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
-
This content has been removed.
-
Heinz ketchup is remarkably better than any of the others. I agree with your coworker.3
-
-
This content has been removed.
-
I don't really like ketchup at all anymore, but when I was a kid my big reason for preferring McD's to BK is that I thought BK ketchup tasted weird and it ruined the fries for me.
Not sure what brand, if any, they used back then.2 -
This content has been removed.
-
WinoGelato wrote: »Ok all. You're misunderstanding what food addiction is. It is not an emotional or behavioural based problem. It is an actual physiological addiction to a food or foods. You have no idea about my friends with the Pepsi addiction...it's not a caffeine addiction at all. It is Pepsi. To give an example one of them, Annie, stayed with us for three months. One morning we had no Pepsi in the house. We had coke, we had tea, we had coffee...several caffeine sources but only Pepsi would do. Before even eating breakfast, a mere three minutes after stumbling out of bed, we were driving Annie to the closest corner shop so she could buy a big bottle of Pepsi. We get to the stop light across from the corner shop...alas it was red so we stopped. Annie literally jumped out of the car and ran across a busy intersection because she couldn't wait to get her Pepsi. We catch up and she is in line to pay but with the bottle already open and she's taking gulps of the stuff like a person who's just crawled out of the Sahara desert. I had never seen anything like it in my life! You don't know just what a food addict goes through until you see it firsthand.
Look most people can drink alcohol without becoming an alcoholic...but alcoholism is real. Many recreational drug users are not addicts, but junkies exist. It is the same with food...most people can eat these engineered foods without getting addicted but some cannot. They've tried talking therapy and behavioural methods on food addicts with no success. What has worked is the same addict therapy used for alcoholics and drug users. There are numerous scientific studies showing food addiction is a real physiological disease affecting the brain as strongly as cocaine or heroin. These same studies looked at which foods were addictive and they were ALL the food which companies or whistleblowers have admitted deliberately engineer the food to engender physical cravings and set off the pleasure receptors in our minds. It's even to the point that the crunch of a crisp is designed to be at 0.4 lbs if pressure because that creates most pleasure. They study what colours we are most attracted to in food. You have no idea the lengths these companies go to to test and engineer these foods. They are acting no different from Big Tobacco. Just look at Finland and how they handled their food companies that were adding salt to food so they could up their market share of customers because the salt made the food taste better...causing binge eating and addiction. Finland held the companies accountable, salt levels went down and so did the instances of salt related health problems.
Since one of you has rebuked me for not posting evidence, I feel compelled to start posting links. I DO hope you will read the material.
http://foodaddictioninstitute.org/scientific-research/physical-craving-and-food-addiction-a-scientific-review/. This covers basic reasearch over the past 25yrs. It references dozens of scientific studies.
Sounds to me like Annie is a pain in the *kitten* houseguest...
What is the specific ingredient in Pepsi that she is addicted to? That isn't in coke? You said that she is addicted to one but not the other but that it is physiological, so what is the ingredient and what is the different biochemical pathway that is triggered by the Pepsi but not the coke?
I have no idea. I'm not a biochemist. That's why I rely on scientific studies.0 -
There is no one ingredient in a food that consumers can become addicted to. They become addicted to the unique blend of ingredients (and additive chemicals) that make up a particular food. It's the sum of the parts that cause the brains biochemical reactions not one of the parts. That's why it's called a food addiction and not an "insert ingredient here" addiction. The literature shows that three main ingredients are the primary drivers of food addiction: high levels of sugar, salt and fat and depending on how they are combined will produce an addictive food. In addition, the literature mentions various chemical additives that are deliberately put in food to up taste, e.g. Yoga mat chemical in chicken nuggets, which also boost the addictiveness of the natural ingredients (which are used at unhealthily high levels). Part of the reason it's hard to identify what exactly in a individual food makes it addictive to some people is the fact that most companies refuse to disclose the exact amount of main ingredients and some lesser ingredients as they are trade secrets. They'll list them as "proprietary blend of flavourings" etc.
I am not sure why there is this thought that for something to truly be addictive, there must be one single element or ingredient within the food causing said addiction. After all drug addicts get addicted to a particular designer drug and these drugs also have many "ingredients" in them. For example crystal meth is made with multiple types of amphetamines boosted with additional chemicals. It's not any on amphetamine or any one booster chemical that causes the addiction, but the combination of all of the "ingredients". Yet no one would deny that meth addiction doesn't exist because there's no one ingredient in meth that causes the addiction and can be seen to cause an addiction in other drugs.
http://www.drugfreeworld.org/drugfacts/crystalmeth/what-is-meth-made-from.html
0 -
Another list of meth ingredients
http://www.new-hope-recovery.com/center/2014/10/17/meth-ingredients-toxic-chemicals-used-in-making-crystal-meth-2/.0 -
Recent study looking at how fat plus refined carbs in processed food is linked to addiction.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0117959
Remember, this is a new field of study. There is not as much evidence as there is with smoking or alcoholism. Too, both addictions of smoking and alcoholism are viewed differently even though the same proportion of people become heavy drinkers or heavy smokers. Alcoholics are viewed as becoming addicted not because of the alcohol but because of a disease within them, a propensity to become an alcoholic so the producers of alcohol are not seen as responsible in any way. So there was no concerted effort to reduce alcohol consumption levels across the board. As a result alcoholism rates have remained steady. But with smoking, the addiction is viewed as happening because the cigarettes themselves are highly addictive so the tobacco industry was viewed as partially responsible so smoking was viewed as a public health issue which then worked to reduce smoking levels. So it is important to realise that addictions are treated differently based on societal viewpoints.
The current debate on food addiction is along these same lines. Is food addiction caused by something within the person or by the foods themselves? One side says it's something within the person that causes food addiction and so it should really be called an eating addiction because these people are psychologically wired to become addicted to the reward/pleasure dynamic of eating..much like sex addicts and gambling addicts are addicted to a behaviour..it's an addiction to eating. The other side says, no food addicts are not addicted to eating because if that were the case, they'd be eating nondiscriminantly whereas there is clear evidence that they are addicted to a specific food. If it's just the act if eating that is addictive, why would someone drive past dozens of restaurants to get to a particular fast food joint to get a particular food item? The eating addiction side says, well then, what specifically within food is causing the addiction? Food side says all we have so far is evidence that high fat/sugar/salt in a trifecta causes addiction responses, and there is a correlation between addiction and processed foods.
So, obviously there is more science to be done. Then there will be politics influencing the final outcome..obviously it is to Big Foods advantage to get this problem viewed the same as alcohol because then they won't have to see processed food consumption decline and their profit margins get wiped out. They've already been talking with the tobacco industry on how to avoid being treated like they were. They've also been taking steps to influence the debate in favour of it being all about the fault of the consumer and nothing to do with their food engineering, marketing, etc. In the UK they bribed the government to not take a regulatory approach to fat/salt/sugar levels in return for £45m to fund a healthy eating awareness campaign.1 -
The things you think are sources don't prove anything you're saying, Macy.
2 -
Back to friend "Annie"...
Her need for a Pepsi in the morning is much like my need for a cup of coffee. If I don't have my morning coffee I become anxious...a headache evolves into a dullness that takes over my entire body. In other words...I need my coffee in the morning.
It is that jolt of caffeine that I need. I can get caffeine from other sources but it isn't the same. It does not stop the symptoms that come on with no coffee.
Is it an "addiction" to caffeine (if so why does the caffeine from other sources not help?). Or...is it "habit"...my brain trained to think that I need the caffeine from coffee?
I won't debate whether "food addiction" is real or not...I honestly don't know. I do know that there are certain foods that I crave and if they are accessible I have little control over despite my attempts to moderate them. The only way for me to adhere to my diet is to eliminate them. When I go to the market I try not to even look at them despite them calling out to me.
Some of these foods that are on my do not buy list have been comfort foods in the past. They were with me when I was sad...bored...lonely...etc. They became my best friends...bringing with them a feeling of contentment. I invited them in to my home almost every day. They were especially welcome when I watched a TV show or just sat and surfed the internet.
I try not to downplay a persons feeling about food addiction. In their mind it is real whether I think so or not. I do however think that people need to take a long hard look at "why" they think that they are addicted. Are they addicted to the food...or are they addicted to the feelings that certain foods bring to them.
I think over time we develop almost loyalty to certain foods. It's like crackers (for me)...I love crackers. My cracker of choice...Reduced Fat Cheezits. I could eat a big box of them daily...and did at one time. There are other crackers that I like but when I eat them...my mind is telling me...this should be Reduced Fat Cheezits. While I can eat the whole box of the other crackers...they do not bring with them the same feeling of comfort that my friend the Cheezit does.
Yes...Reduced Fat Cheezits are on my do not buy list...along with Peanut Butter M&Ms...Chocolate Chips...and the list goes on.
1 -
My other thought on "addicted" to food of choice is...
The criteria for determining of one is addicted to a chemical substance is most often applicable to how one feels about their "food addiction".
Example...
Despite my obsession with some foods and despite how much I used to eat of those foods I have never considered myself a binge eater. Yet...
In doing some other research the other day I ran across the criteria that they use to diagnose binge eating disorders. So I answered the questions as honestly as I could...the results came back that I had a mild to moderate case of BED. I have to admit...I thought about that for a while...am I a binge eater?...has that been my problem over the past years? I don't know...and honestly...it is not important at this stage of the game. Over time I have learned the steps necessary to get my eating under control. I also know that it would not take much at this point for me to revert back to my old ways.
In short...self-diagnoses with available info on the internet can be a dangerous thing for some.3 -
There is no one ingredient in a food that consumers can become addicted to. They become addicted to the unique blend of ingredients (and additive chemicals) that make up a particular food. It's the sum of the parts that cause the brains biochemical reactions not one of the parts.
That's not how a physical dependence (which again is what you are claiming) works, AT ALL. Under that idea someone could be addicted to Chateau Montelena chardonnay, but not their cabernet. Heck, vintage 2000, but not 2001. Certainly one could then be addicted to wine but not beer or gin or whiskey.
That's not a thing.
The brain reacts to foods perceived as hyperpalatable, it does for everyone. It also reacts to other things that are pleasurable for us without that being a physical dependence. Some people may become psychologically addicted to the pleasures related to eating, specifically (or often concentrated on) hyperpalatable foods (which does not mean you can be addicted to a Big Mac).
And again, bigger point, if someone has trouble moderating food items they find hyperpalatable (because personally I don't eat Big Macs because I don't think they taste nearly as good as a burger I'd made myself), what does one do about it, whatever one calls it?8 -
Alcoholics are viewed as becoming addicted not because of the alcohol but because of a disease within them, a propensity to become an alcoholic so the producers of alcohol are not seen as responsible in any way.
You really don't seem to know much about current studies of alcoholism.
Yes, producers aren't considered responsible for people's abuse (legally, except in limited circumstances like dram shop things) and lots of people use alcohol responsibly, but not because alcoholics have a "disease."So there was no concerted effort to reduce alcohol consumption levels across the board.
This is historically inaccurate and a mind-boggling claim.As a result alcoholism rates have remained steady.
No, they vary and differ among groups.The current debate on food addiction is along these same lines.
No, this idea that some people think food is like smoking is completely in your head only. No one claims a Big Mac has the physical dependence causing properties of nicotine. That makes no sense -- again, under your theory one could be addicted to Marlboro and not whatever other kind of cigarettes there are.Is food addiction caused by something within the person or by the foods themselves?
The latter -- that something is just physical dependence causing -- would mean that it happens to everyone. It doesn't. This is especially obvious given that you are focusing on specific food items. I have trouble thinking that you are serious here and not playing a game of some sort.
You seem to be leading up to some sort of argument that hyperpalatable foods should be banned or some such, but you do get, right, that I have right now butter and sugar and flour and salt in my kitchen, not to mention olive oil and various other ingredients, and so could whip up a hyperpalatable pizza with hyperpalatable cookies for dessert?5 -
I've been fairly quiet in this thread, but comparing food (a nutrient based, life sustaining substance your body needs) to crystal meth or alcohol addiction is ridiculous.
No one dies or has to go to detox when they stop eating whatever hyperpalatable food is being claimed to blame. And no one becomes "addicted" to food after their first bite or we'd all be obese from childhood.
2 -
kk_inprogress wrote: »I've been fairly quiet in this thread, but comparing food (a nutrient based, life sustaining substance your body needs) to crystal meth or alcohol addiction is ridiculous.
No one dies or has to go to detox when they stop eating whatever hyperpalatable food is being claimed to blame. And no one becomes "addicted" to food after their first bite or we'd all be obese from childhood.
I agreed with the bolded. However...the psychological aspect of someone "thinking" that they need a specific food can't be ignored. If I look only at myself...I am intelligent enough to understand science...but I live my life with feelings and emotions. Honestly...despite being able to understand (to some degree) science...I sometimes prefer living in lala land. Life can be much happier there for someone with a strange mind!
Whether we believe that food addiction is real or not there are psychological aspects that I do believe are real for these people. I think that is where the answers will be found. I also believe that it is easier for some to blame their perceived dependency on a food item...manufacturer...etc than it is to take an honest look at ourselves.
I am not trying to give these people an excuse...I just think that at times we belittle their feelings. Those feeling are real in their minds. I know that until I took a long hard look at myself (didn't like all that I saw) I wasn't able to begin controlling those foods that I somehow couldn't manage to moderate.
I know that many have said that the cold hard facts and the bluntness that sometimes comes across here in these threads have helped them...for others not quite so much. For me personally I went in search for my own answers because well...no amount of "bluntness" will change anything for me.
1 -
Whether we believe that food addiction is real or not there are psychological aspects that I do believe are real for these people. I think that is where the answers will be found. I also believe that it is easier for some to blame their perceived dependency on a food item...manufacturer...etc than it is to take an honest look at ourselves.
I agree with this.
I'll also say that I think the psychological aspects are real and make everything more difficult for a lot of us, whether we would consider it addiction or not (or whether it properly is). I think there's no real comparison with my experience of addiction--I'm not throwing away everything else in my life or basically suicidal (which is different from "doing something I know is not good for my health") when I struggle with eating issues, but those issues are genuine, and calling them (for me) emotional eating or the like does not minimize them.
Beyond that, I DO think there's such a thing as eating addiction and that the ED described in the OP is something I'd recognize as addiction, sure. But it's NOT a physical dependency.
(It's actually really weird that this focuses on physical dependency, since lots of things that are indisputably physical dependencies may not be addictions and also aren't that bad--caffeine, or some anti-depressants. With the latter, it's dangerous to just stop, but that doesn't mean that being physically dependent on them is bad for you.)
In saying none of what's been cited to support the physical dependency argument makes sense and that you can't have a physical dependency on soda but not orange juice, I'm not saying struggles with food can't be really hard. (Also dependency would apply to everyone. As one example, not everyone gets addicted to alcohol, yes, but everyone has the capacity of becoming physically dependent on it and would if they drank enough.)
I do think there's some effort to deny responsibility, to say that people can't help but be overweight, the food companies made them fat. That's a shame, because it's not true, and prevents people from getting healthier.
This isn't about bluntness or not--I don't think I'm being particularly harsh or not understanding of the struggles here. It's about truth vs. fiction, reality vs. excuses. It can be really really hard, but we aren't talking about a physical dependency.
(The funny thing is that if it were purely a physical dependency it would be an issue only for the time of the withdrawal, so quit eating whatever it is (not hard when you are claiming it's specific food items). I've cut out caffeine and dealt with that before, and it sucks for a few days and then is no biggie. Presumably Big Mac addiction would be similar?)0 -
kk_inprogress wrote: »I've been fairly quiet in this thread, but comparing food (a nutrient based, life sustaining substance your body needs) to crystal meth or alcohol addiction is ridiculous.
No one dies or has to go to detox when they stop eating whatever hyperpalatable food is being claimed to blame. And no one becomes "addicted" to food after their first bite or we'd all be obese from childhood.
I agreed with the bolded. However...the psychological aspect of someone "thinking" that they need a specific food can't be ignored. If I look only at myself...I am intelligent enough to understand science...but I live my life with feelings and emotions. Honestly...despite being able to understand (to some degree) science...I sometimes prefer living in lala land. Life can be much happier there for someone with a strange mind!
Whether we believe that food addiction is real or not there are psychological aspects that I do believe are real for these people. I think that is where the answers will be found. I also believe that it is easier for some to blame their perceived dependency on a food item...manufacturer...etc than it is to take an honest look at ourselves.
I am not trying to give these people an excuse...I just think that at times we belittle their feelings. Those feeling are real in their minds. I know that until I took a long hard look at myself (didn't like all that I saw) I wasn't able to begin controlling those foods that I somehow couldn't manage to moderate.
I know that many have said that the cold hard facts and the bluntness that sometimes comes across here in these threads have helped them...for others not quite so much. For me personally I went in search for my own answers because well...no amount of "bluntness" will change anything for me.
Well said.
I don't disagree about psychological factors, and I fall into the group of people who believe you can be psychologically addicted to eating.
With that said, it frustrates me to no end when people compare the addiction capacity/effects of food on the body to that of meth and alcohol. That's a really big stretch to me.2 -
kk_inprogress wrote: »I've been fairly quiet in this thread, but comparing food (a nutrient based, life sustaining substance your body needs) to crystal meth or alcohol addiction is ridiculous.
No one dies or has to go to detox when they stop eating whatever hyperpalatable food is being claimed to blame. And no one becomes "addicted" to food after their first bite or we'd all be obese from childhood.
I agreed with the bolded. However...the psychological aspect of someone "thinking" that they need a specific food can't be ignored. If I look only at myself...I am intelligent enough to understand science...but I live my life with feelings and emotions. Honestly...despite being able to understand (to some degree) science...I sometimes prefer living in lala land. Life can be much happier there for someone with a strange mind!
Whether we believe that food addiction is real or not there are psychological aspects that I do believe are real for these people. I think that is where the answers will be found. I also believe that it is easier for some to blame their perceived dependency on a food item...manufacturer...etc than it is to take an honest look at ourselves.
I am not trying to give these people an excuse...I just think that at times we belittle their feelings. Those feeling are real in their minds. I know that until I took a long hard look at myself (didn't like all that I saw) I wasn't able to begin controlling those foods that I somehow couldn't manage to moderate.
I know that many have said that the cold hard facts and the bluntness that sometimes comes across here in these threads have helped them...for others not quite so much. For me personally I went in search for my own answers because well...no amount of "bluntness" will change anything for me.
I agree that the psychological aspects are important, and if you read my initial post on the first page of this thread, the point of this whole thread was to empower people into thoughts behind what they could DO when faced with feeling like they have issues with food.
The argument is derailed by people wanting to keep clinging to the idea of being physically addicted to food for some reason and the point at the end of the day is:
IT DOESN'T MATTER.
What matters is what people then do to address it.
People come to these forums and say "HELP, I'm addicted to xyz!", and then the crapstorm of debate ensues over whether addiction exists and it's not helpful and doesn't matter.
What does matter is practical advice on how the person can address their issues with food, and people can share their experiences with their own issues.
1 -
This content has been removed.
-
That's not true. I have faithfully represented what is in the sources I have posted. The sources I have posted are peer reviewed scientific studies or articles referencing such studies written by journalists from credible news sources or other scientific organisations. I have also posted an entire book as a source.GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »The things you think are sources don't prove anything you're saying, Macy.
1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Alcoholics are viewed as becoming addicted not because of the alcohol but because of a disease within them, a propensity to become an alcoholic so the producers of alcohol are not seen as responsible in any way.
You really don't seem to know much about current studies of alcoholism.
Yes, producers aren't considered responsible for people's abuse (legally, except in limited circumstances like dram shop things) and lots of people use alcohol responsibly, but not because alcoholics have a "disease."So there was no concerted effort to reduce alcohol consumption levels across the board.
This is historically inaccurate and a mind-boggling claim.As a result alcoholism rates have remained steady.
No, they vary and differ among groups.The current debate on food addiction is along these same lines.
No, this idea that some people think food is like smoking is completely in your head only. No one claims a Big Mac has the physical dependence causing properties of nicotine. That makes no sense -- again, under your theory one could be addicted to Marlboro and not whatever other kind of cigarettes there are.Is food addiction caused by something within the person or by the foods themselves?
The latter -- that something is just physical dependence causing -- would mean that it happens to everyone. It doesn't. This is especially obvious given that you are focusing on specific food items. I have trouble thinking that you are serious here and not playing a game of some sort.
You seem to be leading up to some sort of argument that hyperpalatable foods should be banned or some such, but you do get, right, that I have right now butter and sugar and flour and salt in my kitchen, not to mention olive oil and various other ingredients, and so could whip up a hyperpalatable pizza with hyperpalatable cookies for dessert?
No you can't whip up anything hyperpalatable because you can't engineer the crunch to exactly 0.4lbs of jaw pressure. You also do not have the additive chemicals on hand to increase the taste factor, the mouth feeling of your cookies might not be at the right soft and chewy texture, I am also sure you do not have dough conditioners to boost your pizza crust on hand.
Hyperpalatable refers only to engineered processed foods...you can't make them in a home kitchen. It would be like comparing homemade chicken goujons to McDonalds chicken nuggets....nowhere near comparable.
I am quite serious and not playing a game. I am fine with alternate opinions/views on this. Right now I find it interesting that if I were to view all the comments saying how a person can't be addicted to food in an historical context they almost exactly mirror the same comments about drunkeness and irresponsible drunks before alcohol addiction was recognised as a real problem. I don't think acknowledging the possibility of Food Addiction suddenly means that people can absolve themselves of responsibility..people abuse the existence of problems all the time...they say oh I'm so depressed when they really are not depressed but that is no reason to refuse to acknowledge that depression is a real illness. I think that's why no ones converted me to the "it's impossible" view point. Because it's really all opinions and viewpoints that have been expressed..too I've linked a ton of sources supporting my viewpoint but have yet to see anyone who's disagreed on here post anything scientific or investigative journalism that supports the opposite viewpoint.
0 -
Look_Its_Kriss wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »kk_inprogress wrote: »I've been fairly quiet in this thread, but comparing food (a nutrient based, life sustaining substance your body needs) to crystal meth or alcohol addiction is ridiculous.
No one dies or has to go to detox when they stop eating whatever hyperpalatable food is being claimed to blame. And no one becomes "addicted" to food after their first bite or we'd all be obese from childhood.
I agreed with the bolded. However...the psychological aspect of someone "thinking" that they need a specific food can't be ignored. If I look only at myself...I am intelligent enough to understand science...but I live my life with feelings and emotions. Honestly...despite being able to understand (to some degree) science...I sometimes prefer living in lala land. Life can be much happier there for someone with a strange mind!
Whether we believe that food addiction is real or not there are psychological aspects that I do believe are real for these people. I think that is where the answers will be found. I also believe that it is easier for some to blame their perceived dependency on a food item...manufacturer...etc than it is to take an honest look at ourselves.
I am not trying to give these people an excuse...I just think that at times we belittle their feelings. Those feeling are real in their minds. I know that until I took a long hard look at myself (didn't like all that I saw) I wasn't able to begin controlling those foods that I somehow couldn't manage to moderate.
I know that many have said that the cold hard facts and the bluntness that sometimes comes across here in these threads have helped them...for others not quite so much. For me personally I went in search for my own answers because well...no amount of "bluntness" will change anything for me.
I agree that the psychological aspects are important, and if you read my initial post on the first page of this thread, the point of this whole thread was to empower people into thoughts behind what they could DO when faced with feeling like they have issues with food.
The argument is derailed by people wanting to keep clinging to the idea of being physically addicted to food for some reason and the point at the end of the day is:
IT DOESN'T MATTER.
What matters is what people then do to address it.
People come to these forums and say "HELP, I'm addicted to xyz!", and then the crapstorm of debate ensues over whether addiction exists and it's not helpful and doesn't matter.
What does matter is practical advice on how the person can address their issues with food, and people can share their experiences with their own issues.
Indeed after that it's in their hands..
And they may get angry.. i sure did. Really angry. Every time someone told me to seek therapy.. i got personally offended. Thats why i said a few posts back that its hard to watch sometimes, especially if they are friends because you can't kidnap people.. and you can only sit back and wait and hope they wake up and take control before they possibly kill themselves.. i mean how much longer was i gonna let it go? my legs in a mess and in pain, weight going up and up.. my sugars constantly in the 30+ range, I felt sick and tired all the time.. i never had enough food to get me through a 2 week period.. and still despite it all.. it went on for years and i refused to admit it to myself fully.. Putting blame on something else only would of deflected the responsibility i needed to take to address my issues.
I agree with @GottaBurnEmAll -- At the end of the day, whether i believe sugar/food/XYZ addiction isn't real and someone else does, If i came to the forums seeking help from my eating disorder i don't want a debate on if someone thinks im faking it because it is or isn't real.. suggestions on how to deal with binges are great but what i think is the most helpful is personal stories.. the more personal stories shared the OP can read them and as they read through them and see those people going and getting therapy or reading books it becomes personal, they start seeing themselves and then instead of possibly being offended by being so bluntly told to seek help, it becomes their own decision which is usually how people do things isn't it?
I like to think of it as that friend who you warn not to date this awful guy.. she will probably do it anyway.. and you might be that person in your head when it ends bad saying i told you so, but now she knows, will probably use this lesson now as life experience and hopefully make better choices.
My lesson from my being treated a couple years back for binge eating was that it didn't just magically go away like i thought it did, i still have to remain vigilant and aware and recognize ques within my mind. Just the other day there i was up late at night talking to JaydedMiss in PM and realized that even though i had eaten a snack the medication was wearing down at that hour and i could hear my brain start chattering about what else i wanted to eat and start really thinking about what i could go out there and get and when she messaged me back saying goodnight i then in turn said "YEP! brain is starting to chatter, its definitely time to go to bed" and i made the decision to go to bed before letting the chatter become the stronger voice of reason between the two.
There have been a lot of boards lately asking for help with sugar addiction most specifically.
I think for the most part people really know my stance on how i feel about it.. lol
But lately i have decided that i need to really let those topics slide and let them go.. even when people post links that the website to help them clearly says its the same as heroin addiction.. just gotta let it go.. i mean as much as it tears me that i want them to know that while they are struggling its not heroin, knowing this fact isn't going to change anything, they still need to do something to fix the issue they believe they have to whatever degree they believe they have it.
SO.. in regards to marcy's friend, with the pepsi.. be it brand, certain ingredient, actual addiction, etc.. its clear we all don't agree on why, but what we all do agree on is that said friend needs help and what does that friend need to do to get that help? Facts in either direction, be in proven that its actual addiction or not is not going to change the outcome of how that friend wakes up and finally realizes they need help, so what do they do?
Completely agree what matters is the person gets helps. There are numerous food addiction clinics out there. They do assess people to see if they have food addiction or another eating disorder like classic BED and then they prescribe a course of treatment appropriate to the specific problem.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Alcoholics are viewed as becoming addicted not because of the alcohol but because of a disease within them, a propensity to become an alcoholic so the producers of alcohol are not seen as responsible in any way.
You really don't seem to know much about current studies of alcoholism.
Yes, producers aren't considered responsible for people's abuse (legally, except in limited circumstances like dram shop things) and lots of people use alcohol responsibly, but not because alcoholics have a "disease."So there was no concerted effort to reduce alcohol consumption levels across the board.
This is historically inaccurate and a mind-boggling claim.As a result alcoholism rates have remained steady.
No, they vary and differ among groups.
?
http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/publications/global_alcohol_report/profiles/usa.pdf
This WHO study clearly shows that alcoholism and alcohol consumption has remained steady for DECADES. Look I'm getting tired of you guys saying this is wrong that is wrong without posting any sources to back up your claims!0 -
And here are the WHO stats on alcohol for the UK
http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/publications/global_alcohol_report/profiles/gbr.pdf?ua=10 -
That's not true. I have faithfully represented what is in the sources I have posted. The sources I have posted are peer reviewed scientific studies or articles referencing such studies written by journalists from credible news sources or other scientific organisations. I have also posted an entire book as a source.GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »The things you think are sources don't prove anything you're saying, Macy.
Macy, yes it is true.
Nothing you have posted has supported the case for there being a chemical dependence on food.
Hedonic response (which is what the book you posted is about) is not a chemical dependence, and that's what addiction is -- at least the type you're arguing for (a physical addiction).
Now, is hedonic response and being hooked on the pleasure of it a behavioral addiction? Sure. The case could be made for that.
But it's not a chemical/physical addiction.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Alcoholics are viewed as becoming addicted not because of the alcohol but because of a disease within them, a propensity to become an alcoholic so the producers of alcohol are not seen as responsible in any way.
You really don't seem to know much about current studies of alcoholism.
Yes, producers aren't considered responsible for people's abuse (legally, except in limited circumstances like dram shop things) and lots of people use alcohol responsibly, but not because alcoholics have a "disease."So there was no concerted effort to reduce alcohol consumption levels across the board.
This is historically inaccurate and a mind-boggling claim.As a result alcoholism rates have remained steady.
No, they vary and differ among groups.The current debate on food addiction is along these same lines.
No, this idea that some people think food is like smoking is completely in your head only. No one claims a Big Mac has the physical dependence causing properties of nicotine. That makes no sense -- again, under your theory one could be addicted to Marlboro and not whatever other kind of cigarettes there are.Is food addiction caused by something within the person or by the foods themselves?
The latter -- that something is just physical dependence causing -- would mean that it happens to everyone. It doesn't. This is especially obvious given that you are focusing on specific food items. I have trouble thinking that you are serious here and not playing a game of some sort.
You seem to be leading up to some sort of argument that hyperpalatable foods should be banned or some such, but you do get, right, that I have right now butter and sugar and flour and salt in my kitchen, not to mention olive oil and various other ingredients, and so could whip up a hyperpalatable pizza with hyperpalatable cookies for dessert?
No you can't whip up anything hyperpalatable because you can't engineer the crunch to exactly 0.4lbs of jaw pressure.
Since when is that the definition of hyperpalatable. Do you imagine that homemade cookies aren't hyperpalatable? This is getting weirder and weirder.You also do not have the additive chemicals on hand to increase the taste factor, the mouth feeling of your cookies might not be at the right soft and chewy texture, I am also sure you do not have dough conditioners to boost your pizza crust on hand.
Same point.
The reason there are lots of additives to ultraprocessed foods is preservation/shelf stable, and making it taste close enough to homemade despite being shelf-stable and using cheaper ingredients. The idea that they are more delicious or harder to resist than actual homemade treats (by someone who can cook, of course) or chef-prepared cuisine of the highest quality is really, really bizarre.Hyperpalatable refers only to engineered processed foods...you can't make them in a home kitchen. It would be like comparing homemade chicken goujons to McDonalds chicken nuggets....nowhere near comparable.
No, that's not what hyperpalatable means. You are making stuff up. It means extremely or excessively palatable, hard to resist, and that's usually attributed to salt, fat, and sugar combined in some way with each other.I am quite serious and not playing a game. I am fine with alternate opinions/views on this. Right now I find it interesting that if I were to view all the comments saying how a person can't be addicted to food in an historical context they almost exactly mirror the same comments about drunkeness and irresponsible drunks before alcohol addiction was recognised as a real problem.
You are confusing "not a physical dependency" (which alcohol often is not also, btw) with "not a problem." But that alcoholism exists does not make alcoholics responsible for choosing to drink, btw. You are really wrapped up in this idea that addiction=not responsible and not addiction=morally bad, I think.
But anyway, let's actually move on to my question which you keep refusing to answer:
Even if it were an addiction, what difference would that make? What do you recommend people do about it? Here's mine: if you have an addiction to Big Macs (and Big Macs specifically), don't eat Big Macs.
On the other hand, if you tend to struggle with things like emotional eating (which have some overlaps to addiction IMO), then there are other tactics and just giving up one food wouldn't be helpful. I think the right answer may depend on the specifics and the person somewhat.3 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Alcoholics are viewed as becoming addicted not because of the alcohol but because of a disease within them, a propensity to become an alcoholic so the producers of alcohol are not seen as responsible in any way.
You really don't seem to know much about current studies of alcoholism.
Yes, producers aren't considered responsible for people's abuse (legally, except in limited circumstances like dram shop things) and lots of people use alcohol responsibly, but not because alcoholics have a "disease."So there was no concerted effort to reduce alcohol consumption levels across the board.
This is historically inaccurate and a mind-boggling claim.As a result alcoholism rates have remained steady.
No, they vary and differ among groups.
?
http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/publications/global_alcohol_report/profiles/usa.pdf
This WHO study clearly shows that alcoholism and alcohol consumption has remained steady for DECADES. Look I'm getting tired of you guys saying this is wrong that is wrong without posting any sources to back up your claims!
That stat shows alcohol consumption (not abuse) from 1980 to 2010. It doesn't support what you said at all or show historical changes in alcoholism rates. Consumption is not abuse and 1980 to 2010 is not a long time. Other stats (see here http://www.who.int/gho/substance_abuse/burden/alcohol_prevalence/en/) show variation between countries. The UK numbers show more variation than the US number, and again not about abuse.
More significantly, read anything about the history of alcohol in the US and you will see that the rate at which people drink has changed a lot (and varies between specific groups quite a lot) and--what I was particularly reacting to--that it's obviously false that there have been no concerted efforts to reduce alcohol consumption. Among other things, a rather large one is the 18th Amendment and the Volstead Act, but it is not limited to that. The idea of what moderate drinking is is lower now than it used to be, 3 martini lunches are no longer a thing (well, most places), so on.2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Alcoholics are viewed as becoming addicted not because of the alcohol but because of a disease within them, a propensity to become an alcoholic so the producers of alcohol are not seen as responsible in any way.
You really don't seem to know much about current studies of alcoholism.
Yes, producers aren't considered responsible for people's abuse (legally, except in limited circumstances like dram shop things) and lots of people use alcohol responsibly, but not because alcoholics have a "disease."So there was no concerted effort to reduce alcohol consumption levels across the board.
This is historically inaccurate and a mind-boggling claim.As a result alcoholism rates have remained steady.
No, they vary and differ among groups.The current debate on food addiction is along these same lines.
No, this idea that some people think food is like smoking is completely in your head only. No one claims a Big Mac has the physical dependence causing properties of nicotine. That makes no sense -- again, under your theory one could be addicted to Marlboro and not whatever other kind of cigarettes there are.Is food addiction caused by something within the person or by the foods themselves?
The latter -- that something is just physical dependence causing -- would mean that it happens to everyone. It doesn't. This is especially obvious given that you are focusing on specific food items. I have trouble thinking that you are serious here and not playing a game of some sort.
You seem to be leading up to some sort of argument that hyperpalatable foods should be banned or some such, but you do get, right, that I have right now butter and sugar and flour and salt in my kitchen, not to mention olive oil and various other ingredients, and so could whip up a hyperpalatable pizza with hyperpalatable cookies for dessert?
No you can't whip up anything hyperpalatable because you can't engineer the crunch to exactly 0.4lbs of jaw pressure.
Since when is that the definition of hyperpalatable. Do you imagine that homemade cookies aren't hyperpalatable? This is getting weirder and weirder.You also do not have the additive chemicals on hand to increase the taste factor, the mouth feeling of your cookies might not be at the right soft and chewy texture, I am also sure you do not have dough conditioners to boost your pizza crust on hand.
Same point.
The reason there are lots of additives to ultraprocessed foods is preservation/shelf stable, and making it taste close enough to homemade despite being shelf-stable and using cheaper ingredients. The idea that they are more delicious or harder to resist than actual homemade treats (by someone who can cook, of course) or chef-prepared cuisine of the highest quality is really, really bizarre.Hyperpalatable refers only to engineered processed foods...you can't make them in a home kitchen. It would be like comparing homemade chicken goujons to McDonalds chicken nuggets....nowhere near comparable.
No, that's not what hyperpalatable means. You are making stuff up. It means extremely or excessively palatable, hard to resist, and that's usually attributed to salt, fat, and sugar combined in some way with each other.I am quite serious and not playing a game. I am fine with alternate opinions/views on this. Right now I find it interesting that if I were to view all the comments saying how a person can't be addicted to food in an historical context they almost exactly mirror the same comments about drunkeness and irresponsible drunks before alcohol addiction was recognised as a real problem.
You are confusing "not a physical dependency" (which alcohol often is not also, btw) with "not a problem." But that alcoholism exists does not make alcoholics responsible for choosing to drink, btw. You are really wrapped up in this idea that addiction=not responsible and not addiction=morally bad, I think.
But anyway, let's actually move on to my question which you keep refusing to answer:
Even if it were an addiction, what difference would that make? What do you recommend people do about it? Here's mine: if you have an addiction to Big Macs (and Big Macs specifically), don't eat Big Macs.
On the other hand, if you tend to struggle with things like emotional eating (which have some overlaps to addiction IMO), then there are other tactics and just giving up one food wouldn't be helpful. I think the right answer may depend on the specifics and the person somewhat.
Yeah, I can assure you, a lot of stuff I bake is hyperpalatable. I'm a good cook and baker. There's a reason I don't bake myself brownies or cookies all that often.2
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