but I wonder why gambling did not become some other term separate from addiction, such as calling it habituated repetitive reward hyperstimulation. At least that would be my proposal for a name for actions that the DSM would classify as addictive behaviors.
You're right as far as it goes, you say I'm addicted to caffeine no one freaks they just nod and go uh huh, pass the creamer! You say I'm addicted to sugar, it's a dog turd storm. I'm frustrated about that. I know what I mean when I use the word addiction in different contexts (I did an internship in an inpatient detox). I know that cocaine, heroin, gambling, opiate addiction (btw drugs used to treat opiate addiction also curb appetite, an interesting fact which in no way makes sugar equal to heroin), alcohol addiction, and food addiction are all very different. But there is no distinguishing word. It's annoying, and not the fault of anyone discussing it on this forum. I'm not trying to nitpick, I'm just trying to pinpoint my frustration with it.
I want to say compulsive eating, but eating what? I won't compulsively eat broccoli. Some people might, though. Maybe it's just a failure of enough non-biased, quality research with enough subjects and then a good name for this particular issue which many of us human beings do have. I don't get mad when people argue it shouldn't be called 'addiction' so much as I get mad when people say it doesn't exist at all.
And that is part of why psychologically there might be eating addiction but the evidence is, pretty strong that substances, as constituent molecules, themselves aren't addictive.
The eating addiction seems to tie into reward anticipation and the mental association. Hence I see the typical addiction methods of abstinence being the exact wrong treatment in the long run. Dissociation of food and reward will have the best outcomes in my opinion.0 -
Interesting you mention broccoli. It and other vegetables and fruit contain sugar but as has been repeatedly observed, no one seems to mean those when they call sugar addictive.PeachyCarol wrote: »Chiming in here to say I will repost my original addiction behavior post if need be and the excellent Eating Addiction Research Review. There's a difference between seeing foods as addictive substances and having addictive behavior with one's eating. A huge difference.
The first difference being that there's some support in the scientific community for the second paradigm in humans, but there's none for the first.
Here is what I propose for those determined to differentiate:
Come up with one word to describe the addictive behavior. One word. We are lazy. We like to give a single word to such phenomenon. And none exists. Come up with it, get it accepted everywhere, good to go. Be glad to use it. Cocaine users, meth users, gamblers, and other users of anything but alcohol and opiates should use the new word, too. Because if we're really going to categorize, the only two substances worthy of being called addictive are alcohol and opiates. One has potentially lethal withdrawal, the other has a painful one. In fact, they should be distinguished, too.
Root of the problem, right there. Stop being lazy, pull up the boostraps and do the work. Using laziness as a reason to not do anything is not okay.
Not what I meant. Humans are linguistically lazy. Took a college class on it once. Made sense.
To distinguish between the common usage and things that actually physically activate things, the term often used is "physical dependence".PeachyCarol wrote: »Chiming in here to say I will repost my original addiction behavior post if need be and the excellent Eating Addiction Research Review. There's a difference between seeing foods as addictive substances and having addictive behavior with one's eating. A huge difference.
The first difference being that there's some support in the scientific community for the second paradigm in humans, but there's none for the first.
Here is what I propose for those determined to differentiate:
Come up with one word to describe the addictive behavior. One word. We are lazy. We like to give a single word to such phenomenon. And none exists. Come up with it, get it accepted everywhere, good to go. Be glad to use it. Cocaine users, meth users, gamblers, and other users of anything but alcohol and opiates should use the new word, too. Because if we're really going to categorize, the only two substances worthy of being called addictive are alcohol and opiates. One has potentially lethal withdrawal, the other has a painful one. In fact, they should be distinguished, too.
I'm not sure why you categorize alcohol and opiates as different. Cocaine has physical dependence. My recollection would be that amphetamines have physical dependence. Heck, even caffeine has physical dependence and because of that it is often brought up as some kind of trump card by people, though I feel talking about caffeine as an addiction is a little disingenuous.
Carbohydrates, including sugar, do not have physical dependence. You cannot detox out of them - their will always be glucose in a living human body. Having the keto flu is not withdrawal. It is an actual physiological response, but it is not withdrawl.
And physical dependence has the interesting counterpoint to the idea of drug addiction being a social phenomena. If you give an unconscious person a drug they have a physical dependence on, they will remain physically dependent, no matter what they do with their conscious actions. The chemical reactions will still take place. You cannot see this phenomena by giving people food that bypasses eating, and that is part of why food addiction seems implausible, but there is discussion of eating addiction as a behavioral addiction akin to gambling addiction. Personally, I haven't search why or what discussion took place about it, but I wonder why gambling did not become some other term separate from addiction, such as calling it habituated repetitive reward hyperstimulation. At least that would be my proposal for a name for actions that the DSM would classify as addictive behaviors.
You're right as far as it goes, you say I'm addicted to caffeine no one freaks they just nod and go uh huh, pass the creamer! You say I'm addicted to sugar, it's a dog turd storm. I'm frustrated about that. I know what I mean when I use the word addiction in different contexts (I did an internship in an inpatient detox). I know that cocaine, heroin, gambling, opiate addiction (btw drugs used to treat opiate addiction also curb appetite, an interesting fact which in no way makes sugar equal to heroin), alcohol addiction, and food addiction are all very different. But there is no distinguishing word. It's annoying, and not the fault of anyone discussing it on this forum. I'm not trying to nitpick, I'm just trying to pinpoint my frustration with it.
I want to say compulsive eating, but eating what? I won't compulsively eat broccoli. Some people might, though. Maybe it's just a failure of enough non-biased, quality research with enough subjects and then a good name for this particular issue which many of us human beings do have. I don't get mad when people argue it shouldn't be called 'addiction' so much as I get mad when people say it doesn't exist at all.
And that is part of why psychologically there might be eating addiction but the evidence is, pretty strong that substances, as constituent molecules, themselves aren't addictive.
The eating addiction seems to tie into reward anticipation and the mental association. Hence I see the typical addiction methods of abstinence being the exact wrong treatment in the long run. Dissociation of food and reward will have the best outcomes in my opinion.
sex and gambling aren't addictions in the very real sense of the word, either. They're behavioral cover ups for emotional problems.0 -
Interesting you mention broccoli. It and other vegetables and fruit contain sugar but as has been repeatedly observed, no one seems to mean those when they call sugar addictive.PeachyCarol wrote: »Chiming in here to say I will repost my original addiction behavior post if need be and the excellent Eating Addiction Research Review. There's a difference between seeing foods as addictive substances and having addictive behavior with one's eating. A huge difference.
The first difference being that there's some support in the scientific community for the second paradigm in humans, but there's none for the first.
Here is what I propose for those determined to differentiate:
Come up with one word to describe the addictive behavior. One word. We are lazy. We like to give a single word to such phenomenon. And none exists. Come up with it, get it accepted everywhere, good to go. Be glad to use it. Cocaine users, meth users, gamblers, and other users of anything but alcohol and opiates should use the new word, too. Because if we're really going to categorize, the only two substances worthy of being called addictive are alcohol and opiates. One has potentially lethal withdrawal, the other has a painful one. In fact, they should be distinguished, too.
Root of the problem, right there. Stop being lazy, pull up the boostraps and do the work. Using laziness as a reason to not do anything is not okay.
Not what I meant. Humans are linguistically lazy. Took a college class on it once. Made sense.
To distinguish between the common usage and things that actually physically activate things, the term often used is "physical dependence".PeachyCarol wrote: »Chiming in here to say I will repost my original addiction behavior post if need be and the excellent Eating Addiction Research Review. There's a difference between seeing foods as addictive substances and having addictive behavior with one's eating. A huge difference.
The first difference being that there's some support in the scientific community for the second paradigm in humans, but there's none for the first.
Here is what I propose for those determined to differentiate:
Come up with one word to describe the addictive behavior. One word. We are lazy. We like to give a single word to such phenomenon. And none exists. Come up with it, get it accepted everywhere, good to go. Be glad to use it. Cocaine users, meth users, gamblers, and other users of anything but alcohol and opiates should use the new word, too. Because if we're really going to categorize, the only two substances worthy of being called addictive are alcohol and opiates. One has potentially lethal withdrawal, the other has a painful one. In fact, they should be distinguished, too.
I'm not sure why you categorize alcohol and opiates as different. Cocaine has physical dependence. My recollection would be that amphetamines have physical dependence. Heck, even caffeine has physical dependence and because of that it is often brought up as some kind of trump card by people, though I feel talking about caffeine as an addiction is a little disingenuous.
Carbohydrates, including sugar, do not have physical dependence. You cannot detox out of them - their will always be glucose in a living human body. Having the keto flu is not withdrawal. It is an actual physiological response, but it is not withdrawl.
And physical dependence has the interesting counterpoint to the idea of drug addiction being a social phenomena. If you give an unconscious person a drug they have a physical dependence on, they will remain physically dependent, no matter what they do with their conscious actions. The chemical reactions will still take place. You cannot see this phenomena by giving people food that bypasses eating, and that is part of why food addiction seems implausible, but there is discussion of eating addiction as a behavioral addiction akin to gambling addiction. Personally, I haven't search why or what discussion took place about it, but I wonder why gambling did not become some other term separate from addiction, such as calling it habituated repetitive reward hyperstimulation. At least that would be my proposal for a name for actions that the DSM would classify as addictive behaviors.
You're right as far as it goes, you say I'm addicted to caffeine no one freaks they just nod and go uh huh, pass the creamer! You say I'm addicted to sugar, it's a dog turd storm. I'm frustrated about that. I know what I mean when I use the word addiction in different contexts (I did an internship in an inpatient detox). I know that cocaine, heroin, gambling, opiate addiction (btw drugs used to treat opiate addiction also curb appetite, an interesting fact which in no way makes sugar equal to heroin), alcohol addiction, and food addiction are all very different. But there is no distinguishing word. It's annoying, and not the fault of anyone discussing it on this forum. I'm not trying to nitpick, I'm just trying to pinpoint my frustration with it.
I want to say compulsive eating, but eating what? I won't compulsively eat broccoli. Some people might, though. Maybe it's just a failure of enough non-biased, quality research with enough subjects and then a good name for this particular issue which many of us human beings do have. I don't get mad when people argue it shouldn't be called 'addiction' so much as I get mad when people say it doesn't exist at all.
And that is part of why psychologically there might be eating addiction but the evidence is, pretty strong that substances, as constituent molecules, themselves aren't addictive.
The eating addiction seems to tie into reward anticipation and the mental association. Hence I see the typical addiction methods of abstinence being the exact wrong treatment in the long run. Dissociation of food and reward will have the best outcomes in my opinion.
sex and gambling aren't addictions in the very real sense of the word, either. They're behavioral cover ups for emotional problems.
So is alcohol most of the time, and other drugs. We are consciousnesses built on chemical reactions, not separate from them. You trying to make it all about the conscious mind or even the subconscious is oversimplifying just like someone trying to say it's %100 chemical is over simplifying.
But no offense, when someone says it's all chemical, it doesn't sound condescending and dismissive, but when someone says it's all mental, it does.
Interesting you mention broccoli. It and other vegetables and fruit contain sugar but as has been repeatedly observed, no one seems to mean those when they call sugar addictive.PeachyCarol wrote: »Chiming in here to say I will repost my original addiction behavior post if need be and the excellent Eating Addiction Research Review. There's a difference between seeing foods as addictive substances and having addictive behavior with one's eating. A huge difference.
The first difference being that there's some support in the scientific community for the second paradigm in humans, but there's none for the first.
Here is what I propose for those determined to differentiate:
Come up with one word to describe the addictive behavior. One word. We are lazy. We like to give a single word to such phenomenon. And none exists. Come up with it, get it accepted everywhere, good to go. Be glad to use it. Cocaine users, meth users, gamblers, and other users of anything but alcohol and opiates should use the new word, too. Because if we're really going to categorize, the only two substances worthy of being called addictive are alcohol and opiates. One has potentially lethal withdrawal, the other has a painful one. In fact, they should be distinguished, too.
Root of the problem, right there. Stop being lazy, pull up the boostraps and do the work. Using laziness as a reason to not do anything is not okay.
Not what I meant. Humans are linguistically lazy. Took a college class on it once. Made sense.
To distinguish between the common usage and things that actually physically activate things, the term often used is "physical dependence".PeachyCarol wrote: »Chiming in here to say I will repost my original addiction behavior post if need be and the excellent Eating Addiction Research Review. There's a difference between seeing foods as addictive substances and having addictive behavior with one's eating. A huge difference.
The first difference being that there's some support in the scientific community for the second paradigm in humans, but there's none for the first.
Here is what I propose for those determined to differentiate:
Come up with one word to describe the addictive behavior. One word. We are lazy. We like to give a single word to such phenomenon. And none exists. Come up with it, get it accepted everywhere, good to go. Be glad to use it. Cocaine users, meth users, gamblers, and other users of anything but alcohol and opiates should use the new word, too. Because if we're really going to categorize, the only two substances worthy of being called addictive are alcohol and opiates. One has potentially lethal withdrawal, the other has a painful one. In fact, they should be distinguished, too.
I'm not sure why you categorize alcohol and opiates as different. Cocaine has physical dependence. My recollection would be that amphetamines have physical dependence. Heck, even caffeine has physical dependence and because of that it is often brought up as some kind of trump card by people, though I feel talking about caffeine as an addiction is a little disingenuous.
Carbohydrates, including sugar, do not have physical dependence. You cannot detox out of them - their will always be glucose in a living human body. Having the keto flu is not withdrawal. It is an actual physiological response, but it is not withdrawl.
And physical dependence has the interesting counterpoint to the idea of drug addiction being a social phenomena. If you give an unconscious person a drug they have a physical dependence on, they will remain physically dependent, no matter what they do with their conscious actions. The chemical reactions will still take place. You cannot see this phenomena by giving people food that bypasses eating, and that is part of why food addiction seems implausible, but there is discussion of eating addiction as a behavioral addiction akin to gambling addiction. Personally, I haven't search why or what discussion took place about it, but I wonder why gambling did not become some other term separate from addiction, such as calling it habituated repetitive reward hyperstimulation. At least that would be my proposal for a name for actions that the DSM would classify as addictive behaviors.
You're right as far as it goes, you say I'm addicted to caffeine no one freaks they just nod and go uh huh, pass the creamer! You say I'm addicted to sugar, it's a dog turd storm. I'm frustrated about that. I know what I mean when I use the word addiction in different contexts (I did an internship in an inpatient detox). I know that cocaine, heroin, gambling, opiate addiction (btw drugs used to treat opiate addiction also curb appetite, an interesting fact which in no way makes sugar equal to heroin), alcohol addiction, and food addiction are all very different. But there is no distinguishing word. It's annoying, and not the fault of anyone discussing it on this forum. I'm not trying to nitpick, I'm just trying to pinpoint my frustration with it.
I want to say compulsive eating, but eating what? I won't compulsively eat broccoli. Some people might, though. Maybe it's just a failure of enough non-biased, quality research with enough subjects and then a good name for this particular issue which many of us human beings do have. I don't get mad when people argue it shouldn't be called 'addiction' so much as I get mad when people say it doesn't exist at all.
And that is part of why psychologically there might be eating addiction but the evidence is, pretty strong that substances, as constituent molecules, themselves aren't addictive.
The eating addiction seems to tie into reward anticipation and the mental association. Hence I see the typical addiction methods of abstinence being the exact wrong treatment in the long run. Dissociation of food and reward will have the best outcomes in my opinion.
Yes, it's not consistent. Although broccoli has fiber, it's still partly personal taste. It has to be, because I know very few people who will eat sugar out of a bag for lack of something else, but I will.
I do wonder, if I went without any other sugar for long enough, might I binge on sugary vegetables? I've overdone on onions, coconut oil, salt, and garlic before after a few months on low carb. Oddest feast I ever had. Heated that up in the microwave, then kept going back for more. Sweet, salty, oily, delicious. Never something I would have considered if I'd been eating cupcakes or some such recently. Maybe I don't binge on broccoli because if I want to binge (or just overeat) I know where the cookie aisle at the store is.
0 -
Interesting you mention broccoli. It and other vegetables and fruit contain sugar but as has been repeatedly observed, no one seems to mean those when they call sugar addictive.PeachyCarol wrote: »Chiming in here to say I will repost my original addiction behavior post if need be and the excellent Eating Addiction Research Review. There's a difference between seeing foods as addictive substances and having addictive behavior with one's eating. A huge difference.
The first difference being that there's some support in the scientific community for the second paradigm in humans, but there's none for the first.
Here is what I propose for those determined to differentiate:
Come up with one word to describe the addictive behavior. One word. We are lazy. We like to give a single word to such phenomenon. And none exists. Come up with it, get it accepted everywhere, good to go. Be glad to use it. Cocaine users, meth users, gamblers, and other users of anything but alcohol and opiates should use the new word, too. Because if we're really going to categorize, the only two substances worthy of being called addictive are alcohol and opiates. One has potentially lethal withdrawal, the other has a painful one. In fact, they should be distinguished, too.
Root of the problem, right there. Stop being lazy, pull up the boostraps and do the work. Using laziness as a reason to not do anything is not okay.
Not what I meant. Humans are linguistically lazy. Took a college class on it once. Made sense.
To distinguish between the common usage and things that actually physically activate things, the term often used is "physical dependence".PeachyCarol wrote: »Chiming in here to say I will repost my original addiction behavior post if need be and the excellent Eating Addiction Research Review. There's a difference between seeing foods as addictive substances and having addictive behavior with one's eating. A huge difference.
The first difference being that there's some support in the scientific community for the second paradigm in humans, but there's none for the first.
Here is what I propose for those determined to differentiate:
Come up with one word to describe the addictive behavior. One word. We are lazy. We like to give a single word to such phenomenon. And none exists. Come up with it, get it accepted everywhere, good to go. Be glad to use it. Cocaine users, meth users, gamblers, and other users of anything but alcohol and opiates should use the new word, too. Because if we're really going to categorize, the only two substances worthy of being called addictive are alcohol and opiates. One has potentially lethal withdrawal, the other has a painful one. In fact, they should be distinguished, too.
I'm not sure why you categorize alcohol and opiates as different. Cocaine has physical dependence. My recollection would be that amphetamines have physical dependence. Heck, even caffeine has physical dependence and because of that it is often brought up as some kind of trump card by people, though I feel talking about caffeine as an addiction is a little disingenuous.
Carbohydrates, including sugar, do not have physical dependence. You cannot detox out of them - their will always be glucose in a living human body. Having the keto flu is not withdrawal. It is an actual physiological response, but it is not withdrawl.
And physical dependence has the interesting counterpoint to the idea of drug addiction being a social phenomena. If you give an unconscious person a drug they have a physical dependence on, they will remain physically dependent, no matter what they do with their conscious actions. The chemical reactions will still take place. You cannot see this phenomena by giving people food that bypasses eating, and that is part of why food addiction seems implausible, but there is discussion of eating addiction as a behavioral addiction akin to gambling addiction. Personally, I haven't search why or what discussion took place about it, but I wonder why gambling did not become some other term separate from addiction, such as calling it habituated repetitive reward hyperstimulation. At least that would be my proposal for a name for actions that the DSM would classify as addictive behaviors.
You're right as far as it goes, you say I'm addicted to caffeine no one freaks they just nod and go uh huh, pass the creamer! You say I'm addicted to sugar, it's a dog turd storm. I'm frustrated about that. I know what I mean when I use the word addiction in different contexts (I did an internship in an inpatient detox). I know that cocaine, heroin, gambling, opiate addiction (btw drugs used to treat opiate addiction also curb appetite, an interesting fact which in no way makes sugar equal to heroin), alcohol addiction, and food addiction are all very different. But there is no distinguishing word. It's annoying, and not the fault of anyone discussing it on this forum. I'm not trying to nitpick, I'm just trying to pinpoint my frustration with it.
I want to say compulsive eating, but eating what? I won't compulsively eat broccoli. Some people might, though. Maybe it's just a failure of enough non-biased, quality research with enough subjects and then a good name for this particular issue which many of us human beings do have. I don't get mad when people argue it shouldn't be called 'addiction' so much as I get mad when people say it doesn't exist at all.
And that is part of why psychologically there might be eating addiction but the evidence is, pretty strong that substances, as constituent molecules, themselves aren't addictive.
The eating addiction seems to tie into reward anticipation and the mental association. Hence I see the typical addiction methods of abstinence being the exact wrong treatment in the long run. Dissociation of food and reward will have the best outcomes in my opinion.
sex and gambling aren't addictions in the very real sense of the word, either. They're behavioral cover ups for emotional problems.
So is alcohol most of the time, and other drugs. We are consciousnesses built on chemical reactions, not separate from them. You trying to make it all about the conscious mind or even the subconscious is oversimplifying just like someone trying to say it's %100 chemical is over simplifying.
But no offense, when someone says it's all chemical, it doesn't sound condescending and dismissive, but when someone says it's all mental, it does.
Except the differentiation is that alcohol and drugs cause physical changes in the body that are addictive changes - they force the body to need them, continually and at greater levels. You can't just walk away from drugs and alcohol when you've been using them to cover up an emotional issue and face the issue, you have to break the addiction first.
With sugar and gambling and sex, you can skip breaking the physical addiction (because it isn't there) and go straight to dealing with the behavioral issues.0 -
Interesting you mention broccoli. It and other vegetables and fruit contain sugar but as has been repeatedly observed, no one seems to mean those when they call sugar addictive.PeachyCarol wrote: »Chiming in here to say I will repost my original addiction behavior post if need be and the excellent Eating Addiction Research Review. There's a difference between seeing foods as addictive substances and having addictive behavior with one's eating. A huge difference.
The first difference being that there's some support in the scientific community for the second paradigm in humans, but there's none for the first.
Here is what I propose for those determined to differentiate:
Come up with one word to describe the addictive behavior. One word. We are lazy. We like to give a single word to such phenomenon. And none exists. Come up with it, get it accepted everywhere, good to go. Be glad to use it. Cocaine users, meth users, gamblers, and other users of anything but alcohol and opiates should use the new word, too. Because if we're really going to categorize, the only two substances worthy of being called addictive are alcohol and opiates. One has potentially lethal withdrawal, the other has a painful one. In fact, they should be distinguished, too.
Root of the problem, right there. Stop being lazy, pull up the boostraps and do the work. Using laziness as a reason to not do anything is not okay.
Not what I meant. Humans are linguistically lazy. Took a college class on it once. Made sense.
To distinguish between the common usage and things that actually physically activate things, the term often used is "physical dependence".PeachyCarol wrote: »Chiming in here to say I will repost my original addiction behavior post if need be and the excellent Eating Addiction Research Review. There's a difference between seeing foods as addictive substances and having addictive behavior with one's eating. A huge difference.
The first difference being that there's some support in the scientific community for the second paradigm in humans, but there's none for the first.
Here is what I propose for those determined to differentiate:
Come up with one word to describe the addictive behavior. One word. We are lazy. We like to give a single word to such phenomenon. And none exists. Come up with it, get it accepted everywhere, good to go. Be glad to use it. Cocaine users, meth users, gamblers, and other users of anything but alcohol and opiates should use the new word, too. Because if we're really going to categorize, the only two substances worthy of being called addictive are alcohol and opiates. One has potentially lethal withdrawal, the other has a painful one. In fact, they should be distinguished, too.
I'm not sure why you categorize alcohol and opiates as different. Cocaine has physical dependence. My recollection would be that amphetamines have physical dependence. Heck, even caffeine has physical dependence and because of that it is often brought up as some kind of trump card by people, though I feel talking about caffeine as an addiction is a little disingenuous.
Carbohydrates, including sugar, do not have physical dependence. You cannot detox out of them - their will always be glucose in a living human body. Having the keto flu is not withdrawal. It is an actual physiological response, but it is not withdrawl.
And physical dependence has the interesting counterpoint to the idea of drug addiction being a social phenomena. If you give an unconscious person a drug they have a physical dependence on, they will remain physically dependent, no matter what they do with their conscious actions. The chemical reactions will still take place. You cannot see this phenomena by giving people food that bypasses eating, and that is part of why food addiction seems implausible, but there is discussion of eating addiction as a behavioral addiction akin to gambling addiction. Personally, I haven't search why or what discussion took place about it, but I wonder why gambling did not become some other term separate from addiction, such as calling it habituated repetitive reward hyperstimulation. At least that would be my proposal for a name for actions that the DSM would classify as addictive behaviors.
You're right as far as it goes, you say I'm addicted to caffeine no one freaks they just nod and go uh huh, pass the creamer! You say I'm addicted to sugar, it's a dog turd storm. I'm frustrated about that. I know what I mean when I use the word addiction in different contexts (I did an internship in an inpatient detox). I know that cocaine, heroin, gambling, opiate addiction (btw drugs used to treat opiate addiction also curb appetite, an interesting fact which in no way makes sugar equal to heroin), alcohol addiction, and food addiction are all very different. But there is no distinguishing word. It's annoying, and not the fault of anyone discussing it on this forum. I'm not trying to nitpick, I'm just trying to pinpoint my frustration with it.
I want to say compulsive eating, but eating what? I won't compulsively eat broccoli. Some people might, though. Maybe it's just a failure of enough non-biased, quality research with enough subjects and then a good name for this particular issue which many of us human beings do have. I don't get mad when people argue it shouldn't be called 'addiction' so much as I get mad when people say it doesn't exist at all.
And that is part of why psychologically there might be eating addiction but the evidence is, pretty strong that substances, as constituent molecules, themselves aren't addictive.
The eating addiction seems to tie into reward anticipation and the mental association. Hence I see the typical addiction methods of abstinence being the exact wrong treatment in the long run. Dissociation of food and reward will have the best outcomes in my opinion.
sex and gambling aren't addictions in the very real sense of the word, either. They're behavioral cover ups for emotional problems.
So is alcohol most of the time, and other drugs. We are consciousnesses built on chemical reactions, not separate from them. You trying to make it all about the conscious mind or even the subconscious is oversimplifying just like someone trying to say it's %100 chemical is over simplifying.
But no offense, when someone says it's all chemical, it doesn't sound condescending and dismissive, but when someone says it's all mental, it does.
Except the differentiation is that alcohol and drugs cause physical changes in the body that are addictive changes - they force the body to need them, continually and at greater levels. You can't just walk away from drugs and alcohol when you've been using them to cover up an emotional issue and face the issue, you have to break the addiction first.
With sugar and gambling and sex, you can skip breaking the physical addiction (because it isn't there) and go straight to dealing with the behavioral issues.
Recent research has shown habituation to sugar in the brain as well so that you need more to get the same effect.
The only drug that forces you to need it that is commonly abused is alcohol because without it your blood pressure shoots up and you can die.
Opiates cause nasty sickness and muscle cramps. The rest, as far as I remember, don't. Which is why the inpatient detox I worked in wouldn't take meth and coke addicts, for example. They weren't in physical withdrawal. So yes, you can walk away from some drugs same as sugar.
Again, that doesn't say it's equivalent. But I do say it's condescending to ignore chemical changes in the brain wrought by sugar (edit: Or perhaps I should say eating patterns?), and yes sex, gambling, and even shopping. If you keep doing it, you want to stop, and it hurts you, what do you call that? I call it addiction, then differentiate between substances.0 -
Interesting you mention broccoli. It and other vegetables and fruit contain sugar but as has been repeatedly observed, no one seems to mean those when they call sugar addictive.PeachyCarol wrote: »Chiming in here to say I will repost my original addiction behavior post if need be and the excellent Eating Addiction Research Review. There's a difference between seeing foods as addictive substances and having addictive behavior with one's eating. A huge difference.
The first difference being that there's some support in the scientific community for the second paradigm in humans, but there's none for the first.
Here is what I propose for those determined to differentiate:
Come up with one word to describe the addictive behavior. One word. We are lazy. We like to give a single word to such phenomenon. And none exists. Come up with it, get it accepted everywhere, good to go. Be glad to use it. Cocaine users, meth users, gamblers, and other users of anything but alcohol and opiates should use the new word, too. Because if we're really going to categorize, the only two substances worthy of being called addictive are alcohol and opiates. One has potentially lethal withdrawal, the other has a painful one. In fact, they should be distinguished, too.
Root of the problem, right there. Stop being lazy, pull up the boostraps and do the work. Using laziness as a reason to not do anything is not okay.
Not what I meant. Humans are linguistically lazy. Took a college class on it once. Made sense.
To distinguish between the common usage and things that actually physically activate things, the term often used is "physical dependence".PeachyCarol wrote: »Chiming in here to say I will repost my original addiction behavior post if need be and the excellent Eating Addiction Research Review. There's a difference between seeing foods as addictive substances and having addictive behavior with one's eating. A huge difference.
The first difference being that there's some support in the scientific community for the second paradigm in humans, but there's none for the first.
Here is what I propose for those determined to differentiate:
Come up with one word to describe the addictive behavior. One word. We are lazy. We like to give a single word to such phenomenon. And none exists. Come up with it, get it accepted everywhere, good to go. Be glad to use it. Cocaine users, meth users, gamblers, and other users of anything but alcohol and opiates should use the new word, too. Because if we're really going to categorize, the only two substances worthy of being called addictive are alcohol and opiates. One has potentially lethal withdrawal, the other has a painful one. In fact, they should be distinguished, too.
I'm not sure why you categorize alcohol and opiates as different. Cocaine has physical dependence. My recollection would be that amphetamines have physical dependence. Heck, even caffeine has physical dependence and because of that it is often brought up as some kind of trump card by people, though I feel talking about caffeine as an addiction is a little disingenuous.
Carbohydrates, including sugar, do not have physical dependence. You cannot detox out of them - their will always be glucose in a living human body. Having the keto flu is not withdrawal. It is an actual physiological response, but it is not withdrawl.
And physical dependence has the interesting counterpoint to the idea of drug addiction being a social phenomena. If you give an unconscious person a drug they have a physical dependence on, they will remain physically dependent, no matter what they do with their conscious actions. The chemical reactions will still take place. You cannot see this phenomena by giving people food that bypasses eating, and that is part of why food addiction seems implausible, but there is discussion of eating addiction as a behavioral addiction akin to gambling addiction. Personally, I haven't search why or what discussion took place about it, but I wonder why gambling did not become some other term separate from addiction, such as calling it habituated repetitive reward hyperstimulation. At least that would be my proposal for a name for actions that the DSM would classify as addictive behaviors.
You're right as far as it goes, you say I'm addicted to caffeine no one freaks they just nod and go uh huh, pass the creamer! You say I'm addicted to sugar, it's a dog turd storm. I'm frustrated about that. I know what I mean when I use the word addiction in different contexts (I did an internship in an inpatient detox). I know that cocaine, heroin, gambling, opiate addiction (btw drugs used to treat opiate addiction also curb appetite, an interesting fact which in no way makes sugar equal to heroin), alcohol addiction, and food addiction are all very different. But there is no distinguishing word. It's annoying, and not the fault of anyone discussing it on this forum. I'm not trying to nitpick, I'm just trying to pinpoint my frustration with it.
I want to say compulsive eating, but eating what? I won't compulsively eat broccoli. Some people might, though. Maybe it's just a failure of enough non-biased, quality research with enough subjects and then a good name for this particular issue which many of us human beings do have. I don't get mad when people argue it shouldn't be called 'addiction' so much as I get mad when people say it doesn't exist at all.
And that is part of why psychologically there might be eating addiction but the evidence is, pretty strong that substances, as constituent molecules, themselves aren't addictive.
The eating addiction seems to tie into reward anticipation and the mental association. Hence I see the typical addiction methods of abstinence being the exact wrong treatment in the long run. Dissociation of food and reward will have the best outcomes in my opinion.
sex and gambling aren't addictions in the very real sense of the word, either. They're behavioral cover ups for emotional problems.
So is alcohol most of the time, and other drugs. We are consciousnesses built on chemical reactions, not separate from them. You trying to make it all about the conscious mind or even the subconscious is oversimplifying just like someone trying to say it's %100 chemical is over simplifying.
But no offense, when someone says it's all chemical, it doesn't sound condescending and dismissive, but when someone says it's all mental, it does.
Except the differentiation is that alcohol and drugs cause physical changes in the body that are addictive changes - they force the body to need them, continually and at greater levels. You can't just walk away from drugs and alcohol when you've been using them to cover up an emotional issue and face the issue, you have to break the addiction first.
With sugar and gambling and sex, you can skip breaking the physical addiction (because it isn't there) and go straight to dealing with the behavioral issues.
Recent research has shown habituation to sugar in the brain as well so that you need more to get the same effect.
The only drug that forces you to need it that is commonly abused is alcohol because without it your blood pressure shoots up and you can die.
Opiates cause nasty sickness and muscle cramps. The rest, as far as I remember, don't. Which is why the inpatient detox I worked in wouldn't take meth and coke addicts, for example. They weren't in physical withdrawal. So yes, you can walk away from some drugs same as sugar.
Again, that doesn't say it's equivalent. But I do say it's condescending to ignore chemical changes in the brain wrought by sugar (edit: Or perhaps I should say eating patterns?), and yes sex, gambling, and even shopping. If you keep doing it, you want to stop, and it hurts you, what do you call that? I call it addiction, then differentiate between substances.[/quote]
[/quote]
The "chemical changes" you're referring to is the release of dopamine. I get the same thing when I pet a cute puppy. It's a temporary release of dopamine. It's not a long term change.
Heroin, alcohol, cocaine, etc. cause long term changes to the chemistry of the brain. That's the difference and why it's not condescending to differentiate the two.0 -
Interesting you mention broccoli. It and other vegetables and fruit contain sugar but as has been repeatedly observed, no one seems to mean those when they call sugar addictive.PeachyCarol wrote: »Chiming in here to say I will repost my original addiction behavior post if need be and the excellent Eating Addiction Research Review. There's a difference between seeing foods as addictive substances and having addictive behavior with one's eating. A huge difference.
The first difference being that there's some support in the scientific community for the second paradigm in humans, but there's none for the first.
Here is what I propose for those determined to differentiate:
Come up with one word to describe the addictive behavior. One word. We are lazy. We like to give a single word to such phenomenon. And none exists. Come up with it, get it accepted everywhere, good to go. Be glad to use it. Cocaine users, meth users, gamblers, and other users of anything but alcohol and opiates should use the new word, too. Because if we're really going to categorize, the only two substances worthy of being called addictive are alcohol and opiates. One has potentially lethal withdrawal, the other has a painful one. In fact, they should be distinguished, too.
Root of the problem, right there. Stop being lazy, pull up the boostraps and do the work. Using laziness as a reason to not do anything is not okay.
Not what I meant. Humans are linguistically lazy. Took a college class on it once. Made sense.
To distinguish between the common usage and things that actually physically activate things, the term often used is "physical dependence".PeachyCarol wrote: »Chiming in here to say I will repost my original addiction behavior post if need be and the excellent Eating Addiction Research Review. There's a difference between seeing foods as addictive substances and having addictive behavior with one's eating. A huge difference.
The first difference being that there's some support in the scientific community for the second paradigm in humans, but there's none for the first.
Here is what I propose for those determined to differentiate:
Come up with one word to describe the addictive behavior. One word. We are lazy. We like to give a single word to such phenomenon. And none exists. Come up with it, get it accepted everywhere, good to go. Be glad to use it. Cocaine users, meth users, gamblers, and other users of anything but alcohol and opiates should use the new word, too. Because if we're really going to categorize, the only two substances worthy of being called addictive are alcohol and opiates. One has potentially lethal withdrawal, the other has a painful one. In fact, they should be distinguished, too.
I'm not sure why you categorize alcohol and opiates as different. Cocaine has physical dependence. My recollection would be that amphetamines have physical dependence. Heck, even caffeine has physical dependence and because of that it is often brought up as some kind of trump card by people, though I feel talking about caffeine as an addiction is a little disingenuous.
Carbohydrates, including sugar, do not have physical dependence. You cannot detox out of them - their will always be glucose in a living human body. Having the keto flu is not withdrawal. It is an actual physiological response, but it is not withdrawl.
And physical dependence has the interesting counterpoint to the idea of drug addiction being a social phenomena. If you give an unconscious person a drug they have a physical dependence on, they will remain physically dependent, no matter what they do with their conscious actions. The chemical reactions will still take place. You cannot see this phenomena by giving people food that bypasses eating, and that is part of why food addiction seems implausible, but there is discussion of eating addiction as a behavioral addiction akin to gambling addiction. Personally, I haven't search why or what discussion took place about it, but I wonder why gambling did not become some other term separate from addiction, such as calling it habituated repetitive reward hyperstimulation. At least that would be my proposal for a name for actions that the DSM would classify as addictive behaviors.
You're right as far as it goes, you say I'm addicted to caffeine no one freaks they just nod and go uh huh, pass the creamer! You say I'm addicted to sugar, it's a dog turd storm. I'm frustrated about that. I know what I mean when I use the word addiction in different contexts (I did an internship in an inpatient detox). I know that cocaine, heroin, gambling, opiate addiction (btw drugs used to treat opiate addiction also curb appetite, an interesting fact which in no way makes sugar equal to heroin), alcohol addiction, and food addiction are all very different. But there is no distinguishing word. It's annoying, and not the fault of anyone discussing it on this forum. I'm not trying to nitpick, I'm just trying to pinpoint my frustration with it.
I want to say compulsive eating, but eating what? I won't compulsively eat broccoli. Some people might, though. Maybe it's just a failure of enough non-biased, quality research with enough subjects and then a good name for this particular issue which many of us human beings do have. I don't get mad when people argue it shouldn't be called 'addiction' so much as I get mad when people say it doesn't exist at all.
And that is part of why psychologically there might be eating addiction but the evidence is, pretty strong that substances, as constituent molecules, themselves aren't addictive.
The eating addiction seems to tie into reward anticipation and the mental association. Hence I see the typical addiction methods of abstinence being the exact wrong treatment in the long run. Dissociation of food and reward will have the best outcomes in my opinion.
sex and gambling aren't addictions in the very real sense of the word, either. They're behavioral cover ups for emotional problems.
So is alcohol most of the time, and other drugs. We are consciousnesses built on chemical reactions, not separate from them. You trying to make it all about the conscious mind or even the subconscious is oversimplifying just like someone trying to say it's %100 chemical is over simplifying.
But no offense, when someone says it's all chemical, it doesn't sound condescending and dismissive, but when someone says it's all mental, it does.
Except the differentiation is that alcohol and drugs cause physical changes in the body that are addictive changes - they force the body to need them, continually and at greater levels. You can't just walk away from drugs and alcohol when you've been using them to cover up an emotional issue and face the issue, you have to break the addiction first.
With sugar and gambling and sex, you can skip breaking the physical addiction (because it isn't there) and go straight to dealing with the behavioral issues.
Recent research has shown habituation to sugar in the brain as well so that you need more to get the same effect.
The only drug that forces you to need it that is commonly abused is alcohol because without it your blood pressure shoots up and you can die.
Opiates cause nasty sickness and muscle cramps. The rest, as far as I remember, don't. Which is why the inpatient detox I worked in wouldn't take meth and coke addicts, for example. They weren't in physical withdrawal. So yes, you can walk away from some drugs same as sugar.
Again, that doesn't say it's equivalent. But I do say it's condescending to ignore chemical changes in the brain wrought by sugar (edit: Or perhaps I should say eating patterns?), and yes sex, gambling, and even shopping. If you keep doing it, you want to stop, and it hurts you, what do you call that? I call it addiction, then differentiate between substances.
There are multiple threads about this right now, so there is a possibility I'm repeating myself, but I'll reiterate: sugar activates the reward center of the brain. It does not cause long term, laying c
Interesting you mention broccoli. It and other vegetables and fruit contain sugar but as has been repeatedly observed, no one seems to mean those when they call sugar addictive.PeachyCarol wrote: »Chiming in here to say I will repost my original addiction behavior post if need be and the excellent Eating Addiction Research Review. There's a difference between seeing foods as addictive substances and having addictive behavior with one's eating. A huge difference.
The first difference being that there's some support in the scientific community for the second paradigm in humans, but there's none for the first.
Here is what I propose for those determined to differentiate:
Come up with one word to describe the addictive behavior. One word. We are lazy. We like to give a single word to such phenomenon. And none exists. Come up with it, get it accepted everywhere, good to go. Be glad to use it. Cocaine users, meth users, gamblers, and other users of anything but alcohol and opiates should use the new word, too. Because if we're really going to categorize, the only two substances worthy of being called addictive are alcohol and opiates. One has potentially lethal withdrawal, the other has a painful one. In fact, they should be distinguished, too.
Root of the problem, right there. Stop being lazy, pull up the boostraps and do the work. Using laziness as a reason to not do anything is not okay.
Not what I meant. Humans are linguistically lazy. Took a college class on it once. Made sense.
To distinguish between the common usage and things that actually physically activate things, the term often used is "physical dependence".PeachyCarol wrote: »Chiming in here to say I will repost my original addiction behavior post if need be and the excellent Eating Addiction Research Review. There's a difference between seeing foods as addictive substances and having addictive behavior with one's eating. A huge difference.
The first difference being that there's some support in the scientific community for the second paradigm in humans, but there's none for the first.
Here is what I propose for those determined to differentiate:
Come up with one word to describe the addictive behavior. One word. We are lazy. We like to give a single word to such phenomenon. And none exists. Come up with it, get it accepted everywhere, good to go. Be glad to use it. Cocaine users, meth users, gamblers, and other users of anything but alcohol and opiates should use the new word, too. Because if we're really going to categorize, the only two substances worthy of being called addictive are alcohol and opiates. One has potentially lethal withdrawal, the other has a painful one. In fact, they should be distinguished, too.
I'm not sure why you categorize alcohol and opiates as different. Cocaine has physical dependence. My recollection would be that amphetamines have physical dependence. Heck, even caffeine has physical dependence and because of that it is often brought up as some kind of trump card by people, though I feel talking about caffeine as an addiction is a little disingenuous.
Carbohydrates, including sugar, do not have physical dependence. You cannot detox out of them - their will always be glucose in a living human body. Having the keto flu is not withdrawal. It is an actual physiological response, but it is not withdrawl.
And physical dependence has the interesting counterpoint to the idea of drug addiction being a social phenomena. If you give an unconscious person a drug they have a physical dependence on, they will remain physically dependent, no matter what they do with their conscious actions. The chemical reactions will still take place. You cannot see this phenomena by giving people food that bypasses eating, and that is part of why food addiction seems implausible, but there is discussion of eating addiction as a behavioral addiction akin to gambling addiction. Personally, I haven't search why or what discussion took place about it, but I wonder why gambling did not become some other term separate from addiction, such as calling it habituated repetitive reward hyperstimulation. At least that would be my proposal for a name for actions that the DSM would classify as addictive behaviors.
You're right as far as it goes, you say I'm addicted to caffeine no one freaks they just nod and go uh huh, pass the creamer! You say I'm addicted to sugar, it's a dog turd storm. I'm frustrated about that. I know what I mean when I use the word addiction in different contexts (I did an internship in an inpatient detox). I know that cocaine, heroin, gambling, opiate addiction (btw drugs used to treat opiate addiction also curb appetite, an interesting fact which in no way makes sugar equal to heroin), alcohol addiction, and food addiction are all very different. But there is no distinguishing word. It's annoying, and not the fault of anyone discussing it on this forum. I'm not trying to nitpick, I'm just trying to pinpoint my frustration with it.
I want to say compulsive eating, but eating what? I won't compulsively eat broccoli. Some people might, though. Maybe it's just a failure of enough non-biased, quality research with enough subjects and then a good name for this particular issue which many of us human beings do have. I don't get mad when people argue it shouldn't be called 'addiction' so much as I get mad when people say it doesn't exist at all.
And that is part of why psychologically there might be eating addiction but the evidence is, pretty strong that substances, as constituent molecules, themselves aren't addictive.
The eating addiction seems to tie into reward anticipation and the mental association. Hence I see the typical addiction methods of abstinence being the exact wrong treatment in the long run. Dissociation of food and reward will have the best outcomes in my opinion.
sex and gambling aren't addictions in the very real sense of the word, either. They're behavioral cover ups for emotional problems.
So is alcohol most of the time, and other drugs. We are consciousnesses built on chemical reactions, not separate from them. You trying to make it all about the conscious mind or even the subconscious is oversimplifying just like someone trying to say it's %100 chemical is over simplifying.
But no offense, when someone says it's all chemical, it doesn't sound condescending and dismissive, but when someone says it's all mental, it does.
Except the differentiation is that alcohol and drugs cause physical changes in the body that are addictive changes - they force the body to need them, continually and at greater levels. You can't just walk away from drugs and alcohol when you've been using them to cover up an emotional issue and face the issue, you have to break the addiction first.
With sugar and gambling and sex, you can skip breaking the physical addiction (because it isn't there) and go straight to dealing with the behavioral issues.
Recent research has shown habituation to sugar in the brain as well so that you need more to get the same effect.
The only drug that forces you to need it that is commonly abused is alcohol because without it your blood pressure shoots up and you can die.
Opiates cause nasty sickness and muscle cramps. The rest, as far as I remember, don't. Which is why the inpatient detox I worked in wouldn't take meth and coke addicts, for example. They weren't in physical withdrawal. So yes, you can walk away from some drugs same as sugar.
Again, that doesn't say it's equivalent. But I do say it's condescending to ignore chemical changes in the brain wrought by sugar (edit: Or perhaps I should say eating patterns?), and yes sex, gambling, and even shopping. If you keep doing it, you want to stop, and it hurts you, what do you call that? I call it addiction, then differentiate between substances.
The "chemical changes" you're referring to is the release of dopamine. I get the same thing when I pet a cute puppy. It's a temporary release of dopamine. It's not a long term change.
Heroin, alcohol, cocaine, etc. cause long term changes to the chemistry of the brain. That's the difference and why it's not condescending to differentiate the two.
Okay, you get the same feeling when you pet a puppy. If someone was wired slightly differently, they might obsess about petting puppies. Our brains are complex, complex things glitch.
Here is the difference: There are a lot more obese people who want to quit, are harming themselves, and need to quit than there are people who have petting puppy obsessions.
Why? Probably because petting a puppy has little survival value (though some, dogs exist after all!) while eating massive amounts of calories has in the past.
It's chemical/genetic/environmental/psychological. Acknowledge that, I'm happy. Pretend it's all a conscious choice, and I have to assume the person doing this is either simplifying it for themselves (hey, whatever works for you!) or is dishonest and is merely playing the personal responsibility card in order to introvert and shame people rather than look logically at our food choices, especially our subsidy choices.0 -
Interesting you mention broccoli. It and other vegetables and fruit contain sugar but as has been repeatedly observed, no one seems to mean those when they call sugar addictive.PeachyCarol wrote: »Chiming in here to say I will repost my original addiction behavior post if need be and the excellent Eating Addiction Research Review. There's a difference between seeing foods as addictive substances and having addictive behavior with one's eating. A huge difference.
The first difference being that there's some support in the scientific community for the second paradigm in humans, but there's none for the first.
Here is what I propose for those determined to differentiate:
Come up with one word to describe the addictive behavior. One word. We are lazy. We like to give a single word to such phenomenon. And none exists. Come up with it, get it accepted everywhere, good to go. Be glad to use it. Cocaine users, meth users, gamblers, and other users of anything but alcohol and opiates should use the new word, too. Because if we're really going to categorize, the only two substances worthy of being called addictive are alcohol and opiates. One has potentially lethal withdrawal, the other has a painful one. In fact, they should be distinguished, too.
Root of the problem, right there. Stop being lazy, pull up the boostraps and do the work. Using laziness as a reason to not do anything is not okay.
Not what I meant. Humans are linguistically lazy. Took a college class on it once. Made sense.
To distinguish between the common usage and things that actually physically activate things, the term often used is "physical dependence".PeachyCarol wrote: »Chiming in here to say I will repost my original addiction behavior post if need be and the excellent Eating Addiction Research Review. There's a difference between seeing foods as addictive substances and having addictive behavior with one's eating. A huge difference.
The first difference being that there's some support in the scientific community for the second paradigm in humans, but there's none for the first.
Here is what I propose for those determined to differentiate:
Come up with one word to describe the addictive behavior. One word. We are lazy. We like to give a single word to such phenomenon. And none exists. Come up with it, get it accepted everywhere, good to go. Be glad to use it. Cocaine users, meth users, gamblers, and other users of anything but alcohol and opiates should use the new word, too. Because if we're really going to categorize, the only two substances worthy of being called addictive are alcohol and opiates. One has potentially lethal withdrawal, the other has a painful one. In fact, they should be distinguished, too.
I'm not sure why you categorize alcohol and opiates as different. Cocaine has physical dependence. My recollection would be that amphetamines have physical dependence. Heck, even caffeine has physical dependence and because of that it is often brought up as some kind of trump card by people, though I feel talking about caffeine as an addiction is a little disingenuous.
Carbohydrates, including sugar, do not have physical dependence. You cannot detox out of them - their will always be glucose in a living human body. Having the keto flu is not withdrawal. It is an actual physiological response, but it is not withdrawl.
And physical dependence has the interesting counterpoint to the idea of drug addiction being a social phenomena. If you give an unconscious person a drug they have a physical dependence on, they will remain physically dependent, no matter what they do with their conscious actions. The chemical reactions will still take place. You cannot see this phenomena by giving people food that bypasses eating, and that is part of why food addiction seems implausible, but there is discussion of eating addiction as a behavioral addiction akin to gambling addiction. Personally, I haven't search why or what discussion took place about it, but I wonder why gambling did not become some other term separate from addiction, such as calling it habituated repetitive reward hyperstimulation. At least that would be my proposal for a name for actions that the DSM would classify as addictive behaviors.
You're right as far as it goes, you say I'm addicted to caffeine no one freaks they just nod and go uh huh, pass the creamer! You say I'm addicted to sugar, it's a dog turd storm. I'm frustrated about that. I know what I mean when I use the word addiction in different contexts (I did an internship in an inpatient detox). I know that cocaine, heroin, gambling, opiate addiction (btw drugs used to treat opiate addiction also curb appetite, an interesting fact which in no way makes sugar equal to heroin), alcohol addiction, and food addiction are all very different. But there is no distinguishing word. It's annoying, and not the fault of anyone discussing it on this forum. I'm not trying to nitpick, I'm just trying to pinpoint my frustration with it.
I want to say compulsive eating, but eating what? I won't compulsively eat broccoli. Some people might, though. Maybe it's just a failure of enough non-biased, quality research with enough subjects and then a good name for this particular issue which many of us human beings do have. I don't get mad when people argue it shouldn't be called 'addiction' so much as I get mad when people say it doesn't exist at all.
And that is part of why psychologically there might be eating addiction but the evidence is, pretty strong that substances, as constituent molecules, themselves aren't addictive.
The eating addiction seems to tie into reward anticipation and the mental association. Hence I see the typical addiction methods of abstinence being the exact wrong treatment in the long run. Dissociation of food and reward will have the best outcomes in my opinion.
sex and gambling aren't addictions in the very real sense of the word, either. They're behavioral cover ups for emotional problems.
So is alcohol most of the time, and other drugs. We are consciousnesses built on chemical reactions, not separate from them. You trying to make it all about the conscious mind or even the subconscious is oversimplifying just like someone trying to say it's %100 chemical is over simplifying.
But no offense, when someone says it's all chemical, it doesn't sound condescending and dismissive, but when someone says it's all mental, it does.
Except the differentiation is that alcohol and drugs cause physical changes in the body that are addictive changes - they force the body to need them, continually and at greater levels. You can't just walk away from drugs and alcohol when you've been using them to cover up an emotional issue and face the issue, you have to break the addiction first.
With sugar and gambling and sex, you can skip breaking the physical addiction (because it isn't there) and go straight to dealing with the behavioral issues.
Recent research has shown habituation to sugar in the brain as well so that you need more to get the same effect.
The only drug that forces you to need it that is commonly abused is alcohol because without it your blood pressure shoots up and you can die.
Opiates cause nasty sickness and muscle cramps. The rest, as far as I remember, don't. Which is why the inpatient detox I worked in wouldn't take meth and coke addicts, for example. They weren't in physical withdrawal. So yes, you can walk away from some drugs same as sugar.
Again, that doesn't say it's equivalent. But I do say it's condescending to ignore chemical changes in the brain wrought by sugar (edit: Or perhaps I should say eating patterns?), and yes sex, gambling, and even shopping. If you keep doing it, you want to stop, and it hurts you, what do you call that? I call it addiction, then differentiate between substances.
There are multiple threads about this right now, so there is a possibility I'm repeating myself, but I'll reiterate: sugar activates the reward center of the brain. It does not cause long term, laying c
Interesting you mention broccoli. It and other vegetables and fruit contain sugar but as has been repeatedly observed, no one seems to mean those when they call sugar addictive.PeachyCarol wrote: »Chiming in here to say I will repost my original addiction behavior post if need be and the excellent Eating Addiction Research Review. There's a difference between seeing foods as addictive substances and having addictive behavior with one's eating. A huge difference.
The first difference being that there's some support in the scientific community for the second paradigm in humans, but there's none for the first.
Here is what I propose for those determined to differentiate:
Come up with one word to describe the addictive behavior. One word. We are lazy. We like to give a single word to such phenomenon. And none exists. Come up with it, get it accepted everywhere, good to go. Be glad to use it. Cocaine users, meth users, gamblers, and other users of anything but alcohol and opiates should use the new word, too. Because if we're really going to categorize, the only two substances worthy of being called addictive are alcohol and opiates. One has potentially lethal withdrawal, the other has a painful one. In fact, they should be distinguished, too.
Root of the problem, right there. Stop being lazy, pull up the boostraps and do the work. Using laziness as a reason to not do anything is not okay.
Not what I meant. Humans are linguistically lazy. Took a college class on it once. Made sense.
To distinguish between the common usage and things that actually physically activate things, the term often used is "physical dependence".PeachyCarol wrote: »Chiming in here to say I will repost my original addiction behavior post if need be and the excellent Eating Addiction Research Review. There's a difference between seeing foods as addictive substances and having addictive behavior with one's eating. A huge difference.
The first difference being that there's some support in the scientific community for the second paradigm in humans, but there's none for the first.
Here is what I propose for those determined to differentiate:
Come up with one word to describe the addictive behavior. One word. We are lazy. We like to give a single word to such phenomenon. And none exists. Come up with it, get it accepted everywhere, good to go. Be glad to use it. Cocaine users, meth users, gamblers, and other users of anything but alcohol and opiates should use the new word, too. Because if we're really going to categorize, the only two substances worthy of being called addictive are alcohol and opiates. One has potentially lethal withdrawal, the other has a painful one. In fact, they should be distinguished, too.
I'm not sure why you categorize alcohol and opiates as different. Cocaine has physical dependence. My recollection would be that amphetamines have physical dependence. Heck, even caffeine has physical dependence and because of that it is often brought up as some kind of trump card by people, though I feel talking about caffeine as an addiction is a little disingenuous.
Carbohydrates, including sugar, do not have physical dependence. You cannot detox out of them - their will always be glucose in a living human body. Having the keto flu is not withdrawal. It is an actual physiological response, but it is not withdrawl.
And physical dependence has the interesting counterpoint to the idea of drug addiction being a social phenomena. If you give an unconscious person a drug they have a physical dependence on, they will remain physically dependent, no matter what they do with their conscious actions. The chemical reactions will still take place. You cannot see this phenomena by giving people food that bypasses eating, and that is part of why food addiction seems implausible, but there is discussion of eating addiction as a behavioral addiction akin to gambling addiction. Personally, I haven't search why or what discussion took place about it, but I wonder why gambling did not become some other term separate from addiction, such as calling it habituated repetitive reward hyperstimulation. At least that would be my proposal for a name for actions that the DSM would classify as addictive behaviors.
You're right as far as it goes, you say I'm addicted to caffeine no one freaks they just nod and go uh huh, pass the creamer! You say I'm addicted to sugar, it's a dog turd storm. I'm frustrated about that. I know what I mean when I use the word addiction in different contexts (I did an internship in an inpatient detox). I know that cocaine, heroin, gambling, opiate addiction (btw drugs used to treat opiate addiction also curb appetite, an interesting fact which in no way makes sugar equal to heroin), alcohol addiction, and food addiction are all very different. But there is no distinguishing word. It's annoying, and not the fault of anyone discussing it on this forum. I'm not trying to nitpick, I'm just trying to pinpoint my frustration with it.
I want to say compulsive eating, but eating what? I won't compulsively eat broccoli. Some people might, though. Maybe it's just a failure of enough non-biased, quality research with enough subjects and then a good name for this particular issue which many of us human beings do have. I don't get mad when people argue it shouldn't be called 'addiction' so much as I get mad when people say it doesn't exist at all.
And that is part of why psychologically there might be eating addiction but the evidence is, pretty strong that substances, as constituent molecules, themselves aren't addictive.
The eating addiction seems to tie into reward anticipation and the mental association. Hence I see the typical addiction methods of abstinence being the exact wrong treatment in the long run. Dissociation of food and reward will have the best outcomes in my opinion.
sex and gambling aren't addictions in the very real sense of the word, either. They're behavioral cover ups for emotional problems.
So is alcohol most of the time, and other drugs. We are consciousnesses built on chemical reactions, not separate from them. You trying to make it all about the conscious mind or even the subconscious is oversimplifying just like someone trying to say it's %100 chemical is over simplifying.
But no offense, when someone says it's all chemical, it doesn't sound condescending and dismissive, but when someone says it's all mental, it does.
Except the differentiation is that alcohol and drugs cause physical changes in the body that are addictive changes - they force the body to need them, continually and at greater levels. You can't just walk away from drugs and alcohol when you've been using them to cover up an emotional issue and face the issue, you have to break the addiction first.
With sugar and gambling and sex, you can skip breaking the physical addiction (because it isn't there) and go straight to dealing with the behavioral issues.
Recent research has shown habituation to sugar in the brain as well so that you need more to get the same effect.
The only drug that forces you to need it that is commonly abused is alcohol because without it your blood pressure shoots up and you can die.
Opiates cause nasty sickness and muscle cramps. The rest, as far as I remember, don't. Which is why the inpatient detox I worked in wouldn't take meth and coke addicts, for example. They weren't in physical withdrawal. So yes, you can walk away from some drugs same as sugar.
Again, that doesn't say it's equivalent. But I do say it's condescending to ignore chemical changes in the brain wrought by sugar (edit: Or perhaps I should say eating patterns?), and yes sex, gambling, and even shopping. If you keep doing it, you want to stop, and it hurts you, what do you call that? I call it addiction, then differentiate between substances.
The "chemical changes" you're referring to is the release of dopamine. I get the same thing when I pet a cute puppy. It's a temporary release of dopamine. It's not a long term change.
Heroin, alcohol, cocaine, etc. cause long term changes to the chemistry of the brain. That's the difference and why it's not condescending to differentiate the two.
Okay, you get the same feeling when you pet a puppy. If someone was wired slightly differently, they might obsess about petting puppies. Our brains are complex, complex things glitch.
Here is the difference: There are a lot more obese people who want to quit, are harming themselves, and need to quit than there are people who have petting puppy obsessions.
Why? Probably because petting a puppy has little survival value (though some, dogs exist after all!) while eating massive amounts of calories has in the past.
It's chemical/genetic/environmental/psychological. Acknowledge that, I'm happy. Pretend it's all a conscious choice, and I have to assume the person doing this is either simplifying it for themselves (hey, whatever works for you!) or is dishonest and is merely playing the personal responsibility card in order to introvert and shame people rather than look logically at our food choices, especially our subsidy choices.
Thanks for fixing my quoting problem.
I see your point about puppies. Darn them not being a survival method.
I'm confused by your last paragraph though- can you explain?0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions