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: »The problem with assuming that everyone is lazy is that when people say, "I can't lose weight!" and aren't lazy, but really do have a problem, they get missed.
I'd rather tell 1000 people who are making excuses that they should get checked out than tell one person who actually needs medical attention that they shouldn't seek it. If one person didn't seek help when they needed it, I wouldn't want to be a party to that. Plus, saying, "You're wrong, you're just lazy!" to someone who is sick...it just seems horrid to me.
Rather be wrong and let them hear it from their doctor than be wrong and have them not get care they need.
Different ways of looking at things.
Considering how much doctor's visits and blood tests can cost (let alone time missed from work), I always think it's easier to go through the common problems first (inaccurate logging of food or exercise or unreasonable expectations) before referring people to doctors. People who are logging accurately and haven't seen results for months on end should definitely go to the doctors to see if everything checks out.
Lots of doctors will assume you are eating more than you think too...
And they will almost always be right.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Justifiably? Whatever. People use different words. I'm able to deal with that.The problem with assuming that everyone is lazy is that when people say, "I can't lose weight!" and aren't lazy, but really do have a problem, they get missed.
I'd rather tell 1000 people who are making excuses that they should get checked out than tell one person who actually needs medical attention that they shouldn't seek it.
I disagree with this. Nothing comes for free - everything comes at the expense of something else. And distracting 999 people with something pointless to *maybe* help 1 person is bad social math and a waste of limited resources.
I personally don't care if people do or don't classify themselves as being addicted. But if they're going to come to a forum, claim they're addicted, and then NOT treat it like an addiction - yeah, they're justifiably going to get called on it.
I get that for some people, it is "important" to "call people out" online. If that's important to you, you have to do what you have to do.
Every weight loss journey should begin with a visit to the doctor. Every expert says that for a reason. It's the smart thing to do.
I'm not suggesting that you - or anyone else - should encourage people to seek professional help. I just couldn't live with discouraging a sick person from seeking medical care. Since there is no way to know if the person is just lazy or sick, I would encourage them to seek the assistance of a professional. I don't care about your social math.
Social math that discourages a sick person from seeking medical care...not my kind of math.
Different strokes.
0 -
GuitarJerry wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Great post. So many people seem to jump from I'm addicted to x, so I must cut x completely from my diet. So much of weight loss is mental, and understanding cravings, where they come from, and how to include moderation as a tool is such a huge step.
My understanding of the OP's last paragraph is that she did cut x completely from her diet for a period. Is that not what "time away from the foods" meant?
I think she's talking about the people that say "oh, i'm addicted to sugar and will never have sweets ever again!". If you identify a trigger food that you have trouble stopping eating, it is helpful for some people to avoid that food until they can reestablish good eating habits and a better relationship with food. But just saying you'll never eat cake again because it makes you eat more isn't the best route to take. That doesn't actually fix anything because if you just accept that you can never learn to control how much you eat, you'll never stay at your goal. But saying "i know if i start eating this i'll keep going, so i'm going wait a few months before having any" is a much healthier mindset. You give yourself time to retrain your brain and body to what proper portions are, and then you can add foods back in later.
Yes, this.
For example, I'm someone who will suggest taking time away from trigger foods as something that can help. It was something I thought would help me (sweets in general, not trigger foods), because I knew I had some bad habits built around those foods--specifically, misusing them for emotional purposes, but also eating when bored, eating throughout the day, and cutting them out made it easier to break those habits. I reintroduced them after only a few weeks (although I did it again later, when I thought I was falling back into old habits), but this time I kept two main restrictions: no unplanned snacking, and no eating to self-comfort.
I have specific reasons based on my particular struggles that explain why I thought cutting them out would help, and that explain two rules above.
One thing I try to do when the addiction thing comes up (not always successfully) is point out that the reasons for feeling out of control tend to be specific to the person and her habits, and that to successfully change that and break the habits one needs to be somewhat thoughtful about what's actually going on, what role is the food serving in your life, how are you eating in general (i.e., some foods might be causing an unhelpful physical response if eaten in a way that will cause blood sugar spikes, especially if one is prone to that), do you have a nutritious, calorie-appropriate diet (eating too little may cause cravings and binges), do you get enough sleep (being tired tends to make me feel out of control around some foods), etc.
If you just blame the food or claim it has power over you, you avoid focusing on what actually will help in many cases.
Exactly. I think blaming the food rather than the behavior is the root of the problem, and the purpose of my post was to show that the research is actually backing this up in that the issue is a behavioral one, not one related to the substance.
The arguments over whether the foods are or aren't addictive obscure any help from being had around here and it's gotten silly. Whether it's addiction or simply just a problem doesn't ultimately matter for the purposes of what I'm trying to do with this post.
I'm hoping to show that there's hope with behavior modification strategies for people who feel they struggle with this type of thing.
I'm honestly having trouble grasping what you are saying. I just read an article the other day that called out specific studies that are claiming sugar is an addictive substance. In rats, they showed addictive behavior similar to that of a cocaine addicted rat. However, I went to look at the DSM, and it's not there. So, either the studies cited were not confirmed, or all this is conjecture and still being debated.
One could argue that alcoholism is behavioral. But, the behavior is crazy to self-control. Most addicts need help. Whatever help they find that works, is usually a good thing. but, typically, most cannot do it all by themselves. This suggests that either addicts, by nature, are dependent. Or, it suggests that addicts are sort of out of reach seeing solutions and need guidance. Kind of like, they need "glasses to see"; bad eyesight, if you will.
However, almost everyone agrees that you can't help an addict until they want help. So, how much is behavioral and how much is chemical dependency?
This is an extremely complex thing to deal with in a forum like this. If sugar turns out to be an addictive substance, it's not as simple as saying, "just don't eat it". There's a period of withdrawl, from what I understand. It's difficult. It hits pleasure centers in the brain. There's a lot of stuff going on there.
I don't believe that it's 100% behavioral. Both sides are probably right. There is some physical dependency, and some behavior modification needed. Both play a role.
That's my $.02/
Science reporting is... sketchy.
Here, read this, it's from a 2014 research review:Apart from a single case study (Thornley and McRobbie, 2009), addiction-related behaviors in sugar consumption (such as tolerance and a withdrawal syndrome) have not been observed in humans (Benton, 2010). Instead, most observational and mechanistic evidence for addiction to sugar comes from rat models pioneered in Bart Hoebel's laboratory (Avena et al., 2008). A variety of subtly different approaches have been taken, but most studies involve examining feeding behavior during intermittent access to palatable sugar solutions.
That's just a small quote from a rather lengthy discussion of the definition of addiction and description of the addiction response to substances.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Great post. So many people seem to jump from I'm addicted to x, so I must cut x completely from my diet. So much of weight loss is mental, and understanding cravings, where they come from, and how to include moderation as a tool is such a huge step.
My understanding of the OP's last paragraph is that she did cut x completely from her diet for a period. Is that not what "time away from the foods" meant?
I think she's talking about the people that say "oh, i'm addicted to sugar and will never have sweets ever again!". If you identify a trigger food that you have trouble stopping eating, it is helpful for some people to avoid that food until they can reestablish good eating habits and a better relationship with food. But just saying you'll never eat cake again because it makes you eat more isn't the best route to take. That doesn't actually fix anything because if you just accept that you can never learn to control how much you eat, you'll never stay at your goal. But saying "i know if i start eating this i'll keep going, so i'm going wait a few months before having any" is a much healthier mindset. You give yourself time to retrain your brain and body to what proper portions are, and then you can add foods back in later.
Yes, this.
For example, I'm someone who will suggest taking time away from trigger foods as something that can help. It was something I thought would help me (sweets in general, not trigger foods), because I knew I had some bad habits built around those foods--specifically, misusing them for emotional purposes, but also eating when bored, eating throughout the day, and cutting them out made it easier to break those habits. I reintroduced them after only a few weeks (although I did it again later, when I thought I was falling back into old habits), but this time I kept two main restrictions: no unplanned snacking, and no eating to self-comfort.
I have specific reasons based on my particular struggles that explain why I thought cutting them out would help, and that explain two rules above.
One thing I try to do when the addiction thing comes up (not always successfully) is point out that the reasons for feeling out of control tend to be specific to the person and her habits, and that to successfully change that and break the habits one needs to be somewhat thoughtful about what's actually going on, what role is the food serving in your life, how are you eating in general (i.e., some foods might be causing an unhelpful physical response if eaten in a way that will cause blood sugar spikes, especially if one is prone to that), do you have a nutritious, calorie-appropriate diet (eating too little may cause cravings and binges), do you get enough sleep (being tired tends to make me feel out of control around some foods), etc.
If you just blame the food or claim it has power over you, you avoid focusing on what actually will help in many cases.
Thing is, there are some people that have to remove trigger foods completely for a while, sometimes for a long while. But not everyone has too. I never believed I was addicted to any foods, but I knew that when it came to snacking, I would eat junk food out of habit. As in, start with a bag and realize I've finished off four servings an hour later and didn't realize it! But I didn't have to remove foods except for not having them in the house. My inherent laziness doesn't like getting back out at night, so cravings for chips or cookies were easier to ignore since they weren't in the house at all and I didn't feel like driving to the gas station to get a small pack. I still eat those foods, but I still don't keep them in the house! For me, just having them out of immediate reach was enough, but I realize there are some people that won't work for. Habit can be a hell of thing to break out off, especially if it's a habit with an emotional prompt, and if removing a trigger food from the scene entirely until new habits are formed will help, then that's what needs to be done for someone.
I am very much like this. There are just certain foods that I overeat and those foods I have chosen to eliminate at least for now. Occasionally I will buy some of those foods just to check and see if I will overeat them. I will do well for a day or two and then find myself finishing off the bag during a moment of weakness. They go right back on the "do not buy" list. Other foods...I just don't even test myself on...I know that I will overeat them.
0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »My position is that whether or not a person is actually addicted is not especially relevant. What's important is how are they going to manage their relationship with that food. If they feel that they are addicted, something's not working, and something needs to change. That change may take different forms depending on the person and where they are in their journey. There were several good examples in the OP:The second thing to do might be to look a little further to see if there's a reason the cycle of behavior became entrenched in the first place. Were you eating in response to emotional/mood triggers and then feeling remorse after indulging? Did you find yourself eating because you were stressed or mildly depressed (serious depression should be handled professionally), or bored?
Well, if you keep digging for answers, that's the first step to finding solutions
Exercise is a great stress reliever and good for a case of feeling down. Some people like meditative hobbies like coloring or knitting helpful or woodworking... or actual meditation. Pampering activities like long showers or luxurious baths are good for both stress and mild cases of the blues. Replace the bad habit you've formed with food with a new habit in response to your emotional catalyst.
I'll share my personal experience. What worked for me might not work for you. If you have an extreme case, you might need something like cognitive behavioral therapy.
Personally, I just needed time. Time away from the foods I had trouble with and time to reframe my thinking. Once my head was on straight, and I stopped feeling guilt surrounding my consumption of food, I was ready to eat what used to be problematic food (ice cream, brownies, cheese) again. I no longer consider myself "addicted" and I can eat these things in moderation. I also incorporated exercise into my life and find it's an excellent stress reliever!
When a person posts that they are addicted and need help, giving information like in the OP is useful, while saying "No you're not" is not.
Many people who claim an addiction have a certain mindset. They feel powerless. Sometimes what the person needs to do is realize that this is not the case; they do have power over what goes into their mouth. But they have to be willing to put in the effort to regain that control. It's not true for everyone, but sometimes taking that initial ownership can be a step in the right direction.
I absolutely agree that people do have power over what goes into their mouths and think 12 step programs do many people a disservice with their notion of powerlessness over addiction.
I think she puts it nicely in her conclusion
"onclusion, it is not the case that addicts first have to admit powerlessness in order to become and remain sober. The unfortunate fact is that the power does not arise where or how we wish it would–immediately, and simply by thinking or deciding. We have the power to overcome addiction, but the route is demanding, and requires time and effort. We cannot just decide on a different set of meanings; they must, as one philosopher famously said about beliefs, be imposed upon us by nature. That is, they must happen to us, because the changes in the way that we experience the world must come from a deeper and older part of what is responsible for making us, us. They must happen at the deeper emotional level, operating beneath our conscious perceptions and judgments about the world, a level which actually makes those perceptions and judgments possible. Still, we needn’t just wait for change to happen to us, for setting up those changes is within our power. If the addict can’t change herself, no one can. The power is ours."
from not powerless0 -
GuitarJerry wrote: »GuitarJerry wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Great post. So many people seem to jump from I'm addicted to x, so I must cut x completely from my diet. So much of weight loss is mental, and understanding cravings, where they come from, and how to include moderation as a tool is such a huge step.
My understanding of the OP's last paragraph is that she did cut x completely from her diet for a period. Is that not what "time away from the foods" meant?
I think she's talking about the people that say "oh, i'm addicted to sugar and will never have sweets ever again!". If you identify a trigger food that you have trouble stopping eating, it is helpful for some people to avoid that food until they can reestablish good eating habits and a better relationship with food. But just saying you'll never eat cake again because it makes you eat more isn't the best route to take. That doesn't actually fix anything because if you just accept that you can never learn to control how much you eat, you'll never stay at your goal. But saying "i know if i start eating this i'll keep going, so i'm going wait a few months before having any" is a much healthier mindset. You give yourself time to retrain your brain and body to what proper portions are, and then you can add foods back in later.
Yes, this.
For example, I'm someone who will suggest taking time away from trigger foods as something that can help. It was something I thought would help me (sweets in general, not trigger foods), because I knew I had some bad habits built around those foods--specifically, misusing them for emotional purposes, but also eating when bored, eating throughout the day, and cutting them out made it easier to break those habits. I reintroduced them after only a few weeks (although I did it again later, when I thought I was falling back into old habits), but this time I kept two main restrictions: no unplanned snacking, and no eating to self-comfort.
I have specific reasons based on my particular struggles that explain why I thought cutting them out would help, and that explain two rules above.
One thing I try to do when the addiction thing comes up (not always successfully) is point out that the reasons for feeling out of control tend to be specific to the person and her habits, and that to successfully change that and break the habits one needs to be somewhat thoughtful about what's actually going on, what role is the food serving in your life, how are you eating in general (i.e., some foods might be causing an unhelpful physical response if eaten in a way that will cause blood sugar spikes, especially if one is prone to that), do you have a nutritious, calorie-appropriate diet (eating too little may cause cravings and binges), do you get enough sleep (being tired tends to make me feel out of control around some foods), etc.
If you just blame the food or claim it has power over you, you avoid focusing on what actually will help in many cases.
Exactly. I think blaming the food rather than the behavior is the root of the problem, and the purpose of my post was to show that the research is actually backing this up in that the issue is a behavioral one, not one related to the substance.
The arguments over whether the foods are or aren't addictive obscure any help from being had around here and it's gotten silly. Whether it's addiction or simply just a problem doesn't ultimately matter for the purposes of what I'm trying to do with this post.
I'm hoping to show that there's hope with behavior modification strategies for people who feel they struggle with this type of thing.
I'm honestly having trouble grasping what you are saying. I just read an article the other day that called out specific studies that are claiming sugar is an addictive substance. In rats, they showed addictive behavior similar to that of a cocaine addicted rat. However, I went to look at the DSM, and it's not there. So, either the studies cited were not confirmed, or all this is conjecture and still being debated.
One could argue that alcoholism is behavioral. But, the behavior is crazy to self-control. Most addicts need help. Whatever help they find that works, is usually a good thing. but, typically, most cannot do it all by themselves. This suggests that either addicts, by nature, are dependent. Or, it suggests that addicts are sort of out of reach seeing solutions and need guidance. Kind of like, they need "glasses to see"; bad eyesight, if you will.
However, almost everyone agrees that you can't help an addict until they want help. So, how much is behavioral and how much is chemical dependency?
This is an extremely complex thing to deal with in a forum like this. If sugar turns out to be an addictive substance, it's not as simple as saying, "just don't eat it". There's a period of withdrawl, from what I understand. It's difficult. It hits pleasure centers in the brain. There's a lot of stuff going on there.
I don't believe that it's 100% behavioral. Both sides are probably right. There is some physical dependency, and some behavior modification needed. Both play a role.
That's my $.02/
I'll respond to this. The addiction of alcohol is absolutely emotional and behavior, but no one can argue that it isn't absolutely physical. Watching people in an alcohol detox unit will prove that point like no other.
I also hate when people do this, but I also know a lot about what I am talking about when it comes to addiction....what the criteria is and what it isn't. For 8 years I did clinical substance abuse evaluation for the local county I worked for. I went into the local county jail and evaluated people who had just been incarcerated on drug or alcohol charges and made recommendations for treatment. I couldn't count the amount of evaluations I have done with people sitting in a jail cell in full fledge withdrawal while we were meeting. The physical nature of many of the addicts I worked with could not be denied.
Food can be used to feed an emotional need or hunger, but is it physically addictive. I don't think so. I don't think it means that the emotional eating and the comfort that food provides shouldn't be addressed nor should it be minimized, but I don't think it is addiction. It's not just semantics for me either.
I agree that drug addiction and sugar "addiction" might be different things. However, as I said, researchers in one study observed behavior, when taking sugar away from rats that were fed lots of it for a while, that was similar to cocaine addicted rats, after taking away cocaine from addicted rats.
I too think they are very different things. For instance, you probably never see someone trying to sell their body for a pop tart. I mean, in some ways it's ridiculous. But, in other ways, the behavior aspect, and the pleasure gained from the sugar, can in some ways be thought of as addictive, in a sense.
Gambling or sex is really not addictive. It's just not. There's nothing about it that has a physical addition. It is not a thing you ingest that does things to warp your mental state. However, it is considered addictive behavior. Maybe sugar is similar, with a small twist of physical dependence.
I pathologically used food as a symptom of my BED. That is an absolute fact. There was a behavior aspect and a response. Also fact. Doesn't make it an addiction. It doesn't make me addicted to those trigger foods. It's just not the same.
I understand what people mean when they are they are addicted to food or to sugar (most often) or carbs. However, they just aren't. I do think sharing knowledge about that is not only valuable, but powerful. Before I got into treatment and diagnosed with BED....I felt so powerless. I felt like I was never going to be able to get out from the power of the binge. However....I was able to see that with appropriate interventions and with the right approach, I am in control and can enjoy any food in moderation. If I thought I was addicted to those trigger foods and left it at that, I would be a much more precarious place in terms of my continued maintenance.
Interesting aside? In rat studies, it was also easy to get them to show addictive behavior with fat as it was sugar or a cafeteria diet (palatable foods). I have a couple of links, I forget which one I read that gem in.
-1 -
This is a fantastic perspective. Thanks for sharing. I have been a longtime BED person (since about 5 years old) and after being on MFP for only one month today I can attest that as my relationship is changing with food, I'm starting to no longer fear a lot of my trigger foods if I am tracking them; it seems to be more about the conditioned association of binge eating with that food itself. "Exposure therapy," or eating in regular portions, helps me realize that I am not addicted to that food at all. It's been freeing.
I actually had one emotional trigger this past week during a stressful moment and I was able to say, "No" to it. It didn't call out for a specific kind of food. It was if my brain said "Hey, you know what would instantly calm your overheated stressful self down? Eating. Lots. Let's go see what we can find in this kitchen to make that ol' relaxation effect happen biochemically. You can always start your diet again tomorrow. It was eye opening. I simply counted to 20 and decided that no matter how appealing in the short term that suggestion seemed that I wanted to keep going toward health, not backwards because I know where that leads. Also very freeing.
That said, I do have an alternative theory about candida in the body, though. Bingeing on any food, especially sweets and carbs, increases blood sugar that fuels those little critters and causes them to excrete alcohol into the bloodstream which would produce a relaxation feeling in the brain (almost like an alcoholic). I have seen many women (and men) who had at least one parent with alcohol issues who themselves can take alcohol or leave it but who have a problem with binge eating. So I do wonder whether stress in me = urge to medicate with indirect byproduct alcohol in the bloodstream that also comes with a serotonin spike from the carbs, even though I never have taken to actual drinking. Just a thought--0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »The problem with assuming that everyone is lazy is that when people say, "I can't lose weight!" and aren't lazy, but really do have a problem, they get missed.
I'd rather tell 1000 people who are making excuses that they should get checked out than tell one person who actually needs medical attention that they shouldn't seek it. If one person didn't seek help when they needed it, I wouldn't want to be a party to that. Plus, saying, "You're wrong, you're just lazy!" to someone who is sick...it just seems horrid to me.
Rather be wrong and let them hear it from their doctor than be wrong and have them not get care they need.
Different ways of looking at things.
Considering how much doctor's visits and blood tests can cost (let alone time missed from work), I always think it's easier to go through the common problems first (inaccurate logging of food or exercise or unreasonable expectations) before referring people to doctors. People who are logging accurately and haven't seen results for months on end should definitely go to the doctors to see if everything checks out.
Lots of doctors will assume you are eating more than you think too...
And they will almost always be right.
Of course.0 -
Surely we don't need rat studies to demonstrate people exhibit addictive behaviors around food? Or is the information presented here about addictive behaviors not the same criteria used? (genuine interest)0
-
And sometimes they'll be wrong. And someone will suffer because the doctor allowed his personal bias to interfere with good medicine - not even good, just average!lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »The problem with assuming that everyone is lazy is that when people say, "I can't lose weight!" and aren't lazy, but really do have a problem, they get missed.
I'd rather tell 1000 people who are making excuses that they should get checked out than tell one person who actually needs medical attention that they shouldn't seek it. If one person didn't seek help when they needed it, I wouldn't want to be a party to that. Plus, saying, "You're wrong, you're just lazy!" to someone who is sick...it just seems horrid to me.
Rather be wrong and let them hear it from their doctor than be wrong and have them not get care they need.
Different ways of looking at things.
Considering how much doctor's visits and blood tests can cost (let alone time missed from work), I always think it's easier to go through the common problems first (inaccurate logging of food or exercise or unreasonable expectations) before referring people to doctors. People who are logging accurately and haven't seen results for months on end should definitely go to the doctors to see if everything checks out.
Lots of doctors will assume you are eating more than you think too...
And they will almost always be right.
Of course.
It's okay for people online or lay people out in the world to make assumptions and give the most horrible advice. They aren't expected to know better and they aren't being paid for it!
Doctors, on the other hand, should do their jobs.
Sometimes a fat person who complains about having no energy and an inability to lose weight...actually has a problem. The doctor should find out there isn't a problem before deciding that there it isn't and the person is just lazy. That's a bad doctor. Average person, terrible doctor.
1 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »Surely we don't need rat studies to demonstrate people exhibit addictive behaviors around food? Or is the information presented here about addictive behaviors not the same criteria used? (genuine interest)
I'm curious, did you read the initial post? The whole thing was about what leads to entrenched, addictive-like behavior and is looking at the whole issue from a behavioral aspect rather than the commonly used substance-based standard seen on the boards.
Rat studies show some links with substance-based addiction for food. There is no evidence of that carrying over to humans, though.
The entire initial post did show research which supported the idea of a behavioral construct for food/eating addiction. However, it should be noted that digging into the research and really reading it shows that those qualifying for diagnosis would likely not be a lot of people commonly showing up here who say they are addicted.
This does not mean that behavioral modification strategies cannot be helpful for them, though.
0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »Surely we don't need rat studies to demonstrate people exhibit addictive behaviors around food? Or is the information presented here about addictive behaviors not the same criteria used? (genuine interest)
I'm curious, did you read the initial post? /snip
Of course I read the initial post; I read the entire thread. Moving on...
0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »GuitarJerry wrote: »GuitarJerry wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Great post. So many people seem to jump from I'm addicted to x, so I must cut x completely from my diet. So much of weight loss is mental, and understanding cravings, where they come from, and how to include moderation as a tool is such a huge step.
My understanding of the OP's last paragraph is that she did cut x completely from her diet for a period. Is that not what "time away from the foods" meant?
I think she's talking about the people that say "oh, i'm addicted to sugar and will never have sweets ever again!". If you identify a trigger food that you have trouble stopping eating, it is helpful for some people to avoid that food until they can reestablish good eating habits and a better relationship with food. But just saying you'll never eat cake again because it makes you eat more isn't the best route to take. That doesn't actually fix anything because if you just accept that you can never learn to control how much you eat, you'll never stay at your goal. But saying "i know if i start eating this i'll keep going, so i'm going wait a few months before having any" is a much healthier mindset. You give yourself time to retrain your brain and body to what proper portions are, and then you can add foods back in later.
Yes, this.
For example, I'm someone who will suggest taking time away from trigger foods as something that can help. It was something I thought would help me (sweets in general, not trigger foods), because I knew I had some bad habits built around those foods--specifically, misusing them for emotional purposes, but also eating when bored, eating throughout the day, and cutting them out made it easier to break those habits. I reintroduced them after only a few weeks (although I did it again later, when I thought I was falling back into old habits), but this time I kept two main restrictions: no unplanned snacking, and no eating to self-comfort.
I have specific reasons based on my particular struggles that explain why I thought cutting them out would help, and that explain two rules above.
One thing I try to do when the addiction thing comes up (not always successfully) is point out that the reasons for feeling out of control tend to be specific to the person and her habits, and that to successfully change that and break the habits one needs to be somewhat thoughtful about what's actually going on, what role is the food serving in your life, how are you eating in general (i.e., some foods might be causing an unhelpful physical response if eaten in a way that will cause blood sugar spikes, especially if one is prone to that), do you have a nutritious, calorie-appropriate diet (eating too little may cause cravings and binges), do you get enough sleep (being tired tends to make me feel out of control around some foods), etc.
If you just blame the food or claim it has power over you, you avoid focusing on what actually will help in many cases.
Exactly. I think blaming the food rather than the behavior is the root of the problem, and the purpose of my post was to show that the research is actually backing this up in that the issue is a behavioral one, not one related to the substance.
The arguments over whether the foods are or aren't addictive obscure any help from being had around here and it's gotten silly. Whether it's addiction or simply just a problem doesn't ultimately matter for the purposes of what I'm trying to do with this post.
I'm hoping to show that there's hope with behavior modification strategies for people who feel they struggle with this type of thing.
I'm honestly having trouble grasping what you are saying. I just read an article the other day that called out specific studies that are claiming sugar is an addictive substance. In rats, they showed addictive behavior similar to that of a cocaine addicted rat. However, I went to look at the DSM, and it's not there. So, either the studies cited were not confirmed, or all this is conjecture and still being debated.
One could argue that alcoholism is behavioral. But, the behavior is crazy to self-control. Most addicts need help. Whatever help they find that works, is usually a good thing. but, typically, most cannot do it all by themselves. This suggests that either addicts, by nature, are dependent. Or, it suggests that addicts are sort of out of reach seeing solutions and need guidance. Kind of like, they need "glasses to see"; bad eyesight, if you will.
However, almost everyone agrees that you can't help an addict until they want help. So, how much is behavioral and how much is chemical dependency?
This is an extremely complex thing to deal with in a forum like this. If sugar turns out to be an addictive substance, it's not as simple as saying, "just don't eat it". There's a period of withdrawl, from what I understand. It's difficult. It hits pleasure centers in the brain. There's a lot of stuff going on there.
I don't believe that it's 100% behavioral. Both sides are probably right. There is some physical dependency, and some behavior modification needed. Both play a role.
That's my $.02/
I'll respond to this. The addiction of alcohol is absolutely emotional and behavior, but no one can argue that it isn't absolutely physical. Watching people in an alcohol detox unit will prove that point like no other.
I also hate when people do this, but I also know a lot about what I am talking about when it comes to addiction....what the criteria is and what it isn't. For 8 years I did clinical substance abuse evaluation for the local county I worked for. I went into the local county jail and evaluated people who had just been incarcerated on drug or alcohol charges and made recommendations for treatment. I couldn't count the amount of evaluations I have done with people sitting in a jail cell in full fledge withdrawal while we were meeting. The physical nature of many of the addicts I worked with could not be denied.
Food can be used to feed an emotional need or hunger, but is it physically addictive. I don't think so. I don't think it means that the emotional eating and the comfort that food provides shouldn't be addressed nor should it be minimized, but I don't think it is addiction. It's not just semantics for me either.
I agree that drug addiction and sugar "addiction" might be different things. However, as I said, researchers in one study observed behavior, when taking sugar away from rats that were fed lots of it for a while, that was similar to cocaine addicted rats, after taking away cocaine from addicted rats.
I too think they are very different things. For instance, you probably never see someone trying to sell their body for a pop tart. I mean, in some ways it's ridiculous. But, in other ways, the behavior aspect, and the pleasure gained from the sugar, can in some ways be thought of as addictive, in a sense.
Gambling or sex is really not addictive. It's just not. There's nothing about it that has a physical addition. It is not a thing you ingest that does things to warp your mental state. However, it is considered addictive behavior. Maybe sugar is similar, with a small twist of physical dependence.
I pathologically used food as a symptom of my BED. That is an absolute fact. There was a behavior aspect and a response. Also fact. Doesn't make it an addiction. It doesn't make me addicted to those trigger foods. It's just not the same.
I understand what people mean when they are they are addicted to food or to sugar (most often) or carbs. However, they just aren't. I do think sharing knowledge about that is not only valuable, but powerful. Before I got into treatment and diagnosed with BED....I felt so powerless. I felt like I was never going to be able to get out from the power of the binge. However....I was able to see that with appropriate interventions and with the right approach, I am in control and can enjoy any food in moderation. If I thought I was addicted to those trigger foods and left it at that, I would be a much more precarious place in terms of my continued maintenance.
Interesting aside? In rat studies, it was also easy to get them to show addictive behavior with fat as it was sugar or a cafeteria diet (palatable foods). I have a couple of links, I forget which one I read that gem in.
This is worth pointing out. Even those who think the rat studies show addictive behavior don't think it's about "sugar" but hyperpalatable foods, and the studies have included high fat foods too. The food that scored the highest on the Yale Addiction test with humans was pizza, which is a balance of fat and carbs (and not sweet, of course).
I have also read, although I cannot find it now, that rodents respond to sugar differently than humans, and that's one reason those who are unconvinced by the rat models don't think they apply to humans.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »GuitarJerry wrote: »GuitarJerry wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Great post. So many people seem to jump from I'm addicted to x, so I must cut x completely from my diet. So much of weight loss is mental, and understanding cravings, where they come from, and how to include moderation as a tool is such a huge step.
My understanding of the OP's last paragraph is that she did cut x completely from her diet for a period. Is that not what "time away from the foods" meant?
I think she's talking about the people that say "oh, i'm addicted to sugar and will never have sweets ever again!". If you identify a trigger food that you have trouble stopping eating, it is helpful for some people to avoid that food until they can reestablish good eating habits and a better relationship with food. But just saying you'll never eat cake again because it makes you eat more isn't the best route to take. That doesn't actually fix anything because if you just accept that you can never learn to control how much you eat, you'll never stay at your goal. But saying "i know if i start eating this i'll keep going, so i'm going wait a few months before having any" is a much healthier mindset. You give yourself time to retrain your brain and body to what proper portions are, and then you can add foods back in later.
Yes, this.
For example, I'm someone who will suggest taking time away from trigger foods as something that can help. It was something I thought would help me (sweets in general, not trigger foods), because I knew I had some bad habits built around those foods--specifically, misusing them for emotional purposes, but also eating when bored, eating throughout the day, and cutting them out made it easier to break those habits. I reintroduced them after only a few weeks (although I did it again later, when I thought I was falling back into old habits), but this time I kept two main restrictions: no unplanned snacking, and no eating to self-comfort.
I have specific reasons based on my particular struggles that explain why I thought cutting them out would help, and that explain two rules above.
One thing I try to do when the addiction thing comes up (not always successfully) is point out that the reasons for feeling out of control tend to be specific to the person and her habits, and that to successfully change that and break the habits one needs to be somewhat thoughtful about what's actually going on, what role is the food serving in your life, how are you eating in general (i.e., some foods might be causing an unhelpful physical response if eaten in a way that will cause blood sugar spikes, especially if one is prone to that), do you have a nutritious, calorie-appropriate diet (eating too little may cause cravings and binges), do you get enough sleep (being tired tends to make me feel out of control around some foods), etc.
If you just blame the food or claim it has power over you, you avoid focusing on what actually will help in many cases.
Exactly. I think blaming the food rather than the behavior is the root of the problem, and the purpose of my post was to show that the research is actually backing this up in that the issue is a behavioral one, not one related to the substance.
The arguments over whether the foods are or aren't addictive obscure any help from being had around here and it's gotten silly. Whether it's addiction or simply just a problem doesn't ultimately matter for the purposes of what I'm trying to do with this post.
I'm hoping to show that there's hope with behavior modification strategies for people who feel they struggle with this type of thing.
I'm honestly having trouble grasping what you are saying. I just read an article the other day that called out specific studies that are claiming sugar is an addictive substance. In rats, they showed addictive behavior similar to that of a cocaine addicted rat. However, I went to look at the DSM, and it's not there. So, either the studies cited were not confirmed, or all this is conjecture and still being debated.
One could argue that alcoholism is behavioral. But, the behavior is crazy to self-control. Most addicts need help. Whatever help they find that works, is usually a good thing. but, typically, most cannot do it all by themselves. This suggests that either addicts, by nature, are dependent. Or, it suggests that addicts are sort of out of reach seeing solutions and need guidance. Kind of like, they need "glasses to see"; bad eyesight, if you will.
However, almost everyone agrees that you can't help an addict until they want help. So, how much is behavioral and how much is chemical dependency?
This is an extremely complex thing to deal with in a forum like this. If sugar turns out to be an addictive substance, it's not as simple as saying, "just don't eat it". There's a period of withdrawl, from what I understand. It's difficult. It hits pleasure centers in the brain. There's a lot of stuff going on there.
I don't believe that it's 100% behavioral. Both sides are probably right. There is some physical dependency, and some behavior modification needed. Both play a role.
That's my $.02/
I'll respond to this. The addiction of alcohol is absolutely emotional and behavior, but no one can argue that it isn't absolutely physical. Watching people in an alcohol detox unit will prove that point like no other.
I also hate when people do this, but I also know a lot about what I am talking about when it comes to addiction....what the criteria is and what it isn't. For 8 years I did clinical substance abuse evaluation for the local county I worked for. I went into the local county jail and evaluated people who had just been incarcerated on drug or alcohol charges and made recommendations for treatment. I couldn't count the amount of evaluations I have done with people sitting in a jail cell in full fledge withdrawal while we were meeting. The physical nature of many of the addicts I worked with could not be denied.
Food can be used to feed an emotional need or hunger, but is it physically addictive. I don't think so. I don't think it means that the emotional eating and the comfort that food provides shouldn't be addressed nor should it be minimized, but I don't think it is addiction. It's not just semantics for me either.
I agree that drug addiction and sugar "addiction" might be different things. However, as I said, researchers in one study observed behavior, when taking sugar away from rats that were fed lots of it for a while, that was similar to cocaine addicted rats, after taking away cocaine from addicted rats.
I too think they are very different things. For instance, you probably never see someone trying to sell their body for a pop tart. I mean, in some ways it's ridiculous. But, in other ways, the behavior aspect, and the pleasure gained from the sugar, can in some ways be thought of as addictive, in a sense.
Gambling or sex is really not addictive. It's just not. There's nothing about it that has a physical addition. It is not a thing you ingest that does things to warp your mental state. However, it is considered addictive behavior. Maybe sugar is similar, with a small twist of physical dependence.
I pathologically used food as a symptom of my BED. That is an absolute fact. There was a behavior aspect and a response. Also fact. Doesn't make it an addiction. It doesn't make me addicted to those trigger foods. It's just not the same.
I understand what people mean when they are they are addicted to food or to sugar (most often) or carbs. However, they just aren't. I do think sharing knowledge about that is not only valuable, but powerful. Before I got into treatment and diagnosed with BED....I felt so powerless. I felt like I was never going to be able to get out from the power of the binge. However....I was able to see that with appropriate interventions and with the right approach, I am in control and can enjoy any food in moderation. If I thought I was addicted to those trigger foods and left it at that, I would be a much more precarious place in terms of my continued maintenance.
Interesting aside? In rat studies, it was also easy to get them to show addictive behavior with fat as it was sugar or a cafeteria diet (palatable foods). I have a couple of links, I forget which one I read that gem in.
This is worth pointing out. Even those who think the rat studies show addictive behavior don't think it's about "sugar" but hyperpalatable foods, and the studies have included high fat foods too. The food that scored the highest on the Yale Addiction test with humans was pizza, which is a balance of fat and carbs (and not sweet, of course).
My N=1 can confirm this.
Other than maybe ice cream, I can easily pass up sweets. But put a free pizza in front of me, and I would have trouble saying 'no'.0 -
DansLeSucre wrote: »...I actually had one emotional trigger this past week during a stressful moment and I was able to say, "No" to it. It didn't call out for a specific kind of food. It was if my brain said "Hey, you know what would instantly calm your overheated stressful self down? Eating. Lots. Let's go see what we can find in this kitchen to make that ol' relaxation effect happen biochemically. You can always start your diet again tomorrow. It was eye opening. I simply counted to 20 and decided that no matter how appealing in the short term that suggestion seemed that I wanted to keep going toward health, not backwards because I know where that leads. Also very freeing....
Yup, in Rational Recovery, this is called the Addictive Voice, or Beast. It can be very tricksie until you learn how to spot it and deflect it, like you did - good job!
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
And sometimes they'll be wrong.lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »The problem with assuming that everyone is lazy is that when people say, "I can't lose weight!" and aren't lazy, but really do have a problem, they get missed.
I'd rather tell 1000 people who are making excuses that they should get checked out than tell one person who actually needs medical attention that they shouldn't seek it. If one person didn't seek help when they needed it, I wouldn't want to be a party to that. Plus, saying, "You're wrong, you're just lazy!" to someone who is sick...it just seems horrid to me.
Rather be wrong and let them hear it from their doctor than be wrong and have them not get care they need.
Different ways of looking at things.
Considering how much doctor's visits and blood tests can cost (let alone time missed from work), I always think it's easier to go through the common problems first (inaccurate logging of food or exercise or unreasonable expectations) before referring people to doctors. People who are logging accurately and haven't seen results for months on end should definitely go to the doctors to see if everything checks out.
Lots of doctors will assume you are eating more than you think too...
And they will almost always be right.
Of course.
Of course.
Maybe you and Mr. Knight should talk directly to each other since I'm not arguing with either of you, I don't think.
But maybe in a different thread, since I don't see a link between "food addiction" and what it is and how accurately people log their food or how commonly they have disorders that severely affect metabolism.
Also, you keep using the term "lazy." Maybe you think the choices are (1) fat person has problem with metabolism; or (2) fat person is lazy, but I do not. Nor do I think people log badly because they are lazy. (Well, in some cases that might be true, but there are plenty of other reasons.)0 -
Usually, when people here claim that others don't have <whatever problem they say they have>, they talk about themselves. They were lazy and made excuses. That's generally the reason they assume that others must be making excuses and lazy - because they were. It was true for them, ergo it must true for all. That's where I come up with it.lemurcat12 wrote: »
And sometimes they'll be wrong.lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »The problem with assuming that everyone is lazy is that when people say, "I can't lose weight!" and aren't lazy, but really do have a problem, they get missed.
I'd rather tell 1000 people who are making excuses that they should get checked out than tell one person who actually needs medical attention that they shouldn't seek it. If one person didn't seek help when they needed it, I wouldn't want to be a party to that. Plus, saying, "You're wrong, you're just lazy!" to someone who is sick...it just seems horrid to me.
Rather be wrong and let them hear it from their doctor than be wrong and have them not get care they need.
Different ways of looking at things.
Considering how much doctor's visits and blood tests can cost (let alone time missed from work), I always think it's easier to go through the common problems first (inaccurate logging of food or exercise or unreasonable expectations) before referring people to doctors. People who are logging accurately and haven't seen results for months on end should definitely go to the doctors to see if everything checks out.
Lots of doctors will assume you are eating more than you think too...
And they will almost always be right.
Of course.
Of course.
Maybe you and Mr. Knight should talk directly to each other since I'm not arguing with either of you, I don't think.
But maybe in a different thread, since I don't see a link between "food addiction" and what it is and how accurately people log their food or how commonly they have disorders that severely affect metabolism.
Also, you keep using the term "lazy." Maybe you think the choices are (1) fat person has problem with metabolism; or (2) fat person is lazy, but I do not. Nor do I think people log badly because they are lazy. (Well, in some cases that might be true, but there are plenty of other reasons.)0 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »Surely we don't need rat studies to demonstrate people exhibit addictive behaviors around food? Or is the information presented here about addictive behaviors not the same criteria used? (genuine interest)
Whether it's addictive or not is hotly debated, and in part seems to be related to a difference as to what it means to satisfy the criteria used to define addiction.
Those on the "it's like addiction" camp compare it to smoking, as of course it doesn't have the kind of destructive effect on one's life as drug and alcohol addiction (as they admit), but then they don't treat it as if it's similar. For example, the issue with something that's a physical dependency is getting off the substance (abstinence), but Avena et al. DON'T promote abstinence from hyperpalatable foods but cutting down. And clearly there's no evidence that food (especially high fat and high sugar foods generally, which is what they are talking about) lead to physical dependence in the same sense that smoking does.
Also, they seem really focused on how it's needed to explain obesity and poor human behavior around food despite negative consequences, but it seems to me entirely unnecessary to explain that. (Human nature + environment suffice.)
Those in the "not an addiction" camp (like Peter Rogers) argue that if you take the addiction criteria seriously "food addiction" doesn't qualify based on either the studies or the self-descriptions by people claiming to struggle with it, and that it takes the focus off things like environment and the choices that people can make.
Another thing I found interesting is that even though the prevalence of obesity and obesity-related illness is why some hope that looking at it as an "addiction" will find a model that will help address those issues, the "addiction" induced in rats typically doesn't lead to obesity. Instead, rats self-regulate calories but just increasingly replace other foods with the "addictive" ones.
Anyway, I agree with OP that the "how does it develop, whatever we call it" thing might be more interesting than debating what we should call it.0 -
Justifiably? Whatever. People use different words. I'm able to deal with that.The problem with assuming that everyone is lazy is that when people say, "I can't lose weight!" and aren't lazy, but really do have a problem, they get missed.
I'd rather tell 1000 people who are making excuses that they should get checked out than tell one person who actually needs medical attention that they shouldn't seek it.
I disagree with this. Nothing comes for free - everything comes at the expense of something else. And distracting 999 people with something pointless to *maybe* help 1 person is bad social math and a waste of limited resources.
I personally don't care if people do or don't classify themselves as being addicted. But if they're going to come to a forum, claim they're addicted, and then NOT treat it like an addiction - yeah, they're justifiably going to get called on it.
I get that for some people, it is "important" to "call people out" online. If that's important to you, you have to do what you have to do.
It ain't me, babe. You or anybody else can label your condition or etc using whatever words you want, as far as I'm concerned.Social math that discourages a sick person from seeking medical care...not my kind of math.
That's the exact opposite of what I said.
In fact, sending people in to use resources they don't need is what will limit the ability of someone who actually needs help from getting it - it is *your* position that will cause more health problems, not mine.0 -
ceoverturf wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »GuitarJerry wrote: »GuitarJerry wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Great post. So many people seem to jump from I'm addicted to x, so I must cut x completely from my diet. So much of weight loss is mental, and understanding cravings, where they come from, and how to include moderation as a tool is such a huge step.
My understanding of the OP's last paragraph is that she did cut x completely from her diet for a period. Is that not what "time away from the foods" meant?
I think she's talking about the people that say "oh, i'm addicted to sugar and will never have sweets ever again!". If you identify a trigger food that you have trouble stopping eating, it is helpful for some people to avoid that food until they can reestablish good eating habits and a better relationship with food. But just saying you'll never eat cake again because it makes you eat more isn't the best route to take. That doesn't actually fix anything because if you just accept that you can never learn to control how much you eat, you'll never stay at your goal. But saying "i know if i start eating this i'll keep going, so i'm going wait a few months before having any" is a much healthier mindset. You give yourself time to retrain your brain and body to what proper portions are, and then you can add foods back in later.
Yes, this.
For example, I'm someone who will suggest taking time away from trigger foods as something that can help. It was something I thought would help me (sweets in general, not trigger foods), because I knew I had some bad habits built around those foods--specifically, misusing them for emotional purposes, but also eating when bored, eating throughout the day, and cutting them out made it easier to break those habits. I reintroduced them after only a few weeks (although I did it again later, when I thought I was falling back into old habits), but this time I kept two main restrictions: no unplanned snacking, and no eating to self-comfort.
I have specific reasons based on my particular struggles that explain why I thought cutting them out would help, and that explain two rules above.
One thing I try to do when the addiction thing comes up (not always successfully) is point out that the reasons for feeling out of control tend to be specific to the person and her habits, and that to successfully change that and break the habits one needs to be somewhat thoughtful about what's actually going on, what role is the food serving in your life, how are you eating in general (i.e., some foods might be causing an unhelpful physical response if eaten in a way that will cause blood sugar spikes, especially if one is prone to that), do you have a nutritious, calorie-appropriate diet (eating too little may cause cravings and binges), do you get enough sleep (being tired tends to make me feel out of control around some foods), etc.
If you just blame the food or claim it has power over you, you avoid focusing on what actually will help in many cases.
Exactly. I think blaming the food rather than the behavior is the root of the problem, and the purpose of my post was to show that the research is actually backing this up in that the issue is a behavioral one, not one related to the substance.
The arguments over whether the foods are or aren't addictive obscure any help from being had around here and it's gotten silly. Whether it's addiction or simply just a problem doesn't ultimately matter for the purposes of what I'm trying to do with this post.
I'm hoping to show that there's hope with behavior modification strategies for people who feel they struggle with this type of thing.
I'm honestly having trouble grasping what you are saying. I just read an article the other day that called out specific studies that are claiming sugar is an addictive substance. In rats, they showed addictive behavior similar to that of a cocaine addicted rat. However, I went to look at the DSM, and it's not there. So, either the studies cited were not confirmed, or all this is conjecture and still being debated.
One could argue that alcoholism is behavioral. But, the behavior is crazy to self-control. Most addicts need help. Whatever help they find that works, is usually a good thing. but, typically, most cannot do it all by themselves. This suggests that either addicts, by nature, are dependent. Or, it suggests that addicts are sort of out of reach seeing solutions and need guidance. Kind of like, they need "glasses to see"; bad eyesight, if you will.
However, almost everyone agrees that you can't help an addict until they want help. So, how much is behavioral and how much is chemical dependency?
This is an extremely complex thing to deal with in a forum like this. If sugar turns out to be an addictive substance, it's not as simple as saying, "just don't eat it". There's a period of withdrawl, from what I understand. It's difficult. It hits pleasure centers in the brain. There's a lot of stuff going on there.
I don't believe that it's 100% behavioral. Both sides are probably right. There is some physical dependency, and some behavior modification needed. Both play a role.
That's my $.02/
I'll respond to this. The addiction of alcohol is absolutely emotional and behavior, but no one can argue that it isn't absolutely physical. Watching people in an alcohol detox unit will prove that point like no other.
I also hate when people do this, but I also know a lot about what I am talking about when it comes to addiction....what the criteria is and what it isn't. For 8 years I did clinical substance abuse evaluation for the local county I worked for. I went into the local county jail and evaluated people who had just been incarcerated on drug or alcohol charges and made recommendations for treatment. I couldn't count the amount of evaluations I have done with people sitting in a jail cell in full fledge withdrawal while we were meeting. The physical nature of many of the addicts I worked with could not be denied.
Food can be used to feed an emotional need or hunger, but is it physically addictive. I don't think so. I don't think it means that the emotional eating and the comfort that food provides shouldn't be addressed nor should it be minimized, but I don't think it is addiction. It's not just semantics for me either.
I agree that drug addiction and sugar "addiction" might be different things. However, as I said, researchers in one study observed behavior, when taking sugar away from rats that were fed lots of it for a while, that was similar to cocaine addicted rats, after taking away cocaine from addicted rats.
I too think they are very different things. For instance, you probably never see someone trying to sell their body for a pop tart. I mean, in some ways it's ridiculous. But, in other ways, the behavior aspect, and the pleasure gained from the sugar, can in some ways be thought of as addictive, in a sense.
Gambling or sex is really not addictive. It's just not. There's nothing about it that has a physical addition. It is not a thing you ingest that does things to warp your mental state. However, it is considered addictive behavior. Maybe sugar is similar, with a small twist of physical dependence.
I pathologically used food as a symptom of my BED. That is an absolute fact. There was a behavior aspect and a response. Also fact. Doesn't make it an addiction. It doesn't make me addicted to those trigger foods. It's just not the same.
I understand what people mean when they are they are addicted to food or to sugar (most often) or carbs. However, they just aren't. I do think sharing knowledge about that is not only valuable, but powerful. Before I got into treatment and diagnosed with BED....I felt so powerless. I felt like I was never going to be able to get out from the power of the binge. However....I was able to see that with appropriate interventions and with the right approach, I am in control and can enjoy any food in moderation. If I thought I was addicted to those trigger foods and left it at that, I would be a much more precarious place in terms of my continued maintenance.
Interesting aside? In rat studies, it was also easy to get them to show addictive behavior with fat as it was sugar or a cafeteria diet (palatable foods). I have a couple of links, I forget which one I read that gem in.
This is worth pointing out. Even those who think the rat studies show addictive behavior don't think it's about "sugar" but hyperpalatable foods, and the studies have included high fat foods too. The food that scored the highest on the Yale Addiction test with humans was pizza, which is a balance of fat and carbs (and not sweet, of course).
My N=1 can confirm this.
Other than maybe ice cream, I can easily pass up sweets. But put a free pizza in front of me, and I would have trouble saying 'no'.
Yeah, my weakness is more savory things too (and I have zero interest in sweets without fat along with the sugar).
I could also eat an insane number of calories from cheese, sigh.0 -
Justifiably? Whatever. People use different words. I'm able to deal with that.The problem with assuming that everyone is lazy is that when people say, "I can't lose weight!" and aren't lazy, but really do have a problem, they get missed.
I'd rather tell 1000 people who are making excuses that they should get checked out than tell one person who actually needs medical attention that they shouldn't seek it.
I disagree with this. Nothing comes for free - everything comes at the expense of something else. And distracting 999 people with something pointless to *maybe* help 1 person is bad social math and a waste of limited resources.
I personally don't care if people do or don't classify themselves as being addicted. But if they're going to come to a forum, claim they're addicted, and then NOT treat it like an addiction - yeah, they're justifiably going to get called on it.
I get that for some people, it is "important" to "call people out" online. If that's important to you, you have to do what you have to do.
It ain't me, babe. You or anybody else can label your condition or etc using whatever words you want, as far as I'm concerned.Social math that discourages a sick person from seeking medical care...not my kind of math.
That's the exact opposite of what I said.
In fact, sending people in to use resources they don't need is what will limit the ability of someone who actually needs help from getting it - it is *your* position that will cause more health problems, not mine.
No, that's exactly what you said. Maybe you meant to say something else?
The truth is that you don't know who needs to see a doctor and who doesn't. There is absolutely no way to tell, online, what is wrong with someone.
Any time you discourage anyone from seeking medical care, the person could be sick. You don't know.
Because I know that we can't tell who needs care and who doesn't, I would encourage that person to go find out from an ACTUAL professional who is QUALIFIED to evaluate them.
Everyone should be getting check-ups, anyway. It's very, very stupid to blow off your checkups. Every single day, people die of things that wouldn't have killed them if they'd just had their checkup.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
AlabasterVerve wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »Surely we don't need rat studies to demonstrate people exhibit addictive behaviors around food? Or is the information presented here about addictive behaviors not the same criteria used? (genuine interest)
I'm curious, did you read the initial post? /snip
Of course I read the initial post; I read the entire thread. Moving on...
I think you missed the point, though.
It doesn't matter what you call it. We're getting to an understanding of how it develops and what you can do to deal with it.
-1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »ceoverturf wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »GuitarJerry wrote: »GuitarJerry wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Great post. So many people seem to jump from I'm addicted to x, so I must cut x completely from my diet. So much of weight loss is mental, and understanding cravings, where they come from, and how to include moderation as a tool is such a huge step.
My understanding of the OP's last paragraph is that she did cut x completely from her diet for a period. Is that not what "time away from the foods" meant?
I think she's talking about the people that say "oh, i'm addicted to sugar and will never have sweets ever again!". If you identify a trigger food that you have trouble stopping eating, it is helpful for some people to avoid that food until they can reestablish good eating habits and a better relationship with food. But just saying you'll never eat cake again because it makes you eat more isn't the best route to take. That doesn't actually fix anything because if you just accept that you can never learn to control how much you eat, you'll never stay at your goal. But saying "i know if i start eating this i'll keep going, so i'm going wait a few months before having any" is a much healthier mindset. You give yourself time to retrain your brain and body to what proper portions are, and then you can add foods back in later.
Yes, this.
For example, I'm someone who will suggest taking time away from trigger foods as something that can help. It was something I thought would help me (sweets in general, not trigger foods), because I knew I had some bad habits built around those foods--specifically, misusing them for emotional purposes, but also eating when bored, eating throughout the day, and cutting them out made it easier to break those habits. I reintroduced them after only a few weeks (although I did it again later, when I thought I was falling back into old habits), but this time I kept two main restrictions: no unplanned snacking, and no eating to self-comfort.
I have specific reasons based on my particular struggles that explain why I thought cutting them out would help, and that explain two rules above.
One thing I try to do when the addiction thing comes up (not always successfully) is point out that the reasons for feeling out of control tend to be specific to the person and her habits, and that to successfully change that and break the habits one needs to be somewhat thoughtful about what's actually going on, what role is the food serving in your life, how are you eating in general (i.e., some foods might be causing an unhelpful physical response if eaten in a way that will cause blood sugar spikes, especially if one is prone to that), do you have a nutritious, calorie-appropriate diet (eating too little may cause cravings and binges), do you get enough sleep (being tired tends to make me feel out of control around some foods), etc.
If you just blame the food or claim it has power over you, you avoid focusing on what actually will help in many cases.
Exactly. I think blaming the food rather than the behavior is the root of the problem, and the purpose of my post was to show that the research is actually backing this up in that the issue is a behavioral one, not one related to the substance.
The arguments over whether the foods are or aren't addictive obscure any help from being had around here and it's gotten silly. Whether it's addiction or simply just a problem doesn't ultimately matter for the purposes of what I'm trying to do with this post.
I'm hoping to show that there's hope with behavior modification strategies for people who feel they struggle with this type of thing.
I'm honestly having trouble grasping what you are saying. I just read an article the other day that called out specific studies that are claiming sugar is an addictive substance. In rats, they showed addictive behavior similar to that of a cocaine addicted rat. However, I went to look at the DSM, and it's not there. So, either the studies cited were not confirmed, or all this is conjecture and still being debated.
One could argue that alcoholism is behavioral. But, the behavior is crazy to self-control. Most addicts need help. Whatever help they find that works, is usually a good thing. but, typically, most cannot do it all by themselves. This suggests that either addicts, by nature, are dependent. Or, it suggests that addicts are sort of out of reach seeing solutions and need guidance. Kind of like, they need "glasses to see"; bad eyesight, if you will.
However, almost everyone agrees that you can't help an addict until they want help. So, how much is behavioral and how much is chemical dependency?
This is an extremely complex thing to deal with in a forum like this. If sugar turns out to be an addictive substance, it's not as simple as saying, "just don't eat it". There's a period of withdrawl, from what I understand. It's difficult. It hits pleasure centers in the brain. There's a lot of stuff going on there.
I don't believe that it's 100% behavioral. Both sides are probably right. There is some physical dependency, and some behavior modification needed. Both play a role.
That's my $.02/
I'll respond to this. The addiction of alcohol is absolutely emotional and behavior, but no one can argue that it isn't absolutely physical. Watching people in an alcohol detox unit will prove that point like no other.
I also hate when people do this, but I also know a lot about what I am talking about when it comes to addiction....what the criteria is and what it isn't. For 8 years I did clinical substance abuse evaluation for the local county I worked for. I went into the local county jail and evaluated people who had just been incarcerated on drug or alcohol charges and made recommendations for treatment. I couldn't count the amount of evaluations I have done with people sitting in a jail cell in full fledge withdrawal while we were meeting. The physical nature of many of the addicts I worked with could not be denied.
Food can be used to feed an emotional need or hunger, but is it physically addictive. I don't think so. I don't think it means that the emotional eating and the comfort that food provides shouldn't be addressed nor should it be minimized, but I don't think it is addiction. It's not just semantics for me either.
I agree that drug addiction and sugar "addiction" might be different things. However, as I said, researchers in one study observed behavior, when taking sugar away from rats that were fed lots of it for a while, that was similar to cocaine addicted rats, after taking away cocaine from addicted rats.
I too think they are very different things. For instance, you probably never see someone trying to sell their body for a pop tart. I mean, in some ways it's ridiculous. But, in other ways, the behavior aspect, and the pleasure gained from the sugar, can in some ways be thought of as addictive, in a sense.
Gambling or sex is really not addictive. It's just not. There's nothing about it that has a physical addition. It is not a thing you ingest that does things to warp your mental state. However, it is considered addictive behavior. Maybe sugar is similar, with a small twist of physical dependence.
I pathologically used food as a symptom of my BED. That is an absolute fact. There was a behavior aspect and a response. Also fact. Doesn't make it an addiction. It doesn't make me addicted to those trigger foods. It's just not the same.
I understand what people mean when they are they are addicted to food or to sugar (most often) or carbs. However, they just aren't. I do think sharing knowledge about that is not only valuable, but powerful. Before I got into treatment and diagnosed with BED....I felt so powerless. I felt like I was never going to be able to get out from the power of the binge. However....I was able to see that with appropriate interventions and with the right approach, I am in control and can enjoy any food in moderation. If I thought I was addicted to those trigger foods and left it at that, I would be a much more precarious place in terms of my continued maintenance.
Interesting aside? In rat studies, it was also easy to get them to show addictive behavior with fat as it was sugar or a cafeteria diet (palatable foods). I have a couple of links, I forget which one I read that gem in.
This is worth pointing out. Even those who think the rat studies show addictive behavior don't think it's about "sugar" but hyperpalatable foods, and the studies have included high fat foods too. The food that scored the highest on the Yale Addiction test with humans was pizza, which is a balance of fat and carbs (and not sweet, of course).
My N=1 can confirm this.
Other than maybe ice cream, I can easily pass up sweets. But put a free pizza in front of me, and I would have trouble saying 'no'.
Yeah, my weakness is more savory things too (and I have zero interest in sweets without fat along with the sugar).
I could also eat an insane number of calories from cheese, sigh.
Mine is all across the board. I have binged on some truly bizarre foods since there are foods I prefer or seek out, but it's really about the binge for me.
That's partly why it sounds more like addiction to me than regular overeating (what I used to do). I had habits built up based on using food for self-comfort and so when I felt bad would crave foods that I'd give myself as a treat, sometimes, although it's more complicated than that. But it was more about the enjoyment of the foods, using food as a reward (although I'd want to eat more than I should and not be good at limiting myself). It did feel out of control--and basically like what gets posted about on MFP all the time--but it was NOTHING like my relationship with alcohol. There were superficial similarities, and habit elements that made quitting booze harder than it might have been otherwise (that I'd sit in a particular chair with a book and have a terrible urge to have wine when I hadn't thought of it in days, since I used to always drink wine in those same circumstances IS something I experienced with food too). But there were other, distinctly different, elements with alcohol, part of which was that above all it was about the effect, getting high, blotting myself out entirely (eventually, basically a way of killing myself).
When people talk about binging, I see that. When people talk about craving foods or feeling like they can't control themselves with them I usually don't.
Like Caitwn, I do think there are some exceptions, but just that equating more run of the mill struggles with overeating (however difficult it can be) with the life destroying effects of alcoholism and drug addiction seems to me wrong, and so I may get more irritated with comments like "it's WORSE than heroin addiction" than maybe I should.
Edit: but I agree that for the purposes of this thread this question should be tabled, although I do find it interesting (and same with addiction itself).
What is perhaps helpful in comparing the two IS how we deal with habits, however they develop, and recognizing how powerful they can be, whatever one calls them.0 -
My apologies. Back on topic:UltimateRBF wrote: »
Justifiably? Whatever. People use different words. I'm able to deal with that.The problem with assuming that everyone is lazy is that when people say, "I can't lose weight!" and aren't lazy, but really do have a problem, they get missed.
I'd rather tell 1000 people who are making excuses that they should get checked out than tell one person who actually needs medical attention that they shouldn't seek it.
I disagree with this. Nothing comes for free - everything comes at the expense of something else. And distracting 999 people with something pointless to *maybe* help 1 person is bad social math and a waste of limited resources.
I personally don't care if people do or don't classify themselves as being addicted. But if they're going to come to a forum, claim they're addicted, and then NOT treat it like an addiction - yeah, they're justifiably going to get called on it.
I get that for some people, it is "important" to "call people out" online. If that's important to you, you have to do what you have to do.
It ain't me, babe. You or anybody else can label your condition or etc using whatever words you want, as far as I'm concerned.Social math that discourages a sick person from seeking medical care...not my kind of math.
That's the exact opposite of what I said.
In fact, sending people in to use resources they don't need is what will limit the ability of someone who actually needs help from getting it - it is *your* position that will cause more health problems, not mine.
No, that's exactly what you said. Maybe you meant to say something else?
The truth is that you don't know who needs to see a doctor and who doesn't. There is absolutely no way to tell, online, what is wrong with someone.
Any time you discourage anyone from seeking medical care, the person could be sick. You don't know.
Because I know that we can't tell who needs care and who doesn't, I would encourage that person to go find out from an ACTUAL professional who is QUALIFIED to evaluate them.
Everyone should be getting check-ups, anyway. It's very, very stupid to blow off your checkups. Every single day, people die of things that wouldn't have killed them if they'd just had their checkup.
You are taking this thread waaay off topic
If people want to use the word "addicted", that's fine with me. I know what they mean. If they have trouble with food, a visit to a doctor is in order, then a dietitian and possibly a therapist who specializes in eating disorders.
Do some foods cause some people to have cravings? Yes. Is it clinical addiction? Got me.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Try suggesting that course of action to someone who claims to be addicted to carbs or sugar or whatever, and watch what happens to your post. It's "messed up" and "rude" to suggest that someone see a counselor if that person professes "addiction" and an inability to exercise self-control over food.
My apologies. Back on topic:UltimateRBF wrote: »
Justifiably? Whatever. People use different words. I'm able to deal with that.The problem with assuming that everyone is lazy is that when people say, "I can't lose weight!" and aren't lazy, but really do have a problem, they get missed.
I'd rather tell 1000 people who are making excuses that they should get checked out than tell one person who actually needs medical attention that they shouldn't seek it.
I disagree with this. Nothing comes for free - everything comes at the expense of something else. And distracting 999 people with something pointless to *maybe* help 1 person is bad social math and a waste of limited resources.
I personally don't care if people do or don't classify themselves as being addicted. But if they're going to come to a forum, claim they're addicted, and then NOT treat it like an addiction - yeah, they're justifiably going to get called on it.
I get that for some people, it is "important" to "call people out" online. If that's important to you, you have to do what you have to do.
It ain't me, babe. You or anybody else can label your condition or etc using whatever words you want, as far as I'm concerned.Social math that discourages a sick person from seeking medical care...not my kind of math.
That's the exact opposite of what I said.
In fact, sending people in to use resources they don't need is what will limit the ability of someone who actually needs help from getting it - it is *your* position that will cause more health problems, not mine.
No, that's exactly what you said. Maybe you meant to say something else?
The truth is that you don't know who needs to see a doctor and who doesn't. There is absolutely no way to tell, online, what is wrong with someone.
Any time you discourage anyone from seeking medical care, the person could be sick. You don't know.
Because I know that we can't tell who needs care and who doesn't, I would encourage that person to go find out from an ACTUAL professional who is QUALIFIED to evaluate them.
Everyone should be getting check-ups, anyway. It's very, very stupid to blow off your checkups. Every single day, people die of things that wouldn't have killed them if they'd just had their checkup.
You are taking this thread waaay off topic
If people want to use the word "addicted", that's fine with me. I know what they mean. If they have trouble with food, a visit to a doctor is in order, then a dietitian and possibly a therapist who specializes in eating disorders.
Given the information in the OP, that the issue is almost certainly behavioral, it certainly seems like suggesting that someone with a problematic relationship with any kind of food seek help from someone who can help him break that cycle of behavioral reinforcement before it becomes even more ingrained, would certainly be appropriate and helpful.
Excellent OP, IMO.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions