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
Options
Replies
-
That's not true. I have faithfully represented what is in the sources I have posted. The sources I have posted are peer reviewed scientific studies or articles referencing such studies written by journalists from credible news sources or other scientific organisations. I have also posted an entire book as a source.GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »The things you think are sources don't prove anything you're saying, Macy.
1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Alcoholics are viewed as becoming addicted not because of the alcohol but because of a disease within them, a propensity to become an alcoholic so the producers of alcohol are not seen as responsible in any way.
You really don't seem to know much about current studies of alcoholism.
Yes, producers aren't considered responsible for people's abuse (legally, except in limited circumstances like dram shop things) and lots of people use alcohol responsibly, but not because alcoholics have a "disease."So there was no concerted effort to reduce alcohol consumption levels across the board.
This is historically inaccurate and a mind-boggling claim.As a result alcoholism rates have remained steady.
No, they vary and differ among groups.The current debate on food addiction is along these same lines.
No, this idea that some people think food is like smoking is completely in your head only. No one claims a Big Mac has the physical dependence causing properties of nicotine. That makes no sense -- again, under your theory one could be addicted to Marlboro and not whatever other kind of cigarettes there are.Is food addiction caused by something within the person or by the foods themselves?
The latter -- that something is just physical dependence causing -- would mean that it happens to everyone. It doesn't. This is especially obvious given that you are focusing on specific food items. I have trouble thinking that you are serious here and not playing a game of some sort.
You seem to be leading up to some sort of argument that hyperpalatable foods should be banned or some such, but you do get, right, that I have right now butter and sugar and flour and salt in my kitchen, not to mention olive oil and various other ingredients, and so could whip up a hyperpalatable pizza with hyperpalatable cookies for dessert?
No you can't whip up anything hyperpalatable because you can't engineer the crunch to exactly 0.4lbs of jaw pressure. You also do not have the additive chemicals on hand to increase the taste factor, the mouth feeling of your cookies might not be at the right soft and chewy texture, I am also sure you do not have dough conditioners to boost your pizza crust on hand.
Hyperpalatable refers only to engineered processed foods...you can't make them in a home kitchen. It would be like comparing homemade chicken goujons to McDonalds chicken nuggets....nowhere near comparable.
I am quite serious and not playing a game. I am fine with alternate opinions/views on this. Right now I find it interesting that if I were to view all the comments saying how a person can't be addicted to food in an historical context they almost exactly mirror the same comments about drunkeness and irresponsible drunks before alcohol addiction was recognised as a real problem. I don't think acknowledging the possibility of Food Addiction suddenly means that people can absolve themselves of responsibility..people abuse the existence of problems all the time...they say oh I'm so depressed when they really are not depressed but that is no reason to refuse to acknowledge that depression is a real illness. I think that's why no ones converted me to the "it's impossible" view point. Because it's really all opinions and viewpoints that have been expressed..too I've linked a ton of sources supporting my viewpoint but have yet to see anyone who's disagreed on here post anything scientific or investigative journalism that supports the opposite viewpoint.
0 -
Look_Its_Kriss wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »kk_inprogress wrote: »I've been fairly quiet in this thread, but comparing food (a nutrient based, life sustaining substance your body needs) to crystal meth or alcohol addiction is ridiculous.
No one dies or has to go to detox when they stop eating whatever hyperpalatable food is being claimed to blame. And no one becomes "addicted" to food after their first bite or we'd all be obese from childhood.
I agreed with the bolded. However...the psychological aspect of someone "thinking" that they need a specific food can't be ignored. If I look only at myself...I am intelligent enough to understand science...but I live my life with feelings and emotions. Honestly...despite being able to understand (to some degree) science...I sometimes prefer living in lala land. Life can be much happier there for someone with a strange mind!
Whether we believe that food addiction is real or not there are psychological aspects that I do believe are real for these people. I think that is where the answers will be found. I also believe that it is easier for some to blame their perceived dependency on a food item...manufacturer...etc than it is to take an honest look at ourselves.
I am not trying to give these people an excuse...I just think that at times we belittle their feelings. Those feeling are real in their minds. I know that until I took a long hard look at myself (didn't like all that I saw) I wasn't able to begin controlling those foods that I somehow couldn't manage to moderate.
I know that many have said that the cold hard facts and the bluntness that sometimes comes across here in these threads have helped them...for others not quite so much. For me personally I went in search for my own answers because well...no amount of "bluntness" will change anything for me.
I agree that the psychological aspects are important, and if you read my initial post on the first page of this thread, the point of this whole thread was to empower people into thoughts behind what they could DO when faced with feeling like they have issues with food.
The argument is derailed by people wanting to keep clinging to the idea of being physically addicted to food for some reason and the point at the end of the day is:
IT DOESN'T MATTER.
What matters is what people then do to address it.
People come to these forums and say "HELP, I'm addicted to xyz!", and then the crapstorm of debate ensues over whether addiction exists and it's not helpful and doesn't matter.
What does matter is practical advice on how the person can address their issues with food, and people can share their experiences with their own issues.
Indeed after that it's in their hands..
And they may get angry.. i sure did. Really angry. Every time someone told me to seek therapy.. i got personally offended. Thats why i said a few posts back that its hard to watch sometimes, especially if they are friends because you can't kidnap people.. and you can only sit back and wait and hope they wake up and take control before they possibly kill themselves.. i mean how much longer was i gonna let it go? my legs in a mess and in pain, weight going up and up.. my sugars constantly in the 30+ range, I felt sick and tired all the time.. i never had enough food to get me through a 2 week period.. and still despite it all.. it went on for years and i refused to admit it to myself fully.. Putting blame on something else only would of deflected the responsibility i needed to take to address my issues.
I agree with @GottaBurnEmAll -- At the end of the day, whether i believe sugar/food/XYZ addiction isn't real and someone else does, If i came to the forums seeking help from my eating disorder i don't want a debate on if someone thinks im faking it because it is or isn't real.. suggestions on how to deal with binges are great but what i think is the most helpful is personal stories.. the more personal stories shared the OP can read them and as they read through them and see those people going and getting therapy or reading books it becomes personal, they start seeing themselves and then instead of possibly being offended by being so bluntly told to seek help, it becomes their own decision which is usually how people do things isn't it?
I like to think of it as that friend who you warn not to date this awful guy.. she will probably do it anyway.. and you might be that person in your head when it ends bad saying i told you so, but now she knows, will probably use this lesson now as life experience and hopefully make better choices.
My lesson from my being treated a couple years back for binge eating was that it didn't just magically go away like i thought it did, i still have to remain vigilant and aware and recognize ques within my mind. Just the other day there i was up late at night talking to JaydedMiss in PM and realized that even though i had eaten a snack the medication was wearing down at that hour and i could hear my brain start chattering about what else i wanted to eat and start really thinking about what i could go out there and get and when she messaged me back saying goodnight i then in turn said "YEP! brain is starting to chatter, its definitely time to go to bed" and i made the decision to go to bed before letting the chatter become the stronger voice of reason between the two.
There have been a lot of boards lately asking for help with sugar addiction most specifically.
I think for the most part people really know my stance on how i feel about it.. lol
But lately i have decided that i need to really let those topics slide and let them go.. even when people post links that the website to help them clearly says its the same as heroin addiction.. just gotta let it go.. i mean as much as it tears me that i want them to know that while they are struggling its not heroin, knowing this fact isn't going to change anything, they still need to do something to fix the issue they believe they have to whatever degree they believe they have it.
SO.. in regards to marcy's friend, with the pepsi.. be it brand, certain ingredient, actual addiction, etc.. its clear we all don't agree on why, but what we all do agree on is that said friend needs help and what does that friend need to do to get that help? Facts in either direction, be in proven that its actual addiction or not is not going to change the outcome of how that friend wakes up and finally realizes they need help, so what do they do?
Completely agree what matters is the person gets helps. There are numerous food addiction clinics out there. They do assess people to see if they have food addiction or another eating disorder like classic BED and then they prescribe a course of treatment appropriate to the specific problem.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Alcoholics are viewed as becoming addicted not because of the alcohol but because of a disease within them, a propensity to become an alcoholic so the producers of alcohol are not seen as responsible in any way.
You really don't seem to know much about current studies of alcoholism.
Yes, producers aren't considered responsible for people's abuse (legally, except in limited circumstances like dram shop things) and lots of people use alcohol responsibly, but not because alcoholics have a "disease."So there was no concerted effort to reduce alcohol consumption levels across the board.
This is historically inaccurate and a mind-boggling claim.As a result alcoholism rates have remained steady.
No, they vary and differ among groups.
?
http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/publications/global_alcohol_report/profiles/usa.pdf
This WHO study clearly shows that alcoholism and alcohol consumption has remained steady for DECADES. Look I'm getting tired of you guys saying this is wrong that is wrong without posting any sources to back up your claims!0 -
And here are the WHO stats on alcohol for the UK
http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/publications/global_alcohol_report/profiles/gbr.pdf?ua=10 -
That's not true. I have faithfully represented what is in the sources I have posted. The sources I have posted are peer reviewed scientific studies or articles referencing such studies written by journalists from credible news sources or other scientific organisations. I have also posted an entire book as a source.GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »The things you think are sources don't prove anything you're saying, Macy.
Macy, yes it is true.
Nothing you have posted has supported the case for there being a chemical dependence on food.
Hedonic response (which is what the book you posted is about) is not a chemical dependence, and that's what addiction is -- at least the type you're arguing for (a physical addiction).
Now, is hedonic response and being hooked on the pleasure of it a behavioral addiction? Sure. The case could be made for that.
But it's not a chemical/physical addiction.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Alcoholics are viewed as becoming addicted not because of the alcohol but because of a disease within them, a propensity to become an alcoholic so the producers of alcohol are not seen as responsible in any way.
You really don't seem to know much about current studies of alcoholism.
Yes, producers aren't considered responsible for people's abuse (legally, except in limited circumstances like dram shop things) and lots of people use alcohol responsibly, but not because alcoholics have a "disease."So there was no concerted effort to reduce alcohol consumption levels across the board.
This is historically inaccurate and a mind-boggling claim.As a result alcoholism rates have remained steady.
No, they vary and differ among groups.The current debate on food addiction is along these same lines.
No, this idea that some people think food is like smoking is completely in your head only. No one claims a Big Mac has the physical dependence causing properties of nicotine. That makes no sense -- again, under your theory one could be addicted to Marlboro and not whatever other kind of cigarettes there are.Is food addiction caused by something within the person or by the foods themselves?
The latter -- that something is just physical dependence causing -- would mean that it happens to everyone. It doesn't. This is especially obvious given that you are focusing on specific food items. I have trouble thinking that you are serious here and not playing a game of some sort.
You seem to be leading up to some sort of argument that hyperpalatable foods should be banned or some such, but you do get, right, that I have right now butter and sugar and flour and salt in my kitchen, not to mention olive oil and various other ingredients, and so could whip up a hyperpalatable pizza with hyperpalatable cookies for dessert?
No you can't whip up anything hyperpalatable because you can't engineer the crunch to exactly 0.4lbs of jaw pressure.
Since when is that the definition of hyperpalatable. Do you imagine that homemade cookies aren't hyperpalatable? This is getting weirder and weirder.You also do not have the additive chemicals on hand to increase the taste factor, the mouth feeling of your cookies might not be at the right soft and chewy texture, I am also sure you do not have dough conditioners to boost your pizza crust on hand.
Same point.
The reason there are lots of additives to ultraprocessed foods is preservation/shelf stable, and making it taste close enough to homemade despite being shelf-stable and using cheaper ingredients. The idea that they are more delicious or harder to resist than actual homemade treats (by someone who can cook, of course) or chef-prepared cuisine of the highest quality is really, really bizarre.Hyperpalatable refers only to engineered processed foods...you can't make them in a home kitchen. It would be like comparing homemade chicken goujons to McDonalds chicken nuggets....nowhere near comparable.
No, that's not what hyperpalatable means. You are making stuff up. It means extremely or excessively palatable, hard to resist, and that's usually attributed to salt, fat, and sugar combined in some way with each other.I am quite serious and not playing a game. I am fine with alternate opinions/views on this. Right now I find it interesting that if I were to view all the comments saying how a person can't be addicted to food in an historical context they almost exactly mirror the same comments about drunkeness and irresponsible drunks before alcohol addiction was recognised as a real problem.
You are confusing "not a physical dependency" (which alcohol often is not also, btw) with "not a problem." But that alcoholism exists does not make alcoholics responsible for choosing to drink, btw. You are really wrapped up in this idea that addiction=not responsible and not addiction=morally bad, I think.
But anyway, let's actually move on to my question which you keep refusing to answer:
Even if it were an addiction, what difference would that make? What do you recommend people do about it? Here's mine: if you have an addiction to Big Macs (and Big Macs specifically), don't eat Big Macs.
On the other hand, if you tend to struggle with things like emotional eating (which have some overlaps to addiction IMO), then there are other tactics and just giving up one food wouldn't be helpful. I think the right answer may depend on the specifics and the person somewhat.3 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Alcoholics are viewed as becoming addicted not because of the alcohol but because of a disease within them, a propensity to become an alcoholic so the producers of alcohol are not seen as responsible in any way.
You really don't seem to know much about current studies of alcoholism.
Yes, producers aren't considered responsible for people's abuse (legally, except in limited circumstances like dram shop things) and lots of people use alcohol responsibly, but not because alcoholics have a "disease."So there was no concerted effort to reduce alcohol consumption levels across the board.
This is historically inaccurate and a mind-boggling claim.As a result alcoholism rates have remained steady.
No, they vary and differ among groups.
?
http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/publications/global_alcohol_report/profiles/usa.pdf
This WHO study clearly shows that alcoholism and alcohol consumption has remained steady for DECADES. Look I'm getting tired of you guys saying this is wrong that is wrong without posting any sources to back up your claims!
That stat shows alcohol consumption (not abuse) from 1980 to 2010. It doesn't support what you said at all or show historical changes in alcoholism rates. Consumption is not abuse and 1980 to 2010 is not a long time. Other stats (see here http://www.who.int/gho/substance_abuse/burden/alcohol_prevalence/en/) show variation between countries. The UK numbers show more variation than the US number, and again not about abuse.
More significantly, read anything about the history of alcohol in the US and you will see that the rate at which people drink has changed a lot (and varies between specific groups quite a lot) and--what I was particularly reacting to--that it's obviously false that there have been no concerted efforts to reduce alcohol consumption. Among other things, a rather large one is the 18th Amendment and the Volstead Act, but it is not limited to that. The idea of what moderate drinking is is lower now than it used to be, 3 martini lunches are no longer a thing (well, most places), so on.2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Alcoholics are viewed as becoming addicted not because of the alcohol but because of a disease within them, a propensity to become an alcoholic so the producers of alcohol are not seen as responsible in any way.
You really don't seem to know much about current studies of alcoholism.
Yes, producers aren't considered responsible for people's abuse (legally, except in limited circumstances like dram shop things) and lots of people use alcohol responsibly, but not because alcoholics have a "disease."So there was no concerted effort to reduce alcohol consumption levels across the board.
This is historically inaccurate and a mind-boggling claim.As a result alcoholism rates have remained steady.
No, they vary and differ among groups.The current debate on food addiction is along these same lines.
No, this idea that some people think food is like smoking is completely in your head only. No one claims a Big Mac has the physical dependence causing properties of nicotine. That makes no sense -- again, under your theory one could be addicted to Marlboro and not whatever other kind of cigarettes there are.Is food addiction caused by something within the person or by the foods themselves?
The latter -- that something is just physical dependence causing -- would mean that it happens to everyone. It doesn't. This is especially obvious given that you are focusing on specific food items. I have trouble thinking that you are serious here and not playing a game of some sort.
You seem to be leading up to some sort of argument that hyperpalatable foods should be banned or some such, but you do get, right, that I have right now butter and sugar and flour and salt in my kitchen, not to mention olive oil and various other ingredients, and so could whip up a hyperpalatable pizza with hyperpalatable cookies for dessert?
No you can't whip up anything hyperpalatable because you can't engineer the crunch to exactly 0.4lbs of jaw pressure.
Since when is that the definition of hyperpalatable. Do you imagine that homemade cookies aren't hyperpalatable? This is getting weirder and weirder.You also do not have the additive chemicals on hand to increase the taste factor, the mouth feeling of your cookies might not be at the right soft and chewy texture, I am also sure you do not have dough conditioners to boost your pizza crust on hand.
Same point.
The reason there are lots of additives to ultraprocessed foods is preservation/shelf stable, and making it taste close enough to homemade despite being shelf-stable and using cheaper ingredients. The idea that they are more delicious or harder to resist than actual homemade treats (by someone who can cook, of course) or chef-prepared cuisine of the highest quality is really, really bizarre.Hyperpalatable refers only to engineered processed foods...you can't make them in a home kitchen. It would be like comparing homemade chicken goujons to McDonalds chicken nuggets....nowhere near comparable.
No, that's not what hyperpalatable means. You are making stuff up. It means extremely or excessively palatable, hard to resist, and that's usually attributed to salt, fat, and sugar combined in some way with each other.I am quite serious and not playing a game. I am fine with alternate opinions/views on this. Right now I find it interesting that if I were to view all the comments saying how a person can't be addicted to food in an historical context they almost exactly mirror the same comments about drunkeness and irresponsible drunks before alcohol addiction was recognised as a real problem.
You are confusing "not a physical dependency" (which alcohol often is not also, btw) with "not a problem." But that alcoholism exists does not make alcoholics responsible for choosing to drink, btw. You are really wrapped up in this idea that addiction=not responsible and not addiction=morally bad, I think.
But anyway, let's actually move on to my question which you keep refusing to answer:
Even if it were an addiction, what difference would that make? What do you recommend people do about it? Here's mine: if you have an addiction to Big Macs (and Big Macs specifically), don't eat Big Macs.
On the other hand, if you tend to struggle with things like emotional eating (which have some overlaps to addiction IMO), then there are other tactics and just giving up one food wouldn't be helpful. I think the right answer may depend on the specifics and the person somewhat.
Yeah, I can assure you, a lot of stuff I bake is hyperpalatable. I'm a good cook and baker. There's a reason I don't bake myself brownies or cookies all that often.2 -
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 -
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
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 937 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions