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
-
lemurcat12 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...
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.).
You say that the US governments' concerted effort to combat alcoholism was the 1918 Prohibition? That is a stretch...especially since alcoholism wasn't even recognised as a disease until the AMA declared it to be one in 1956...
Prior to 1956, it was mostly considered to be a drunkeness issue where irresponsible people (mostly depicted as men)were constantly drinking too much. Hence the Temperence Movement of the 19th and early 20th century. Prohibition was passed in 1917....what was main reason why? Not alcohol addiction being a public health issue as you're trying to claim...nope..there was very little medical evidence at the time regarding alcohol.
The primary reason Prohibition finally passed was because the Prohibition party argued the liquor industry's use of grain was considered to be unpatriotic.(WWI war effort).
After the war ended, public sentiment turned towards overturning the law and in 1933 it was repealed.
After alcoholism was declared a disease in 1956...no concerted efforts were done to reduce alcohol consumption and rates remained steady. I disagree that "concerted" means the same as "any" the two words are not synonyms.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »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
.
I've already posted the CDC chart showing that alcohol consumption has remained steady in the US since 1960. Please refer to that...regional and subgroup differences are irrelevant as they are a different data point which I did not discuss.
Ok you have a 2015 news article that says heavy drinking has increased by 17% "in some parts of the country" since 2005. Now heavy drinking does not equal alcoholism nor does an increase in a drinking pattern in some parts of a country mean that alcoholism rates have gone up in the US overall. To the contrary, alcoholism rates in the US have remained steady....I have drawn mine from the CDC and NIAA which are at least as credible as NBC news...
Alcoholism was renamed into alcohol abuse disorder and alcohol dependency in the 1980s and has held steady at 6-8% in the US since alcoholism was recognised as an addiction. (1956). But for brevity let's look at the time period referenced in your article....
2001-2010 USA, CDC study in 2011, see Discussion section paragraph two where it states that the prevalence of alcohol dependence were slightly higher than in 2001. However, the study continues to say, the difference was probably due to survey methods and not an increase in alcohol dependence. Dependency rate was 7.3% women and 7.4% men.
https://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2014/14_0329.htm
2012 USA alcohol dependency at 7.2%
https://niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/overview-alcohol-consumption/alcohol-use-disorders
2015 USA 6.2%
https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/overview-alcohol-consumption/alcohol-facts-and-statistics
Hmmm so I didn't say anything incorrect at all. Just because alcoholism varies by region in the US or by subgroup and those go up and down, the whole...measured by all US adults remained steady.
0 -
Now finally back to some recent studies on food addiction. They've found it in children. They've found two genes linked to food addiction. There's also a lovely study discussing the eating addiction vs food addiction debate. There's studies showing the biochemical nature of food addiction is via same neuronpathways as drug addictions. A warning about big food acting like big tobacco. Lots of good stuff.
The neurobiology of Food Addiction
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20495452
"...the same neurobiological pathways that are implicated in drug abuse also modulate food consumption."
"...this review strongly supports the notion that Food Addiction is a real phenomenon."
Evidence for Sugar Addiction
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17617461
"The evidence supports that under certain circumstances, rats can become sugar dependent."
The perils of ignoring history
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19298423
Dr Hyman article on Food Addiction.
http://drhyman.com/blog/2011/02/04/food-addiction-could-it-explain-why-70-percent-of-america-is-fat/
Food addiction in children
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28236739
Is it time to consider the food use disorder?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28130152
Two novel candidate genes identified in adults in the Newfoundland population with addictive tendencies towards food.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28115213
Multidimensional assessment of impulsivity in relation to obesity and food addiction
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28087369
"These findings provide further evidence linking impulsivity to food addiction and obesity, and suggest that food addiction may be a candidate etiological pathway to obesity..."
A commentary on the food addiction vs eating addiction perspectives
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27984189
1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
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.
Actually what I said was that people can become addicted to a specific food and not an ingredient within that food because the whole is different from the sum of its parts. This is why someone can become addicted to Pepsi and not orange juice because the two drinks are NOT the SAME...they have different ingredients in a different combination creating a unique substance with unique chemical properties. No one in the history of humankind has accidentally drank Pepsi thinking it was just like OJ. I used meth as an example of a substance that is highly addictive even though it's ingredients are not...the two main ingredients of meth are amphetamines from cold pills plus ephedrine or psuedoephedrine from allergy pills, then boosted with various booster chemicals that also happen to be toxic. Cold pills and allergy pills by themselves are not addictive...but putting them together is. Let's go even more basic...we're addicted to O2...need it can't live without it...H not so much...also addicted to H2O..gotta have it...but it's not the O in the H2O that we are dependent on when we use it...nope it's the sum of the H and the O together. And we can breathe all the O we want, we'll still need that H2O. Biochemical dependency can be on simple chemicals up through chemicals of any complexity. To have this idea that there must be some ingredient, something chemically simpler than the whole of a substance causing an addiction has no scientific basis. To date, there is no upper limit on a dependency causing biochemical substance.0 -
You said their had been no concerted effort by the gov't to combat alcohol use and I laughed at that because of, among other things, the 18th amendment and Volstead Act and many state laws even since repeal. Yes, sorry, that was about alcohol use, not grain. I'm no going off topic to debate this because it's not relevant and at this point you are not being credible.
Stable alcohol consumption between 1980 and 2010 says nothing to support your claim which seems to to that we can't do anything about the percentage of people who abuse alcohol, because it just is. Stable total numbers are consistent with lots of things--more drinking moderately, but less abuse; more abuse but others drinking less, so on. You need more. And the fact is you can't generalize--it varies among groups even within a country and of course among countries.
Looking at other countries action to combat abuse over time (Sweden is one) is also instructive.
Why not come clean and just say what you are trying to argue for here? You seem to be saying that alcoholism is a defect in the person so can't be helped but food addiction (excuse me, Oreo addiction) is a physical dependence that happens because of the food so something.
What's the something?
Don't' get me wrong, I think the idea that one can be addicted to just Oreos, let alone physical dependent on them and not homemade chocolate chip cookies is self-evidently false to anyone who understands how the body works, but this is becoming dull and outside the topic of the thread so let's assume your claim is right--then what?
Here's my proposal, based on what I do with alcohol--don't eat Oreos. Normally I think that's the wrong approach to food addiction because of the beginning of the thread and it being impossible to avoid food, etc, but if it's really just specific things like Oreos, well, lots of people cut out trigger foods.1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
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.
Actually what I said was that people can become addicted to a specific food and not an ingredient within that food because the whole is different from the sum of its parts. This is why someone can become addicted to Pepsi and not orange juice because the two drinks are NOT the SAME...they have different ingredients in a different combination creating a unique substance with unique chemical properties. No one in the history of humankind has accidentally drank Pepsi thinking it was just like OJ. I used meth as an example of a substance that is highly addictive even though it's ingredients are not...the two main ingredients of meth are amphetamines from cold pills plus ephedrine or psuedoephedrine from allergy pills, then boosted with various booster chemicals that also happen to be toxic. Cold pills and allergy pills by themselves are not addictive...but putting them together is. Let's go even more basic...we're addicted to O2...need it can't live without it...H not so much...also addicted to H2O..gotta have it...but it's not the O in the H2O that we are dependent on when we use it...nope it's the sum of the H and the O together. And we can breathe all the O we want, we'll still need that H2O. Biochemical dependency can be on simple chemicals up through chemicals of any complexity. To have this idea that there must be some ingredient, something chemically simpler than the whole of a substance causing an addiction has no scientific basis. To date, there is no upper limit on a dependency causing biochemical substance.
No, you said it created a physical dependence.
People don't become addicted to one kind of meth and not others made slightly differently as the addicted element is the same. They don't get addicted to wine and not vodka. Even methadone prevents heroin withdrawal.
You are claiming food is magically different and you can withdraw from soda while drinking orange juice. If not the sugar, then, what's addictive in your claim in the soda.
Hint--I don't think it means addiction, but the reason the brain reacts to soda is the sugar, the sweetness.
Really good podcast I'd recommend on all this is the Sigma nutrition interview of Stephan Guyenet, the most recent.
Otherwise I'd like to focus on the questions I asked in my prior post.0 -
Ugh tons of typos since I'm using my iPad. Sorry!1
-
Now finally back to some recent studies on food addiction. They've found it in children. They've found two genes linked to food addiction. There's also a lovely study discussing the eating addiction vs food addiction debate. There's studies showing the biochemical nature of food addiction is via same neuronpathways as drug addictions. A warning about big food acting like big tobacco. Lots of good stuff.
The neurobiology of Food Addiction
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20495452
"...the same neurobiological pathways that are implicated in drug abuse also modulate food consumption."
"...this review strongly supports the notion that Food Addiction is a real phenomenon."
Evidence for Sugar Addiction
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17617461
"The evidence supports that under certain circumstances, rats can become sugar dependent."
The perils of ignoring history
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19298423
Dr Hyman article on Food Addiction.
http://drhyman.com/blog/2011/02/04/food-addiction-could-it-explain-why-70-percent-of-america-is-fat/
Food addiction in children
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28236739
Is it time to consider the food use disorder?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28130152
Two novel candidate genes identified in adults in the Newfoundland population with addictive tendencies towards food.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28115213
Multidimensional assessment of impulsivity in relation to obesity and food addiction
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28087369
"These findings provide further evidence linking impulsivity to food addiction and obesity, and suggest that food addiction may be a candidate etiological pathway to obesity..."
A commentary on the food addiction vs eating addiction perspectives
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27984189
Macy, none of these links PROVE dependency on food as a substance of abuse.
You are still just posting smoke and mirrors, and yes, I read all of them.
ETA: I agree with lemurcat's recommendation to listen to Stephan Guyenet if you want to hear more about the neurobiology of obesity.
2 -
On the issue of public policy and drinking/cigarettes (and also sugar), I remembered that we previously discussed the issue and I linked this article, which is also relevant to the assertions that public policy doesn't affect the use of alcohol (it says otherwise): https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/03/the-wages-of-sin-taxes/474327/
I'm pretty sure there's a thread in this section about sugar taxes in which we discussed alcohol and cigarette taxes, so that would likely be a better place for further discussion so as not to derail this excellent thread further!1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »On the issue of public policy and drinking/cigarettes (and also sugar), I remembered that we previously discussed the issue and I linked this article, which is also relevant to the assertions that public policy doesn't affect the use of alcohol (it says otherwise): https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/03/the-wages-of-sin-taxes/474327/
I'm pretty sure there's a thread in this section about sugar taxes in which we discussed alcohol and cigarette taxes, so that would likely be a better place for further discussion so as not to derail this excellent thread further!
businessinsider.com/pepsi-blames-soda-tax-for-layoffs-2017-3
This soda tax seems to be changing habits/employment.0 -
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? YES, because on a typical diet I tend to over restrict and then go on a binge because I'm missing all of the yummy things I like.
When I lose weight, do I gain back even more? YES, because in the past, I'd go on over restrictive diets and then go on a binge because I was missing all of the yummy things I like.
Do I obsessively calculate the calories I’ve burned against the calories I’ve eaten? YES, because in the past I went on over restrictive diets and have NO clue what proper serving sizes are for me. Therefore I count calories and learn what an appropriate serving size is for me.
Am I thinking about food or my weight all the time? YES, because my weight is a serious health problem and has already led to one stint in the hospital. So I have to think about what and how much I eat to get the weight to a level where it's no longer a health problem.
Do I have physical problems resulting from the way I eat, or don’t eat? YES, my gall bladder (may it rest in pieces) can attest to that fact. I still have to be extremely careful of how much fat I eat. If I eat too much, I'm in pain. If I eat too little, I start feeling like I have a mental fog I can't get through.
Do I eat large amounts of food in a short period of time? YES, but I mean... it's the Easter Monday brunch at my Aunt's. Ever had her home baked bread? Who would NOT eat as much of that as can comfortably fit in the stomach?
Do certain foods trigger binges? YES, but that was mostly due to over restricting them in the past when I went on silly over restrictive diets.
Do I weigh myself once or twice (or more) a day? YES, but I like having data and trendweight.com makes it all make a nice amount of sense.
Do I eat differently in front of people than I do when I’m alone? YES, eating alone is a sad sad thing for me. So I'll eat to nourish my body. Eating with friends and family is an enjoyment.
Do I have emotional problems resulting from the way I eat or don’t eat? YES, I used to think I have to over restrict to lose weight. That having that piece of chocolate every day would ruin my diet. It's emotionally freeing to realize that learning how to incorporate the things I love is possible.
Do I find it difficult to stop eating without a struggle after one or two sweets? YES, but... Swiss chocolate...
Have I done serious work in psychotherapy only to find my “food problem” was unaffected? YES, but "food" wasn't actually the problem, just the symptom which led my family and the doctors to realize that there was a serious underlying problem that needed to be treated.
Oh dear... I'm done for... I can answer yes to pretty much all of those. For fun I did answer them... So does that mean I'm addicted to food? I mean... it's not my fault I was morbidly obese, after all I'm addicted to food?2 -
Look_Its_Kriss wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
Oh sweet jesus.. so if you answer more then 1 does that make it a super duper food addiction?
So since i could of said yes to all those at one time.. since i didn't think i had a food addiction when i was binge eating, does that mean i can claim it now? is there an expiry date?
If you answer yes to all you are a double secret addict.
So essentially form reading this list every athlete is an addict. Everyone in the military is an addict. Every child is an addict...
0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »On the issue of public policy and drinking/cigarettes (and also sugar), I remembered that we previously discussed the issue and I linked this article, which is also relevant to the assertions that public policy doesn't affect the use of alcohol (it says otherwise): https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/03/the-wages-of-sin-taxes/474327/
I'm pretty sure there's a thread in this section about sugar taxes in which we discussed alcohol and cigarette taxes, so that would likely be a better place for further discussion so as not to derail this excellent thread further!
businessinsider.com/pepsi-blames-soda-tax-for-layoffs-2017-3
This soda tax seems to be changing habits/employment.
Did you read the article I posted? I am not sure how you see your post as responsive.
(Big companies blaming public policy they dislike for layoffs is also really common and not particularly meaningful. Anyway, like I said, there's another thread on this topic, let's move this there.)1 -
The Sigma Nutrition podcast has come up a few places recently. I'd highly recommend episode 146, on sugar addiction (or not, really), as well as the discussions with Stephan Guyenet (mentioned above, there are at least two, both good) and Kevin Hall, among others.
Episode 146 has links that show the problem with the rodent studies and the addiction claim and basically explain the phenomenon similar to the research and analyses discussed at the beginning of the thread: http://sigmanutrition.com/episode146/
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00394-016-1229-6: "We find little evidence to support sugar addiction in humans, and findings from the animal literature suggest that addiction-like behaviours, such as bingeing, occur only in the context of intermittent access to sugar. These behaviours likely arise from intermittent access to sweet tasting or highly palatable foods, not the neurochemical effects of sugar."
I think this one may even be at the beginning of this thread, but am too lazy to check! http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763414002140
Anyway, I'd strongly advise giving it a listen, quite sensible.6 -
I'm a food addict!! but said no to donuts earlier today. (Course there were other people around and hadn't touched them) but.... so glad they are no longer physically here.
1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »The Sigma Nutrition podcast has come up a few places recently. I'd highly recommend episode 146, on sugar addiction (or not, really), as well as the discussions with Stephan Guyenet (mentioned above, there are at least two, both good) and Kevin Hall, among others.
Episode 146 has links that show the problem with the rodent studies and the addiction claim and basically explain the phenomenon similar to the research and analyses discussed at the beginning of the thread: http://sigmanutrition.com/episode146/
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00394-016-1229-6: "We find little evidence to support sugar addiction in humans, and findings from the animal literature suggest that addiction-like behaviours, such as bingeing, occur only in the context of intermittent access to sugar. These behaviours likely arise from intermittent access to sweet tasting or highly palatable foods, not the neurochemical effects of sugar."
I think this one may even be at the beginning of this thread, but am too lazy to check! http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763414002140
Anyway, I'd strongly advise giving it a listen, quite sensible.
Thanks to you, podcasts have become my new exercise accompaniment. I get completely lost listening to them. Love it. I'll add 146 to my queue.1 -
Food Addiction and Dieting go hand in hand. Which comes first. I believe that dieting in the teenage years is a setup for a hookup for a lifetime of dieting. I no longer diet. I don't follow menu plans written by other people. I no longer buy dieting books and threw all I had in the bin.
I am a Veteran Dieter. Low carb, no carb, atkins, keto, paleo, primal, food group elimination diets, chemical sheetstorm dehydrated food delivery diets, branded dieting centers and organizations.
I believe that cycles of dieting beget food addiction and disordered eating patterns. I no longer assign moral judgments to food. Clean Eating or Dirty Eating. Good Girl or Bad Girl. Naughty or Nice. Bad Foods and Good Foods.
All or Nothing.
I don't believe in Before or After pictures for motivation. There's not a single Before picture that ever motivated me to a sustainable stable weight. Before pictures made me loathe myself.
It dawned on me that naturally fit folks don't ever take Before pictures of themselves. They simply are. They live, move and enjoy all of their being by living and remaining in the Present. Naturally fit folks that have never dieted a single day in their lifetime don't need to plaster photos of celebrities all over their house for motivation. They're motivated by their free will to enjoy life without dieting. They're not thinking about Dirty Food or being a Dirty Eater.
Yes. I did sit down with someone, face-to-face. I worked through the years that dieting ruined for me. Years of dieting can ruin your internal hunger cues. In the beginning, you don't know if you are actually hungry or just using food for emotional soothing.
I think most of us can remember a time in our life when we were naturally fit-mindful, intuitive eaters. Dieting was not even a thought. We were free to enjoy a birthday party or holiday without our minds shooting arrows into our fun and good times.
We were free agents. Free wheeling with our original factory settings.
So I use MFP. It keeps me from meandering outside of my normal river banks. I do everything on my own terms. I created my own plan which is mostly no plan. I eat the foods that I enjoy and track portions/energy units.
I often wonder what would've happened if I had not messed up my internal cues from all of that dieting. That was my biggest mistake, listening to others tell me they had the latest, greatest, quick weight loss plan that would solve all of my problems. Problems that I really didn't have back then. I started dieting because I thought it was fun to do what all of the other girls were doing.
Dieting only served to set me up for trigger foods after cycles of food group elimination. I refuse to do any of that. I don't and won't listen to anyone who preaches food group elimination under the guise of everyone having food allergies which begets more food addiction and disordered eating.
You have to be careful and tread lightly. Recovery from food addiction by dieting can become the new addiction.3
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