Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Food Addiction - A Different Perspective
Replies
-
I would like to thank the moderators for reinstating this thread. There's a lot of good discussion in here! I hope there will be a lot more.
I think it's really helpful for people to see the difference between substance and behavior when it comes to issues with food.
That's why I started this thread in the first place. Whether a person's issues with food reach the criteria to be considered addiction or not, it could be helpful to reframe one's thinking from one to the other in order to make progress.0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »I would like to thank the moderators for reinstating this thread. There's a lot of good discussion in here! I hope there will be a lot more.
I think it's really helpful for people to see the difference between substance and behavior when it comes to issues with food.
That's why I started this thread in the first place. Whether a person's issues with food reach the criteria to be considered addiction or not, it could be helpful to reframe one's thinking from one to the other in order to make progress.
+10 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »This really has been cleaned up!! Wasn't it 40 pages before ???
14... but this was the second cleaning.
You deserve a medal.
It's not just me.. it's the team. I am just the sucker who got to clean it up.0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »This really has been cleaned up!! Wasn't it 40 pages before ???
14... but this was the second cleaning.
You deserve a medal.
It's not just me.. it's the team. I am just the sucker who got to clean it up.
It's like one of those awards you win that you really just wish you could give back.
And I agree, I think this was a great discussion, and I'm glad to see it back.0 -
Yes, thank you for a good & thoughtful post. I've always felt over eating seems more akin to anxiety & maladaptive self soothing strategies, and/or impulse control & executive function impairments, where shopping and sex 'addictions' seem to fall too. Drug, alcohol, caffeine & nicotine addictions seem like a different genus of beasts entirely. But I'm not a clinician, just a wry observer of life!0
-
Yes, thank you for a good & thoughtful post. I've always felt over eating seems more akin to anxiety & maladaptive self soothing strategies, and/or impulse control & executive function impairments, where shopping and sex 'addictions' seem to fall too. Drug, alcohol, caffeine & nicotine addictions seem like a different genus of beasts entirely. But I'm not a clinician, just a wry observer of life!
Personally, I found out the hard way that my problems with food, while not meeting the threshold for addiction, were still problems with behavior.
I'll back track a bit though, because I'm not certain that it matters for the sake of discussion here whether I met the addiction threshold or not. (Though I'd really like to reserve "eating addiction" for those with true disorders like the morbidly obese. I think people who are truly addicted cross a line that lies somewhere on a continuum, but I'm not sure where that line is. I know that I didn't cross it.)
My own issues were self-soothing behaviors, or at least they started out that way. Throw some impulse control issues on there and a heaping helping of denial and I don't really think you have a very atypical person with food problems.
I think it's quite common for many of us to deny our own culpability and grasp for straws in trying to get to the bottom of why we struggle so with food at times. I know I did. It does feel very much like the food has power. I considered myself to be very much addicted to certain foods at one point and gave them up for a good deal of time.
After some time, I had to -- realist that I am -- come face to face with the cold hard reality that my weight wasn't responding to not having those foods in my life. I was still self-soothing with different foods. It took me a while to face that fact, though.0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »This really has been cleaned up!! Wasn't it 40 pages before ???
14... but this was the second cleaning.
You deserve a medal.
It's not just me.. it's the team. I am just the sucker who got to clean it up.
Ha, ha!
Seriously, thanks for cleaning it up so it could get opened. This is one of the best threads out there.0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »This really has been cleaned up!! Wasn't it 40 pages before ???
14... but this was the second cleaning.
Thanks psuLemon. 40 to 14 pages? I don't think even the peep master cleanse system can remove toxins that hard.
On topic - I've always wondered what, besides attempting to avoid admitting fault, is the point of using normal physical dependence / addiction models towards the problem of food addiction. While I don't necessarily agree, the AA and many other models of addictive substance treatment rely on getting through physical withdrawal safely, and then never consuming the substance again. I don't see a way to really work this with foods. Nobody can abstain from having sugar in their system.0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »This really has been cleaned up!! Wasn't it 40 pages before ???
14... but this was the second cleaning.
Thanks psuLemon. 40 to 14 pages? I don't think even the peep master cleanse system can remove toxins that hard.
On topic - I've always wondered what, besides attempting to avoid admitting fault, is the point of using normal physical dependence / addiction models towards the problem of food addiction. While I don't necessarily agree, the AA and many other models of addictive substance treatment rely on getting through physical withdrawal safely, and then never consuming the substance again. I don't see a way to really work this with foods. Nobody can abstain from having sugar in their system.
Before someone else gets there, there is the one addiction guy who thinks that addicts can go on to consume alcohol in moderation.
I'd submit that they were never genetic addicts in the first place, and that they didn't cross the threshold from problematic behavior to addiction.
I think one of the problems with a discussion on addiction is that there's likely a continuum of sorts with some of the addictive substances/behaviors where you can be on a path towards trouble but not quite be there yet.
I tend to think lay people diagnosing themselves with addiction can be confused about this a lot of the time.0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »This really has been cleaned up!! Wasn't it 40 pages before ???
14... but this was the second cleaning.
Thanks psuLemon. 40 to 14 pages? I don't think even the peep master cleanse system can remove toxins that hard.
On topic - I've always wondered what, besides attempting to avoid admitting fault, is the point of using normal physical dependence / addiction models towards the problem of food addiction. While I don't necessarily agree, the AA and many other models of addictive substance treatment rely on getting through physical withdrawal safely, and then never consuming the substance again. I don't see a way to really work this with foods. Nobody can abstain from having sugar in their system.
Before someone else gets there, there is the one addiction guy who thinks that addicts can go on to consume alcohol in moderation.
I'd submit that they were never genetic addicts in the first place, and that they didn't cross the threshold from problematic behavior to addiction.
I think one of the problems with a discussion on addiction is that there's likely a continuum of sorts with some of the addictive substances/behaviors where you can be on a path towards trouble but not quite be there yet.
I tend to think lay people diagnosing themselves with addiction can be confused about this a lot of the time.
My general problem with the it, at least for alcoholics, is that the AA model is predicated more on certain morals than it is on evidence and effectiveness. The idea of total abstinence as purity and the way to solve problems is that comes from certain religious perspectives, and it they are all rather embedded in the AA model, right down to expecting submission to a higher power.
I'll admit, it also becomes non-evidence based for me there a bit. I don't want to have a world philosophy that involves saying ice cream or pizza is more powerful than me, and only by complete abstinence and the beneficence of something greater can I not be destroyed by them. I prefer to think of myself as their destroyer, not the other way around.0 -
While I have no confusion about whether or not alcohol once was a serious problem for me, I do not like to give myself labels such as "Alcoholic" or "Addict." I answered this quiz from the National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence as if I were still in my drinking days and scored a 20:
Am I Alcoholic?
Understanding Your Score:
A "no" is scored 0, and a "yes" is scored 1. The score above reflects the total number of questions that were answered “yes”. A score of 2 or more indicates that you may be at greater risk for alcoholism.
If you answered “yes” to between 2 and 8 questions, you should consider arranging a personal meeting with a professional who has experience in the evaluation of alcohol problems. You should consider contacting the NCADD affiliate office nearest to you. A representative will be happy to assist you in the scheduling of a professional evaluation.
If you answered “yes” to more than 8 questions, you may have a serious level of alcohol-related problems requiring immediate attention and possible treatment. You should seek professional guidance. You should consider contacting the NCADD affiliate office nearest to you. A representative will be happy to assist you in the scheduling of a professional evaluation.
0 -
IMO (based on my own experiences) food became a coping method that covered up the underlying cause. Eating distracted me from letting my thoughts go to places that were dark and terrifying. Food was readily available...affordable...more acceptable than drugs.
After all of those years as using food for my drug of choice it has been a struggle to change my thought process. At various times I have given in to that old behavior. The urges are there...most likely they always will be.
It would be easier to call it addiction I suppose then I wouldn't have had to face all of those dark and terrifying places in my mind instead of having to finally face them.0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »This really has been cleaned up!! Wasn't it 40 pages before ???
14... but this was the second cleaning.
Thanks psuLemon. 40 to 14 pages? I don't think even the peep master cleanse system can remove toxins that hard.
On topic - I've always wondered what, besides attempting to avoid admitting fault, is the point of using normal physical dependence / addiction models towards the problem of food addiction. While I don't necessarily agree, the AA and many other models of addictive substance treatment rely on getting through physical withdrawal safely, and then never consuming the substance again. I don't see a way to really work this with foods. Nobody can abstain from having sugar in their system.
Before someone else gets there, there is the one addiction guy who thinks that addicts can go on to consume alcohol in moderation.
I'd submit that they were never genetic addicts in the first place, and that they didn't cross the threshold from problematic behavior to addiction.
I think one of the problems with a discussion on addiction is that there's likely a continuum of sorts with some of the addictive substances/behaviors where you can be on a path towards trouble but not quite be there yet.
I tend to think lay people diagnosing themselves with addiction can be confused about this a lot of the time.
My general problem with the it, at least for alcoholics, is that the AA model is predicated more on certain morals than it is on evidence and effectiveness. The idea of total abstinence as purity and the way to solve problems is that comes from certain religious perspectives, and it they are all rather embedded in the AA model, right down to expecting submission to a higher power.
I'll admit, it also becomes non-evidence based for me there a bit. I don't want to have a world philosophy that involves saying ice cream or pizza is more powerful than me, and only by complete abstinence and the beneficence of something greater can I not be destroyed by them. I prefer to think of myself as their destroyer, not the other way around.
Mmmm... destroying ice cream.
But yes... if you're going to argue that substance addiction is treated with abstinence, then food addiction can't be substance based.
I'd also add that even without the moral aspects that AA adds to the whole issue of substance addiction, they're not the only model out there which argues for abstinence. I do agree with you on the feels involved with the whole mess of purity and powerlessness, though.0 -
I do find those signs and symptoms of alcoholism interesting because of something my father pointed out to me about them.kshama2001 wrote: »While I have no confusion about whether or not alcohol once was a serious problem for me, I do not like to give myself labels such as "Alcoholic" or "Addict." I answered this as if I were still in my drinking days and scored a 20:
Am I Alcoholic?
Understanding Your Score:
A "no" is scored 0, and a "yes" is scored 1. The score above reflects the total number of questions that were answered “yes”. A score of 2 or more indicates that you may be at greater risk for alcoholism.
If you answered “yes” to between 2 and 8 questions, you should consider arranging a personal meeting with a professional who has experience in the evaluation of alcohol problems. You should consider contacting the NCADD affiliate office nearest to you. A representative will be happy to assist you in the scheduling of a professional evaluation.
If you answered “yes” to more than 8 questions, you may have a serious level of alcohol-related problems requiring immediate attention and possible treatment. You should seek professional guidance. You should consider contacting the NCADD affiliate office nearest to you. A representative will be happy to assist you in the scheduling of a professional evaluation.
My father is a recovered alcoholic. During his drinking days he'd be eligible to check almost every box on those kind of quizzes.
My father's identical twin is not considered an alcoholic, unlike the rest of the men in their family. Yet, the one single time he went drinking with my dad, his behavior would have checked off many of the usual boxes. He drank to drunkness, to the point of becoming physically ill, he lied (poorly) to family about not drinking, couldn't remember things the next day, etc. I think the only major stereotypical sign of alcoholism he didn't show was drinking alone. All of those happened in the one single time he went drinking.0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »This really has been cleaned up!! Wasn't it 40 pages before ???
14... but this was the second cleaning.
Thanks psuLemon. 40 to 14 pages? I don't think even the peep master cleanse system can remove toxins that hard.
On topic - I've always wondered what, besides attempting to avoid admitting fault, is the point of using normal physical dependence / addiction models towards the problem of food addiction. While I don't necessarily agree, the AA and many other models of addictive substance treatment rely on getting through physical withdrawal safely, and then never consuming the substance again. I don't see a way to really work this with foods. Nobody can abstain from having sugar in their system.
Before someone else gets there, there is the one addiction guy who thinks that addicts can go on to consume alcohol in moderation.
I'd submit that they were never genetic addicts in the first place, and that they didn't cross the threshold from problematic behavior to addiction.
I think one of the problems with a discussion on addiction is that there's likely a continuum of sorts with some of the addictive substances/behaviors where you can be on a path towards trouble but not quite be there yet.
I tend to think lay people diagnosing themselves with addiction can be confused about this a lot of the time.
My general problem with the it, at least for alcoholics, is that the AA model is predicated more on certain morals than it is on evidence and effectiveness. The idea of total abstinence as purity and the way to solve problems is that comes from certain religious perspectives, and it they are all rather embedded in the AA model, right down to expecting submission to a higher power.
I'll admit, it also becomes non-evidence based for me there a bit. I don't want to have a world philosophy that involves saying ice cream or pizza is more powerful than me, and only by complete abstinence and the beneficence of something greater can I not be destroyed by them. I prefer to think of myself as their destroyer, not the other way around.
Mmmm... destroying ice cream.
But yes... if you're going to argue that substance addiction is treated with abstinence, then food addiction can't be substance based.
I'd also add that even without the moral aspects that AA adds to the whole issue of substance addiction, they're not the only model out there which argues for abstinence. I do agree with you on the feels involved with the whole mess of purity and powerlessness, though.
I wouldn't claim other models don't encourage complete abstinence. AA's reasons for it, and possibly many of them, don't stem from evidence based treatment though.
And most importantly, I don't know what an abstinence based diet would be. Everyone has to eat something. What does abstinence than mean for food? Living on a tasteless, bland diet? Living on one of those balance nutrient liquid systems? The nearest I see is people marking foods as problematic and putting them on an abstinence list. I think those could work for losing some weight, possibly even a lot of weight, but I don't think many people will reach a normal weight purely from restricting problem foods, and I think it really just compounds the issues, rather than helps them.0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »This really has been cleaned up!! Wasn't it 40 pages before ???
14... but this was the second cleaning.
Thanks psuLemon. 40 to 14 pages? I don't think even the peep master cleanse system can remove toxins that hard.
On topic - I've always wondered what, besides attempting to avoid admitting fault, is the point of using normal physical dependence / addiction models towards the problem of food addiction. While I don't necessarily agree, the AA and many other models of addictive substance treatment rely on getting through physical withdrawal safely, and then never consuming the substance again. I don't see a way to really work this with foods. Nobody can abstain from having sugar in their system.
Before someone else gets there, there is the one addiction guy who thinks that addicts can go on to consume alcohol in moderation.
I'd submit that they were never genetic addicts in the first place, and that they didn't cross the threshold from problematic behavior to addiction.
I think one of the problems with a discussion on addiction is that there's likely a continuum of sorts with some of the addictive substances/behaviors where you can be on a path towards trouble but not quite be there yet.
I tend to think lay people diagnosing themselves with addiction can be confused about this a lot of the time.
My general problem with the it, at least for alcoholics, is that the AA model is predicated more on certain morals than it is on evidence and effectiveness. The idea of total abstinence as purity and the way to solve problems is that comes from certain religious perspectives, and it they are all rather embedded in the AA model, right down to expecting submission to a higher power.
I'll admit, it also becomes non-evidence based for me there a bit. I don't want to have a world philosophy that involves saying ice cream or pizza is more powerful than me, and only by complete abstinence and the beneficence of something greater can I not be destroyed by them. I prefer to think of myself as their destroyer, not the other way around.
Yes, this is why I found Rational Recovery and Smart Recovery more useful than AA, and in a very short time.0 -
Glad this thread came back. Even though I was morbidly obese, I do not think I have addictive behaviors towards foods. I have never binged. I use words like craving and compulsion. I very much enjoyed Duhigg's book on the Power of Habit this past week. I do have to watch that I don't fall in to old habit patterns around eating, and unthinkingly eat more than I need. I like Duhigg's suggestion that we not even try and eliminate old habits, but simply redirect them. His premise in the book however that the triggers and rewards are so highly individual that there is no "one size fits all" solution.
I know that I am triggered right after work, and I disrupt my old habit by eating a small snack in the late afternoon. Duhigg changed his afternoon snack habit by socializing instead.
Some are triggered by sad events, others in happy social ones.
The therapist on my weight loss team, a lovely slim woman, pointed out poignantly that it's not just the obese who might have disordered thinking around food. I got the sense she was speaking from experience.
P.S. Duhigg offers some suggestions why AA has proven so effective.0 -
I do find those signs and symptoms of alcoholism interesting because of something my father pointed out to me about them.kshama2001 wrote: »While I have no confusion about whether or not alcohol once was a serious problem for me, I do not like to give myself labels such as "Alcoholic" or "Addict." I answered this as if I were still in my drinking days and scored a 20:
Am I Alcoholic?
Understanding Your Score:
A "no" is scored 0, and a "yes" is scored 1. The score above reflects the total number of questions that were answered “yes”. A score of 2 or more indicates that you may be at greater risk for alcoholism.
If you answered “yes” to between 2 and 8 questions, you should consider arranging a personal meeting with a professional who has experience in the evaluation of alcohol problems. You should consider contacting the NCADD affiliate office nearest to you. A representative will be happy to assist you in the scheduling of a professional evaluation.
If you answered “yes” to more than 8 questions, you may have a serious level of alcohol-related problems requiring immediate attention and possible treatment. You should seek professional guidance. You should consider contacting the NCADD affiliate office nearest to you. A representative will be happy to assist you in the scheduling of a professional evaluation.
My father is a recovered alcoholic. During his drinking days he'd be eligible to check almost every box on those kind of quizzes.
My father's identical twin is not considered an alcoholic, unlike the rest of the men in their family. Yet, the one single time he went drinking with my dad, his behavior would have checked off many of the usual boxes. He drank to drunkness, to the point of becoming physically ill, he lied (poorly) to family about not drinking, couldn't remember things the next day, etc. I think the only major stereotypical sign of alcoholism he didn't show was drinking alone. All of those happened in the one single time he went drinking.
I'm fascinated in alcoholism, and don't understand it, but do think the evidence is it's some weird mix of physical reaction to alcohol, cultural norms, and familial norms. Probably a different mix with different people. I knew my physical reaction to alcohol was messed up from the first time I took a drink, but I can't tell how much that was colored by coming from a family where a huge percentage of my close family members are alcoholics or addicts or by coming from an environment where binge drinking and abusive drinking was more common (and kind of romanticized) vs. moderate drinking. It gets all tied together.
There are some ways in which my eating behaviors are similar to my old drinking behaviors -- certainly I used it as a substitute way to dysfunctionally self-comfort or avoid feeling feelings, and there are hard habitual associations between doing something or a particular time and eating like there were with sitting in a particular chair or being in a particular place and drinking, so in those ways similar strategies could be helpful, but in other, much more fundamental ways, the two things are different. Which is why saying "hey, I'll drink only beer" was a laugh when I tried it (although wine was always my first love), but cutting out specific trigger foods is not the same thing.0 -
I tend to agree with the behavioral "eating" addiction concept (for some people, not all with control issues around food) that is explained in the early posts, as well as how it develops.
However, since another current thread seems to be trending toward the all popular claim that sugar is uniquely addictive, I thought this from Salt Sugar Fat, by Michael Moss, is interesting. The background is that some use the way that sugar lights up the pleasure receptors in the brain as evidence that sugar is addictive. I disagree -- I don't think it makes sense to use "causes pleasure" as the definition of what is physically addictive, especially when we are talking about something that we should find pleasurable -- eating is necessary for human life, after all.
But if we want to focus on this, it's by no means unique to sugar, which is why those scientists who do think addiction is a useful concept for foods tend to say it applies to highly palatable foods, and typically those that score highest are not primarily sugar, but things like pizza.
In Salt Sugar Fat, Moss talks about it being well known that sugar lights up the pleasure receptors, and a test done with a control (saliva), sugar, fat, and a sugar-fat mix. "As expected, the saliva generated no evident stimulus. No surprise with the sugar solution, either.... But the shock came when his subjects got hold of the fat: Their brain chemistry lit up just as brightly for the fat as it did for the sugar.... 'Fat and sugar both produce strong reward effects in the brain,' Rolls said when I asked him which was more potent, sugar or fat. It's a toss up."0 -
Here's the issue I take with conflating foods lighting up with them being addictive -- isn't the process of addiction more complicated than merely having pleasure centers light up? @senecarr has elaborated on this rather well with a thorough explanation of neurotransmitters, but I'll admit some of that is a bit over my head.
For me, it's enough that the authors of the literature review Caitwn posted say there's no evidence for a substance addiction in any food in humans.
Please note, I haven't read the sugar thread. I'll try to later.
On another note, substances of addiction include both substance and behavioral aspects when it comes to being addicted to them. I think, at least when it comes to alcohol, that it's possible to have a problem with the behavior side of things without having the substance issue. I posit that those who are able, like @kshama2001, to move onto moderation, are able to do so because of this.
This brings me back to the point of this thread. Issues with food, following the science presented here, seeing addiction as a behavioral construct, offers hope to the person suffering of moving past their issues into a recovery of moderation, and not living a life where they must permanently abstain from certain foods/food groups.0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »Here's the issue I take with conflating foods lighting up with them being addictive -- isn't the process of addiction more complicated than merely having pleasure centers light up?
If this is related to my post, I totally agree and tried to say as much. My point was that even if that were significant, sugar is not unique. (And indeed of course we find caloric food pleasurable, that seems an obvious benefit to survival over human history.)On another note, substances of addiction include both substance and behavioral aspects when it comes to being addicted to them. I think, at least when it comes to alcohol, that it's possible to have a problem with the behavior side of things without having the substance issue. I posit that those who are able, like @kshama2001, to move onto moderation, are able to do so because of this.
This is what I think too.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »Here's the issue I take with conflating foods lighting up with them being addictive -- isn't the process of addiction more complicated than merely having pleasure centers light up?
If this is related to my post, I totally agree and tried to say as much. My point was that even if that were significant, sugar is not unique. (And indeed of course we find caloric food pleasurable, that seems an obvious benefit to survival over human history.)On another note, substances of addiction include both substance and behavioral aspects when it comes to being addicted to them. I think, at least when it comes to alcohol, that it's possible to have a problem with the behavior side of things without having the substance issue. I posit that those who are able, like @kshama2001, to move onto moderation, are able to do so because of this.
This is what I think too.
Sorry if you made that point and missed it Lemur! My son is on team speak in Minecraft right now and I can barely hear myself think!0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »This brings me back to the point of this thread. Issues with food, following the science presented here, seeing addiction as a behavioral construct, offers hope to the person suffering of moving past their issues into a recovery of moderation, and not living a life where they must permanently abstain from certain foods/food groups.
The question is: how do you convince someone of this? I'm thinking of a family member, age 60+, who insists that she is addicted to M&M's (and the like) and will never conquer this addiction without completely abstaining from it, which she has no interest in doing. Because she's tried to abstain, finds it unrealistic, and goes right back to the compulsive overeating behavior. It's an endless tape loop. And really tiring for those who have to listen to it.
(Which sounds harsh, I love her, I really do...)
0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »On another note, substances of addiction include both substance and behavioral aspects when it comes to being addicted to them. I think, at least when it comes to alcohol, that it's possible to have a problem with the behavior side of things without having the substance issue. I posit that those who are able, like @kshama2001, to move onto moderation, are able to do so because of this.
This brings me back to the point of this thread. Issues with food, following the science presented here, seeing addiction as a behavioral construct, offers hope to the person suffering of moving past their issues into a recovery of moderation, and not living a life where they must permanently abstain from certain foods/food groups.
This is probably why I vigorously defend those who think they have food addiction issues - I clearly had a problem with alcohol, which was helped with cognitive behavioral therapy type approaches, and I recognize many of the same patterns, cravings, and solutions with my relationship with food.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »On another note, substances of addiction include both substance and behavioral aspects when it comes to being addicted to them. I think, at least when it comes to alcohol, that it's possible to have a problem with the behavior side of things without having the substance issue. I posit that those who are able, like @kshama2001, to move onto moderation, are able to do so because of this.
This brings me back to the point of this thread. Issues with food, following the science presented here, seeing addiction as a behavioral construct, offers hope to the person suffering of moving past their issues into a recovery of moderation, and not living a life where they must permanently abstain from certain foods/food groups.
This is probably why I vigorously defend those who think they have food addiction issues - I clearly had a problem with alcohol, which was helped with cognitive behavioral therapy type approaches, and I recognize many of the same patterns, cravings, and solutions with my relationship with food.
However... there needs to be a distinction made.
And this is where the issue lies.
The distinction is really important.
If you abstain without addressing the fact that you have a behavioral issue, which is what a lot of people do because they assume they're addicted to foods as a substance,then you will still have the underlying issue.
This is why I argue against using the term without a clinical diagnosis.
Because to me blaming the substance goes against the science and doesn't address the issue.
For the purpose of the person needing help, no it does not matter -- if they plan to take a behavior modification approach -- that they want to call themselves addicted, because they are addressing the root of the problem.
At the end of the day, though, too often, most people colloquially use "addiction" to avoid facing the behavioral aspect of their problem.
Hence, this thread.0 -
This looks interesting - off for a walk so haven't read it yet: Natural Rewards, Neuroplasticity, and Non-Drug Addictions0
-
kshama2001 wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »On another note, substances of addiction include both substance and behavioral aspects when it comes to being addicted to them. I think, at least when it comes to alcohol, that it's possible to have a problem with the behavior side of things without having the substance issue. I posit that those who are able, like @kshama2001, to move onto moderation, are able to do so because of this.
This brings me back to the point of this thread. Issues with food, following the science presented here, seeing addiction as a behavioral construct, offers hope to the person suffering of moving past their issues into a recovery of moderation, and not living a life where they must permanently abstain from certain foods/food groups.
This is probably why I vigorously defend those who think they have food addiction issues - I clearly had a problem with alcohol, which was helped with cognitive behavioral therapy type approaches, and I recognize many of the same patterns, cravings, and solutions with my relationship with food.
The problem is that the dominant (I would say overwhelming) use of the term "addiction" is for something that can't be overcome (other than through abstinence), so telling people "oh, it's an addiction" doesn't seem likely to encourage the kinds of work that likely can be helpful.
(I also really don't think it's the same, although I think one can have issues with alcohol that are akin to the kinds of things we are talking about with food, and I do think eating can become like an addiction -- although IMO that requires much more severe behavior than feeling like you can't stop overeating sweets, and is more like something that you'd find with a super morbidly obese person who has decided that nothing else in her life matters.)0 -
This content has been removed.
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »On another note, substances of addiction include both substance and behavioral aspects when it comes to being addicted to them. I think, at least when it comes to alcohol, that it's possible to have a problem with the behavior side of things without having the substance issue. I posit that those who are able, like @kshama2001, to move onto moderation, are able to do so because of this.
This brings me back to the point of this thread. Issues with food, following the science presented here, seeing addiction as a behavioral construct, offers hope to the person suffering of moving past their issues into a recovery of moderation, and not living a life where they must permanently abstain from certain foods/food groups.
This is probably why I vigorously defend those who think they have food addiction issues - I clearly had a problem with alcohol, which was helped with cognitive behavioral therapy type approaches, and I recognize many of the same patterns, cravings, and solutions with my relationship with food.
The problem is that the dominant (I would say overwhelming) use of the term "addiction" is for something that can't be overcome (other than through abstinence), so telling people "oh, it's an addiction" doesn't seem likely to encourage the kinds of work that likely can be helpful.
(I also really don't think it's the same, although I think one can have issues with alcohol that are akin to the kinds of things we are talking about with food, and I do think eating can become like an addiction -- although IMO that requires much more severe behavior than feeling like you can't stop overeating sweets, and is more like something that you'd find with a super morbidly obese person who has decided that nothing else in her life matters.)
No one on Team Addiction says "oh, it's an addiction" as if that means there is nothing that can be done - we say what has worked for us. It's Team Not Addiction that tends to express the view that calling issues with food an addiction is an excuse to not change behaviors.
Self medicating with food was a very similar neighborhood as self medicating with alcohol was for me.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »On another note, substances of addiction include both substance and behavioral aspects when it comes to being addicted to them. I think, at least when it comes to alcohol, that it's possible to have a problem with the behavior side of things without having the substance issue. I posit that those who are able, like @kshama2001, to move onto moderation, are able to do so because of this.
This brings me back to the point of this thread. Issues with food, following the science presented here, seeing addiction as a behavioral construct, offers hope to the person suffering of moving past their issues into a recovery of moderation, and not living a life where they must permanently abstain from certain foods/food groups.
This is probably why I vigorously defend those who think they have food addiction issues - I clearly had a problem with alcohol, which was helped with cognitive behavioral therapy type approaches, and I recognize many of the same patterns, cravings, and solutions with my relationship with food.
The problem is that the dominant (I would say overwhelming) use of the term "addiction" is for something that can't be overcome (other than through abstinence), so telling people "oh, it's an addiction" doesn't seem likely to encourage the kinds of work that likely can be helpful.
(I also really don't think it's the same, although I think one can have issues with alcohol that are akin to the kinds of things we are talking about with food, and I do think eating can become like an addiction -- although IMO that requires much more severe behavior than feeling like you can't stop overeating sweets, and is more like something that you'd find with a super morbidly obese person who has decided that nothing else in her life matters.)
No one on Team Addiction says "oh, it's an addiction" as if that means there is nothing that can be done - we say what has worked for us. It's Team Not Addiction that tends to express the view that calling issues with food an addiction is an excuse to not change behaviors.
Self medicating with food was a very similar neighborhood as self medicating with alcohol was for me.
I don't think either "team" is saying what you're saying. I think the point that is coming up is that a lot of people use the term "addiction" as a way of justifying not doing anything about it. It's about intrinsic v. extrinsic motivation and world views.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