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
-
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.
Yes, I agree with this too--I wasn't saying everyone needs to cut out foods, even temporarily.
What I discovered after cutting out stuff, and why I reintroduced it relatively quickly, was that my particular bad habits were based around eating times and how I sometimes ate (mindlessly vs. mindfully; for self-comfort rather than nourishment). So for me I learned that I could achieve the same thing by eating only at mealtimes (which could include a planned snack). I have sweets at home (ice cream, sometimes fancy chocolate), but I dish out a serving immediately after dinner instead of snacking on it whenever the idea crosses my head, and I found that it stops seeming like a good idea at those other times. Well, mostly.
This was important, since many people focus on not having it available, and my biggest struggle has been at work where it always is and always will be available. So I needed a strategy that would work with this.
Habit is definitely a powerful thing.1 -
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 agree that offering behavior modification strategies is a useful approach.
0 -
Thank you for posting this. On each and every similar post I comment on I try to coax this conclusion by asking "if sugar is not available, would BBQ sauce do as a temporary fix?" If sugar or any other food was truly physically addictive, such a substitution would do in pinch, just like a bad cigarette or a cigarette butt would do for a smoker who has no access to smokes.
The problem is that some people (I know some in real life) would rather feel powerless because it makes them feel better about themselves as a person. Admitting it's just a habit makes them feel that they are bad for allowing it, and previous failed attempts (because they haven't found the right strategy) confirms that feeling of inadequacy. They need to understand that this does not make them bad nor makes the food bad.
The way I dealt with this personally was to taper off my intake just enough for it to not make a difference, and then again until I reached a normal portion. Think of it like this: if you are eating a pack of chips and offered some to another person, they would take a couple of chips and you won't really miss them, but if they take a whole bunch you would. That's how it felt to start eating a proper portion abruptly. Treating these foods just like any other food with no judgement attached took time, but by the time I was down to a normal portion I managed to shed that old skin of guilt.
Yesterday I asked my sister to buy me kitkat on her way here, she bought me two. The second one is still sitting in the drawer next to me. The old devil on my shoulder would have been "eat it, it's only a 100 calories". Even if it had zero calories, why would I eat something that I don't feel like eating just because it's there? I felt I wanted one yesterday, and today I don't.
Now don't get me wrong, I do indulge from time to time, but only when I really want to, and I do it guilt-free. I have noticed if I deny myself these foods in these situations I find myself slipping into regarding them as "special" guilty pleasures rather than just another food I really like the taste of. Ripping that "special" label and thinking of indulgences as a choice rather than a loss of control have been the best things I've ever done for my diet.1 -
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/
Yes! I totally agree with this.1 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »Thank you for posting this. On each and every similar post I comment on I try to coax this conclusion by asking "if sugar is not available, would BBQ sauce do as a temporary fix?" If sugar or any other food was truly physically addictive, such a substitution would do in pinch, just like a bad cigarette or a cigarette butt would do for a smoker who has no access to smokes.
How could anyone answer such a question? When is sugar not available?1 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »
The problem is that some people (I know some in real life) would rather feel powerless because it makes them feel better about themselves as a person. Admitting it's just a habit makes them feel that they are bad for allowing it, and previous failed attempts (because they haven't found the right strategy) confirms that feeling of inadequacy. They need to understand that this does not make them bad nor makes the food bad.
I know some of these folks too. I totally get this and it can be very frustrating when a loved one insists that yes, there's a problem, but they're powerless over it, followed by hand-wringing and total continuation of harmful behavior. Repeat, repeat, repeat.
Then again, it's true that people are only ready to hear what they're ready to hear. My role is to keep it honest when the tired old topic keeps coming up: "You are not powerless here. You can change your behavior. You simply DO NOT WANT TO." (Well, perhaps not said quite that forcefully.)
1 -
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.3 -
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.2 -
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 think the point was that so many new people trying to lose weight say they're addicted to sugar because they like to eat it and don't exercise control when eating it. Labeling it as addiction means it's not their fault, it's something out of their control, therefore, gaining weight from it wasn't a failure on their part. Validating that mindset can make things worse because in doing so, you're validating that opinion and they'll never make the push to retrain themselves to eat better. It's human nature to blame others or some conception for things that we've done wrong. Yes, a person that needs to lose weight did that to themselves (except for rare medical conditions). But understanding that is hard for a lot of people, so it's easier to just say they're addicted and the cut every trigger food out instead of learning proper portion control. That's part of why fad diets become popular. If someone else says 'hey, you got to where you are because of this bad food, so here's how to fix it and it'll happen quickly!', that's comforting to a lot of people. Taking the easy road is always appealing. Taking the hard road, the one that's slower and includes accepting responsibility for how you got there in the first place is much more difficult.
Now science may discover that certain foods will trigger actual addiction in some people, something similar to alcoholism. That is a possibility. But even if that does happen, it won't be everyone that loves sweets and didn't learn proper portion control. And, part of recovery from addiction is behavior modification. Recognizing when the urge is there and learning ways to deal safely with it.0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »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.
I disagree with this actually...I think when someone has the guts to confront a person laden down with excuses they help to fix them. When a number of people do, then that person may well stop and re-evaluate whether their reasons for being overweight are actually excuses.
I firmly believe that when people hide behind excuses they choose not to do something about it, because their weight problem is external, something they have no control over. A victim mentality is no basis to fix your life from...to me it's an emotional difference..
People are fat because they CHOOSE to eat too much and move too little
I was fat because I chose to eat too much and move too little
So are you and everybody on this website whose objective is to lose weight
I had a myriad of valid reasons...they turned out to be excuses, I turned out to have been too unmotivated or weak to deal with them...until I wasn't , until I took control ...part of taking control was people pointing out to me that I was in control...every valid reason was actually an excuse...and the only person those excuses affected was me.
Sure, if someone said "I'm never going to lose weight because of my sugar addiction" that would be one thing. But more often what they are looking for is help with what they see as an addiction. So for that, the info in the OP would be useful, but a confrontation not so much.
Again I disagree
Confronting your own failings makes you stronger
It's also part of the truth-telling to yourself you need to do to modify your behavior.
I do believe that most in life is about facing your own demons.
I just wonder though and this has always been what troubles me about these threads...
Someone states they are addicted to a food...a group of people (from both sides) hit the thread and within a very few posts the original OP is forgotten and the battle is on between the two factions. OP has left...never to be seen again...left without their situation being addressed.
I am not sure that most people can derive the help that they might need from an open forum such as this.
From another angle...
Food has from early childhood been a source of reward or punishment for most people. If your good you get a treat...if your bad you don't get one. If we are feeling low...we eat something that makes us feel better...if we are feeling high...we eat food to celebrate. I really like the one where if your a good little boy/girl Santa will put candy in your stocking. Is it no wonder that we associate food as "good" or "bad"?
IMO...depending on food to fulfill our emotions is a learned exercise. I also believe that just as anything else...it is difficult to unlearn.
1 -
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.
But who is assuming that "everyone is lazy"? I think a lot of highly energetic, intelligent people don't want to deal with behavioral changes because of fear and misinformation.
0 -
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.0 -
Great post and thank you for it! IMHO, whether or not some type of addiction of whatever type is an underlying problem, food—for some people (I was/am one of them)—can be used as an attempt to compensate or replace something else going on in their lives. I think that might be where some people want to plug in the term "addiction," and it is also why it's refuted, because it does not really fit. After all, how can a person be "enslaved to food?" That is an extreme view, and it would be just as extreme as saying that technically, all humans are addicted to food, because we are all dependent upon it.
There is a moment when looking for "reasons" ( *cough* excuses *cough*) why a person may choose to exhibit certain behaviors, where someone might have a strong desire to point at the word "addiction" and feel a measure of relief, because there is an association there with "well, this is out of my control, so this isn't all because I have made poor choices and ignored problems." It takes some of us a certain degree of soul-searching to stop pointing a finger at everything or everyone else and face up to what, deep down, we really do know, but do not like to witness or admit. This process is probably another reason why the word "addiction" gets tossed around—there is a similar path of recovery.
For me, I know I was/am not addicted to food. I was chasing after specific emotions and/or memories and experiences. For example, I love winter, and I associated it with being snowed in with family all tucked around me, safe and sound, with hot cocoa and melty marshmallows. So, I'd have that. Every day. With abandon. Multiply that with a dozen similar situations where I associated things I desired with food, hello weight gain. If only I'd spent that time when I was stuffing my face with focusing on familial relationships, or in any one of a thousand different, better ways, and I would not have had to chase a happiness that I never found, because I would have made it. At least I finally figured that out, right? Right!?0 -
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 (from what I've heard--I didn't go to mine with a problem losing) and say eat less, so it's also probably helpful to come with a detailed record of what you've been eating so they know you've been watching carefully. Many may still assume you weren't including everything (and people notoriously don't log well, even though I know many of us here do or did), but it least could help.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 (from what I've heard--I didn't go to mine with a problem losing) and say eat less, so it's also probably helpful to come with a detailed record of what you've been eating so they know you've been watching carefully. Many may still assume you weren't including everything (and people notoriously don't log well, even though I know many of us here do or did), but it least could help.
Very good point. I was having blood sugar issues, and my doctor was going to blow me off until I pulled out records I'd been keeping for the past week showing them being consistently in the 40-50s. Then she believed I was really having symptoms.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.
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.
2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K 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
- 389 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
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 919 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions