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
-
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »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.
Yep -- I spent a lot of time perfecting my pie crust and can make an excellent cobbler too, and cookies. (Hate baking cakes, though -- mostly hate messing with frosting.) Luckily baking less fits with my innate laziness so wasn't such a major sacrifice!
My pizzas are way more hyperpalatable than Domino's (which IMO is terrible), too. I do have a major weakness for the thin crust at some local Italian places, but I think the ingredients are largely the same as mine -- maybe better flour and especially better ovens. I also would recommend a local place called Pequod's for Chicago style and recently tried this place: http://www.chicagotribune.com/dining/restaurants/ct-roberts-pizza-company-streeterville-new-york-style-story.html. Pretty good! Maybe even hyperpalatable. ;-)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?
...
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.
...
You've never had my wife's cooking.
1 -
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.
?
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.
Ok, so you don't like my source. Show me the source of your contention that alcoholism has drastically changed over the years since it was identified as an addiction problem? And how this has happened despite alcohol consumption being the same? (Focused on US please as my original comments which you said were completely mind boggling untrue were regarding impact of societal views on government approach to addictions and subsequent impacts of the prevalence of that addiction in the US population). As I was told earlier by the OP, just saying go read something isn't how a debate works. You have to post your sources or it's a baseless comment. I am sure these rules apply to everyone on here and not just me because I happen to be a dissenting minority.0 -
Oh, I never said there have been no efforts to reduce alcohol consumption...look through my comments...you are now objecting to something I never said. I said that rates of alcoholism have been steady unlike smoking which has gone down because of the different approach the government took to regulating alcohol vs cigarettes.0
-
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.
I did answer it, scroll back up please. I said they should get help and blah blah food addiction clinics blah blah, I'm not wrapped up in the idea thatvaddiction =not responsible, not addiction =moral you guys are! All I've said is there is scientific evidence that Food Addiction exists as a physiological problem and it's not just psychological. Others have responded that it can't be true and it's just an excuse and that people are just not taking responsibility.1 -
I've gone back through my comments and I said there have been no concerted efforts to reduce alcohol consumption where you said I said there have been no efforts to reduce alcohol consumption. The two are quite different...no efforts mean zero efforts. No concerted efforts mean no serious efforts...too it was said as a comparison of efforts to reduce alcohol vs smoking...at any rate...what I said is accurate because despite efforts alcohol consumption has remained the same but smoking has gone down..showing that the reduction efforts were not concerted efforts when it came to alcohol. For source, please refer to the WHO fact sheet I posted showing alcohol consumption among other stats from 1960 to present.
Anyway I refuse to comment again in this debate unless someone actually posts a scientific study or even a blog by a medical professional supporting anything you've said about the non existence of food addictions and non existence of big food political actions or food engineering for the purpose of creating addictive foods. So far I doubt you've even read all what I posted because one of you said the book I posted was about the hedonic aspects of Food...and it wasn't at all about that. It was an investigative journalistic piece with whistleblower testimony on what Big Food is doing to your food to make it addictive. And you would have known that if you'd bothered to read any if the three book reviews and articles that summarised highlights from that book...which I also posted because I'm thoughtful that way.
I am pretty much viewing what you guys have said to be purely baseless opinion at this point.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »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.
Yep -- I spent a lot of time perfecting my pie crust and can make an excellent cobbler too, and cookies. (Hate baking cakes, though -- mostly hate messing with frosting.) Luckily baking less fits with my innate laziness so wasn't such a major sacrifice!
My pizzas are way more hyperpalatable than Domino's (which IMO is terrible), too. I do have a major weakness for the thin crust at some local Italian places, but I think the ingredients are largely the same as mine -- maybe better flour and especially better ovens. I also would recommend a local place called Pequod's for Chicago style and recently tried this place: http://www.chicagotribune.com/dining/restaurants/ct-roberts-pizza-company-streeterville-new-york-style-story.html. Pretty good! Maybe even hyperpalatable. ;-)
Well hello fellow seeker of the perfect pie crust! I spent years trying to recreate my grandma's crust - a lard/crisco base, but the perfection came through the blending and kneading.
2 -
I've gone back through my comments and I said there have been no concerted efforts to reduce alcohol consumption where you said I said there have been no efforts to reduce alcohol consumption. The two are quite different...no efforts mean zero efforts. No concerted efforts mean no serious efforts...too it was said as a comparison of efforts to reduce alcohol vs smoking...at any rate...what I said is accurate because despite efforts alcohol consumption has remained the same but smoking has gone down..showing that the reduction efforts were not concerted efforts when it came to alcohol. For source, please refer to the WHO fact sheet I posted showing alcohol consumption among other stats from 1960 to present.
Anyway I refuse to comment again in this debate unless someone actually posts a scientific study or even a blog by a medical professional supporting anything you've said about the non existence of food addictions and non existence of big food political actions or food engineering for the purpose of creating addictive foods. So far I doubt you've even read all what I posted because one of you said the book I posted was about the hedonic aspects of Food...and it wasn't at all about that. It was an investigative journalistic piece with whistleblower testimony on what Big Food is doing to your food to make it addictive. And you would have known that if you'd bothered to read any if the three book reviews and articles that summarised highlights from that book...which I also posted because I'm thoughtful that way.
I am pretty much viewing what you guys have said to be purely baseless opinion at this point.
You. Didn't. Prove. Chemical. Addiction.
Everything you posted was smoke and mirrors.
No one has to post anything refuting something you didn't prove.
The initial post had a link with information. Here's another one. This is just to an abstract, the full article is behind a paywall:
annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-nutr-071715-0509092 -
This content has been removed.
-
Look_Its_Kriss wrote: »for the most part i dislike pie.. i eat cream pies only, short of pecan i love that too but no matter the filling, i would pick out all the yuck and eat the crust LOL
You almost had blasphemy called on you - nice save fellow crusty one!1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »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.
Yep -- I spent a lot of time perfecting my pie crust and can make an excellent cobbler too, and cookies. (Hate baking cakes, though -- mostly hate messing with frosting.) Luckily baking less fits with my innate laziness so wasn't such a major sacrifice!
My pizzas are way more hyperpalatable than Domino's (which IMO is terrible), too. I do have a major weakness for the thin crust at some local Italian places, but I think the ingredients are largely the same as mine -- maybe better flour and especially better ovens. I also would recommend a local place called Pequod's for Chicago style and recently tried this place: http://www.chicagotribune.com/dining/restaurants/ct-roberts-pizza-company-streeterville-new-york-style-story.html. Pretty good! Maybe even hyperpalatable. ;-)
Well hello fellow seeker of the perfect pie crust! I spent years trying to recreate my grandma's crust - a lard/crisco base, but the perfection came through the blending and kneading.
I remember spending hours upon hours getting the right hand for handling pastry dough.
Now I can't eat the stuff. It's frustrating. I miss my pie crust. It was goooooood.1 -
Yes I read the initial post and links. But between then and now, not a link just opinion. Hmmm all this abstract says is that there is growing evidence FOR food addiction but that it's a bit premature to use it as a diagnostic tool. The diagnostic tool is the DSM. All the abstract is saying is that they don't yet know whether this would fall under chapter 10 or chapter 16 of the DSM because as I said earlier, Food Addiction is scientifically recognised as real and the debate now is just about whether it is a type of eating disorder (chapter 10 of DSM) or a substance abuse disorder (chapter 16)....sigh...well if that's all you've got...sorry I would say the preponderance of the evidence is still in my favour.GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »I've gone back through my comments and I said there have been no concerted efforts to reduce alcohol consumption where you said I said there have been no efforts to reduce alcohol consumption. The two are quite different...no efforts mean zero efforts. No concerted efforts mean no serious efforts...too it was said as a comparison of efforts to reduce alcohol vs smoking...at any rate...what I said is accurate because despite efforts alcohol consumption has remained the same but smoking has gone down..showing that the reduction efforts were not concerted efforts when it came to alcohol. For source, please refer to the WHO fact sheet I posted showing alcohol consumption among other stats from 1960 to present.
Anyway I refuse to comment again in this debate unless someone actually posts a scientific study or even a blog by a medical professional supporting anything you've said about the non existence of food addictions and non existence of big food political actions or food engineering for the purpose of creating addictive foods. So far I doubt you've even read all what I posted because one of you said the book I posted was about the hedonic aspects of Food...and it wasn't at all about that. It was an investigative journalistic piece with whistleblower testimony on what Big Food is doing to your food to make it addictive. And you would have known that if you'd bothered to read any if the three book reviews and articles that summarised highlights from that book...which I also posted because I'm thoughtful that way.
I am pretty much viewing what you guys have said to be purely baseless opinion at this point.
You. Didn't. Prove. Chemical. Addiction.
Everything you posted was smoke and mirrors.
No one has to post anything refuting something you didn't prove.
The initial post had a link with information. Here's another one. This is just to an abstract, the full article is behind a paywall:
annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-nutr-071715-050909
0 -
All smoke and mirrors eh? So I suppose WebMD shouldn't have a page devoted to Food Addiction?
http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/eating-disorders/binge-eating-disorder/mental-health-food-addiction#1
And there is no Food Addiction Institute that holds annual conferences on food addiction for Drs and Therapists....
http://foodaddictioninstitute.org/for-professionals/dear-doctors-dietitians-and-therapists/
Oh and look at that they both say that Food Addiction has a physiological/biological component....which is all that I've been trying to show to you.1 -
I've gone back through my comments and I said there have been no concerted efforts to reduce alcohol consumption where you said I said there have been no efforts to reduce alcohol consumption. The two are quite different...no efforts mean zero efforts. No concerted efforts mean no serious efforts...
Um, seriously? Concerted = coordinated, planned, and would refer to any gov't effort.
Prohibition was such an effort, as were the many local and state laws, actions by anti drinking groups, etc.
Also, read any book about historical alcohol usage in the US. (This is fun, but seriously there's a ton of information out there: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-31741615.)
But you are trying to take this off topic and avoiding my question, which I'm not going to permit. So I will bold my question and repost:
Let's say it is an addiction. (It's not a physical dependency, but I do think eating can be an addiction, but let's even say that hyperpalatable food can become an addiction.) What then?
I find I cannot moderate my pie consumption? What difference does it make whether I call it an addiction or not? What are you saying I should do or otherwise saying should be done?despite efforts alcohol consumption has remained the same but smoking has gone down
No, you asserted that the rate has remained steady. I said they differ over time and by group. Here's one example of that: http://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/americans-are-drinking-more-lot-more-n347126
(You have not posted anything to the contrary, btw, and it was your assertion and off topic.)Anyway I refuse to comment again in this debate unless someone actually posts a scientific study or even a blog by a medical professional supporting anything you've said about the non existence of food addictions
Your claim was that it was a physical dependency to specific foods that are in their ingredients the SAME as other foods that people are not dependent on. That's inherently not possible -- you can't withdraw from something that you physically continue to consume. Your body does not reject sugar from orange juice because it is dependent on soda. And unsurprisingly you have not posted anything that remotely suggests that happens.
As for the scientific understanding of food addiction, read the beginning of this thread and respond if you want. There's no need to repost what has already been posted.1 -
I did answer it, scroll back up please. I said they should get help and blah blah food addiction clinics blah blah
Okay, you did kind of answer, but this is really vague. Specifics, please. Do you think they need outside help? What kind of help? What is a food addiction clinic?
A lot of people find it difficult to moderate food.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »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.
Yep -- I spent a lot of time perfecting my pie crust and can make an excellent cobbler too, and cookies. (Hate baking cakes, though -- mostly hate messing with frosting.) Luckily baking less fits with my innate laziness so wasn't such a major sacrifice!
My pizzas are way more hyperpalatable than Domino's (which IMO is terrible), too. I do have a major weakness for the thin crust at some local Italian places, but I think the ingredients are largely the same as mine -- maybe better flour and especially better ovens. I also would recommend a local place called Pequod's for Chicago style and recently tried this place: http://www.chicagotribune.com/dining/restaurants/ct-roberts-pizza-company-streeterville-new-york-style-story.html. Pretty good! Maybe even hyperpalatable. ;-)
Well hello fellow seeker of the perfect pie crust! I spent years trying to recreate my grandma's crust - a lard/crisco base, but the perfection came through the blending and kneading.
I've only worked with butter crusts (pain in the neck), but I always meant to try working with lard.1 -
Oh and look at that they both say that Food Addiction has a physiological/biological component....which is all that I've been trying to show to you.
No -- you have been asserting physical dependency to specific food items. That one can have BigMac withdrawal, in other words. Also, that one can be addicted to Oreos, but not homemade chocolate chip cookies or snickerdoodles (which is a lie! snickerdoodles are totally addictive).0 -
Yes I read the initial post and links. But between then and now, not a link just opinion. Hmmm all this abstract says is that there is growing evidence FOR food addiction but that it's a bit premature to use it as a diagnostic tool. The diagnostic tool is the DSM. All the abstract is saying is that they don't yet know whether this would fall under chapter 10 or chapter 16 of the DSM because as I said earlier, Food Addiction is scientifically recognised as real and the debate now is just about whether it is a type of eating disorder (chapter 10 of DSM) or a substance abuse disorder (chapter 16)....sigh...well if that's all you've got...sorry I would say the preponderance of the evidence is still in my favour.GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »I've gone back through my comments and I said there have been no concerted efforts to reduce alcohol consumption where you said I said there have been no efforts to reduce alcohol consumption. The two are quite different...no efforts mean zero efforts. No concerted efforts mean no serious efforts...too it was said as a comparison of efforts to reduce alcohol vs smoking...at any rate...what I said is accurate because despite efforts alcohol consumption has remained the same but smoking has gone down..showing that the reduction efforts were not concerted efforts when it came to alcohol. For source, please refer to the WHO fact sheet I posted showing alcohol consumption among other stats from 1960 to present.
Anyway I refuse to comment again in this debate unless someone actually posts a scientific study or even a blog by a medical professional supporting anything you've said about the non existence of food addictions and non existence of big food political actions or food engineering for the purpose of creating addictive foods. So far I doubt you've even read all what I posted because one of you said the book I posted was about the hedonic aspects of Food...and it wasn't at all about that. It was an investigative journalistic piece with whistleblower testimony on what Big Food is doing to your food to make it addictive. And you would have known that if you'd bothered to read any if the three book reviews and articles that summarised highlights from that book...which I also posted because I'm thoughtful that way.
I am pretty much viewing what you guys have said to be purely baseless opinion at this point.
You. Didn't. Prove. Chemical. Addiction.
Everything you posted was smoke and mirrors.
No one has to post anything refuting something you didn't prove.
The initial post had a link with information. Here's another one. This is just to an abstract, the full article is behind a paywall:
annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-nutr-071715-050909
If you have full access, please post the salient points from the piece that support this.
Your interpretation of sources seems to vary from mine.0 -
All smoke and mirrors eh? So I suppose WebMD shouldn't have a page devoted to Food Addiction?
http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/eating-disorders/binge-eating-disorder/mental-health-food-addiction#1
And there is no Food Addiction Institute that holds annual conferences on food addiction for Drs and Therapists....
http://foodaddictioninstitute.org/for-professionals/dear-doctors-dietitians-and-therapists/
Oh and look at that they both say that Food Addiction has a physiological/biological component....which is all that I've been trying to show to you.
You really need to learn to vet your sources, if you want to cite WebMD and be taken seriously.
And a place called The Food Addiction Institute? Really? They presuppose their conclusion to be true, then go about proving it.
Meanwhile, there are a lot of other scientists out there who disagree with them.lemurcat12 wrote: »Oh and look at that they both say that Food Addiction has a physiological/biological component....which is all that I've been trying to show to you.
No -- you have been asserting physical dependency to specific food items. That one can have BigMac withdrawal, in other words. Also, that one can be addicted to Oreos, but not homemade chocolate chip cookies or snickerdoodles (which is a lie! snickerdoodles are totally addictive).
One of my greatest disappointments was trying to perfect a gluten free Snickerdoodle. Many cookies convert well. I never did hit on a good flour mix for Snickerdoodles. I couldn't get a good texture and still have the right flavor.
Back to the point... what does it matter if there is a physical component?
Does this mean into a clinic with everyone who can't pass up peanut M&M's?
And can I ask, what are the symptoms I supposedly am experiencing since I'm currently not consuming peanut M&M's (I can assure you, if I were addicted to any food, it would be those, I have no control)?3 -
All smoke and mirrors eh? So I suppose WebMD shouldn't have a page devoted to Food Addiction?
http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/eating-disorders/binge-eating-disorder/mental-health-food-addiction#1
And there is no Food Addiction Institute that holds annual conferences on food addiction for Drs and Therapists....
http://foodaddictioninstitute.org/for-professionals/dear-doctors-dietitians-and-therapists/
Oh and look at that they both say that Food Addiction has a physiological/biological component....which is all that I've been trying to show to you.
More on this:
From the WebMD link:Compulsive overeating is a type of behavioral addiction meaning that someone can become preoccupied with a behavior (such as eating, or gambling, or shopping) that triggers intense pleasure. People with food addictions lose control over their eating behavior and find themselves spending excessive amounts of time involved with food and overeating, or anticipating the emotional effects of compulsive overeating.
In other words, what we've been saying, not what you've been saying.
The FAI link is basically an ad. It's also one of those unethical sites that encourage people to self-diagnose food addiction and decide they need to pay for help (to the site or its founders, of course), based on some really generic questions that a huge number of people will answer yes to. Here are the ones from this site:
While on a diet, do I “lose it” after a few days?
When I lose weight, do I gain back even more?
Do I obsessively calculate the calories I’ve burned against the calories I’ve eaten?
Am I thinking about food or my weight all the time?
Do I have physical problems resulting from the way I eat, or don’t eat?
Do I eat large amounts of food in a short period of time?
Do certain foods trigger binges?
Do I weigh myself once or twice (or more) a day?
Do I eat differently in front of people than I do when I’m alone?
Do I have emotional problems resulting from the way I eat or don’t eat?
Do I find it difficult to stop eating without a struggle after one or two sweets?
Have I done serious work in psychotherapy only to find my “food problem” was unaffected?3 -
This content has been removed.
-
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Does this mean into a clinic with everyone who can't pass up peanut M&M's?
And can I ask, what are the symptoms I supposedly am experiencing since I'm currently not consuming peanut M&M's (I can assure you, if I were addicted to any food, it would be those, I have no control)?
Peanut M&Ms are a problem of mine as well. They have them out in my office all the time, and I can ignore them so long as I ignore them, but if I'm stressed or down or who knows what and decide to just grab a handful, what does it matter?! I tend to go back and back and back. And if I do I want to the next day, and of course the more I do the more it's hard to get back out of the habit.
I'd call this a bad habit, but once I start eating them I do feel out of control.
(For the record, it's the nut + chocolate combo. I've made homemade chocolate covered nuts and had the same effect, these just happen to be easily available in a place and time when I am susceptible. So it's not some magic BigFood ingredient, which is what I find most odd about the claims that have been made.)
So the question is, what to do?
Right now I'm tempted, but I gave up sweets for Lent (not weight-related, I say defensively!) so that's enough (don't think this means I am or am not addicted, as I used to give up booze for Lent when I was a drunk--wouldn't always last the whole time, but I sometimes did and certainly would not cave the first week).
I also find I can get motivated on a new plan/structure for a while (no snacking really works best for me) and be good for a while, but I always eventually stop sticking to it, it seems. I need a strong reason not to eat them, as when I do, in that context and with those particular feelings/pressures, I feel out of control.
I wouldn't call that addiction and I'd consider it pretty insensitive to actual addicts to claim my issue with peanut M&Ms is worse than meth (or whatever), but how to deal with this actually is something I think is interesting to talk to.
I do believe that deciding I cannot control them and should feel ashamed if I ate some (a common part of the restrict/binge cycle) would be counterproductive for me. The issue is not caring enough.
Going back to booze, the issue there was not caring enough too, but that's because nothing compared to how much I cared about drinking, and how impossible I thought life would be without it. With mindless eating like the peanut M&Ms, it's different -- it's a definite pleasure that I care more about than saving the calories in the moment, but it's not that I couldn't stop eating them if it were truly important not to (if I were allergic and knew they were making me sick in reality, not just potentially in the future if I didn't stop soon), but that it's hard to believe that it matters if I just eat another handful of peanut M&Ms.
I am genuinely interested in talking about this as it's something that I do find frustrating.1 -
This content has been removed.
-
Look_Its_Kriss wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »All smoke and mirrors eh? So I suppose WebMD shouldn't have a page devoted to Food Addiction?
http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/eating-disorders/binge-eating-disorder/mental-health-food-addiction#1
And there is no Food Addiction Institute that holds annual conferences on food addiction for Drs and Therapists....
http://foodaddictioninstitute.org/for-professionals/dear-doctors-dietitians-and-therapists/
Oh and look at that they both say that Food Addiction has a physiological/biological component....which is all that I've been trying to show to you.
More on this:
From the WebMD link:Compulsive overeating is a type of behavioral addiction meaning that someone can become preoccupied with a behavior (such as eating, or gambling, or shopping) that triggers intense pleasure. People with food addictions lose control over their eating behavior and find themselves spending excessive amounts of time involved with food and overeating, or anticipating the emotional effects of compulsive overeating.
In other words, what we've been saying, not what you've been saying.
The FAI link is basically an ad. It's also one of those unethical sites that encourage people to self-diagnose food addiction and decide they need to pay for help (to the site or its founders, of course), based on some really generic questions that a huge number of people will answer yes to. Here are the ones from this site:
While on a diet, do I “lose it” after a few days?
When I lose weight, do I gain back even more?
Do I obsessively calculate the calories I’ve burned against the calories I’ve eaten?
Am I thinking about food or my weight all the time?
Do I have physical problems resulting from the way I eat, or don’t eat?
Do I eat large amounts of food in a short period of time?
Do certain foods trigger binges?
Do I weigh myself once or twice (or more) a day?
Do I eat differently in front of people than I do when I’m alone?
Do I have emotional problems resulting from the way I eat or don’t eat?
Do I find it difficult to stop eating without a struggle after one or two sweets?
Have I done serious work in psychotherapy only to find my “food problem” was unaffected?
so how many questions do you need to say yes to before you are a food addict because almost everyone on MFP will say yes to at least 6 questions and some of them are kind of the same.
Heh, believe it or not:Answering one or more of these questions with a “yes” could indicate a food addiction.
I had missed that bit. CRAY-CRAY.2 -
I would absolutely drink all the drinks and eat all the [insert any ONE of my problem foods...] Peach Pie if there were no consequences, lemur. Thankfully the Universe does deal out some pretty big consequences for over-doing it on either Mojitos or potato chips. I think that's why the model for recovery is spiritual based for many. I need to remember the consequences in the moment. That takes inner resources that many people won't ever know even exist.1
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Does this mean into a clinic with everyone who can't pass up peanut M&M's?
And can I ask, what are the symptoms I supposedly am experiencing since I'm currently not consuming peanut M&M's (I can assure you, if I were addicted to any food, it would be those, I have no control)?
Peanut M&Ms are a problem of mine as well. They have them out in my office all the time, and I can ignore them so long as I ignore them, but if I'm stressed or down or who knows what and decide to just grab a handful, what does it matter?! I tend to go back and back and back. And if I do I want to the next day, and of course the more I do the more it's hard to get back out of the habit.
I'd call this a bad habit, but once I start eating them I do feel out of control.
(For the record, it's the nut + chocolate combo. I've made homemade chocolate covered nuts and had the same effect, these just happen to be easily available in a place and time when I am susceptible. So it's not some magic BigFood ingredient, which is what I find most odd about the claims that have been made.)
So the question is, what to do?
Right now I'm tempted, but I gave up sweets for Lent (not weight-related, I say defensively!) so that's enough (don't think this means I am or am not addicted, as I used to give up booze for Lent when I was a drunk--wouldn't always last the whole time, but I sometimes did and certainly would not cave the first week).
I also find I can get motivated on a new plan/structure for a while (no snacking really works best for me) and be good for a while, but I always eventually stop sticking to it, it seems. I need a strong reason not to eat them, as when I do, in that context and with those particular feelings/pressures, I feel out of control.
I wouldn't call that addiction and I'd consider it pretty insensitive to actual addicts to claim my issue with peanut M&Ms is worse than meth (or whatever), but how to deal with this actually is something I think is interesting to talk to.
I do believe that deciding I cannot control them and should feel ashamed if I ate some (a common part of the restrict/binge cycle) would be counterproductive for me. The issue is not caring enough.
Going back to booze, the issue there was not caring enough too, but that's because nothing compared to how much I cared about drinking, and how impossible I thought life would be without it. With mindless eating like the peanut M&Ms, it's different -- it's a definite pleasure that I care more about than saving the calories in the moment, but it's not that I couldn't stop eating them if it were truly important not to (if I were allergic and knew they were making me sick in reality, not just potentially in the future if I didn't stop soon), but that it's hard to believe that it matters if I just eat another handful of peanut M&Ms.
I am genuinely interested in talking about this as it's something that I do find frustrating.
Oh, I hear you on the bold. It's annoying for me, because I already do without so much due to celiac disease, and well - you're where I am with weight too - it's hard to be as motivated when you're futzing about with vanity weight and already are a healthy weight and look good.
I don't really have any answers, except in maybe being motivated by the idea of having control. I remember, vaguely, feeling really jazzed over that, way, way back when I first started dieting and gleefully learned moderation and lived with a pan of brownies and ate one at a time and didn't plow my way through them like a madwoman. It was all so new and novel and lovely after years of unrestrained overeating that it felt liberating and it was motivating. I need to get back in that mindset.
1 -
This content has been removed.
-
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »All smoke and mirrors eh? So I suppose WebMD shouldn't have a page devoted to Food Addiction?
http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/eating-disorders/binge-eating-disorder/mental-health-food-addiction#1
And there is no Food Addiction Institute that holds annual conferences on food addiction for Drs and Therapists....
http://foodaddictioninstitute.org/for-professionals/dear-doctors-dietitians-and-therapists/
Oh and look at that they both say that Food Addiction has a physiological/biological component....which is all that I've been trying to show to you.
You really need to learn to vet your sources, if you want to cite WebMD and be taken seriously.
And a place called The Food Addiction Institute? Really? They presuppose their conclusion to be true, then go about proving it.
Meanwhile, there are a lot of other scientists out there who disagree with them.lemurcat12 wrote: »Oh and look at that they both say that Food Addiction has a physiological/biological component....which is all that I've been trying to show to you.
No -- you have been asserting physical dependency to specific food items. That one can have BigMac withdrawal, in other words. Also, that one can be addicted to Oreos, but not homemade chocolate chip cookies or snickerdoodles (which is a lie! snickerdoodles are totally addictive).
One of my greatest disappointments was trying to perfect a gluten free Snickerdoodle. Many cookies convert well. I never did hit on a good flour mix for Snickerdoodles. I couldn't get a good texture and still have the right flavor.
Back to the point... what does it matter if there is a physical component?
Does this mean into a clinic with everyone who can't pass up peanut M&M's?
And can I ask, what are the symptoms I supposedly am experiencing since I'm currently not consuming peanut M&M's (I can assure you, if I were addicted to any food, it would be those, I have no control)?
I disagree. Who can pass up the peanut butter M&Ms? Not me for sure. They are definitely on my "do not buy list".
1 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »All smoke and mirrors eh? So I suppose WebMD shouldn't have a page devoted to Food Addiction?
http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/eating-disorders/binge-eating-disorder/mental-health-food-addiction#1
And there is no Food Addiction Institute that holds annual conferences on food addiction for Drs and Therapists....
http://foodaddictioninstitute.org/for-professionals/dear-doctors-dietitians-and-therapists/
Oh and look at that they both say that Food Addiction has a physiological/biological component....which is all that I've been trying to show to you.
You really need to learn to vet your sources, if you want to cite WebMD and be taken seriously.
And a place called The Food Addiction Institute? Really? They presuppose their conclusion to be true, then go about proving it.
Meanwhile, there are a lot of other scientists out there who disagree with them.lemurcat12 wrote: »Oh and look at that they both say that Food Addiction has a physiological/biological component....which is all that I've been trying to show to you.
No -- you have been asserting physical dependency to specific food items. That one can have BigMac withdrawal, in other words. Also, that one can be addicted to Oreos, but not homemade chocolate chip cookies or snickerdoodles (which is a lie! snickerdoodles are totally addictive).
One of my greatest disappointments was trying to perfect a gluten free Snickerdoodle. Many cookies convert well. I never did hit on a good flour mix for Snickerdoodles. I couldn't get a good texture and still have the right flavor.
Back to the point... what does it matter if there is a physical component?
Does this mean into a clinic with everyone who can't pass up peanut M&M's?
And can I ask, what are the symptoms I supposedly am experiencing since I'm currently not consuming peanut M&M's (I can assure you, if I were addicted to any food, it would be those, I have no control)?
I disagree. Who can pass up the peanut butter M&Ms? Not me for sure. They are definitely on my "do not buy list".
I have never even bought them. Preemptively. I know. Just know.
I saw that they're coming out with caramel ones now too. They're going to remain on store shelves as well.3 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »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.
Yep -- I spent a lot of time perfecting my pie crust and can make an excellent cobbler too, and cookies. (Hate baking cakes, though -- mostly hate messing with frosting.) Luckily baking less fits with my innate laziness so wasn't such a major sacrifice!
My pizzas are way more hyperpalatable than Domino's (which IMO is terrible), too. I do have a major weakness for the thin crust at some local Italian places, but I think the ingredients are largely the same as mine -- maybe better flour and especially better ovens. I also would recommend a local place called Pequod's for Chicago style and recently tried this place: http://www.chicagotribune.com/dining/restaurants/ct-roberts-pizza-company-streeterville-new-york-style-story.html. Pretty good! Maybe even hyperpalatable. ;-)
Well hello fellow seeker of the perfect pie crust! I spent years trying to recreate my grandma's crust - a lard/crisco base, but the perfection came through the blending and kneading.
In for perfect pie crust. Help me out, I have yet to figure this out. Easy as pie is not easy.
I think lard is the key and not over mixing it but I cannot get the right consistency. It's truly frustrating. Too much cold water, not enough cold water. Ugh.1
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