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
-
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 -
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 -
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 -
Any time you discourage anyone from seeking medical care, the person could be sick. You don't know.
That's right.
A paper cut could in fact lead to a fatal infection.
But that is not a justification to clog Emergency Rooms with paper cuts - because if you do, the overall outcome will be even worse.
0 -
What difference does it make whether you label unhealthful eating behaviors an "addiction"? That's not a rhetorical question. You can't answer the "is it an addiction" question until you answer the "what difference does it make" question.0
-
It's already been answered in this thread. Among other things, it focuses on behavior rather than the food itself, as well making it clear that the person can be more in control of the situation without physical issues like DTs and the like.sheldonklein wrote: »What difference does it make whether you label unhealthful eating behaviors an "addiction"? That's not a rhetorical question. You can't answer the "is it an addiction" question until you answer the "what difference does it make" question.
0 -
Very excellent OP. This highlights what has become my view on it as well - that it is behavioral not physical.
Yes, sugar "lights" up dopamine pathways the same way that heroin does, but it does not co-opt those pathways and encourage your body to stop making it's own dopamine because it is already getting it via the heroin (but not really), which is why heroin addicts actually need to detox. Their bodies need to start making their own dopamine again. When people eat sugar, the same pathways light up, but because it's yummy and you're doing something to continue living; it is encouragement to survival.
The "What difference does it make?" question to me is treatment options. I think for many, many people who go the restriction route without professional help are going to end up in a cycle of restrict-eat-guilt-binge-restrict because they are not addressing the underlying psychological problems, as the OP suggests. Rather, the way to combat addiction is abstaining from the substance. So, giving it a proper name, I believe, is important.0 -
sheldonklein wrote: »What difference does it make whether you label unhealthful eating behaviors an "addiction"? That's not a rhetorical question. You can't answer the "is it an addiction" question until you answer the "what difference does it make" question.
As previously stated, a large portion of it is the mentality of the poster. Usually, the first step is getting people to understand they have control. They aren't a victim of food or cravings. Once they realize that, people can start working through the issues that lead to the cravings.
The OP makes a really good point that you can put a bandaid on the symptom, but it's far better to address the emotional problems that cause the cravings.0 -
good post OP …
sadly, people allow food to have too much control over their lives and then turn to the addiction crutch, which is typically not the case.
lack of will power does not equal addiction...1 -
sheldonklein wrote: »What difference does it make whether you label unhealthful eating behaviors an "addiction"? That's not a rhetorical question. You can't answer the "is it an addiction" question until you answer the "what difference does it make" question.
the difference it makes is that people who view food as "addictive" or "bad" set themselves up for a binge cycle, which typically goes X food is bad or addictive; it is then restricted for x amount of time; said person then starts to crave said foods; said person then binges on said bad food; they then have feelings of guilt, and the cycle starts all over again.
viewing foods as bad or addictive can also set one up for an unhealthy relationship/view of food.0 -
sheldonklein wrote: »What difference does it make whether you label unhealthful eating behaviors an "addiction"? That's not a rhetorical question. You can't answer the "is it an addiction" question until you answer the "what difference does it make" question.
Actually, maybe it's the other way around.
If someone says I think I'm addicted to peanut M&M's, one question is "what do you mean by that?" The reason for asking the question is that the answer matters to the advice I'd give (or whether I think I can give helpful advice at all; if they reveal BED I'd strongly advise therapy).
But this thread is actually about something slightly different--whatever we call it, what leads to that sense that some people have that their eating behaviors are out of control and what can be done about it?0 -
I think this is such an excellent OP, as it really defines why 'addiction' doesn't fit when it comes to food and eating, and why there is so much more to eating disorders than people normally think.
I've said in other threads that overeating has much more to do with other problems in a person's life, and avoidance, than it does with addiction to any type of food. People tend to get angry when they want to claim they are addicted to food and someone tells them they aren't, but I think a lot of that stems from the fact that it can be very difficult to truly examine the reality of why one overeats, and try to examine the minutae of one's life for the painful parts of it that affect us years down the line.
For myself, as a teenager I had an ongoing problem with bulimia. I can't really think back to those years and tell anyone what I was thinking as I binged on multiple types of food and then forced myself to throw them back up, but I do know that years of abuse at the hands of a cruel stepfather and the lack of protection by a fully knowledgeable mother led up to it. My unhealthy relationship with food at that time had nothing to do with any food addiction; it had everything to do with enormous emotional and physical stress and pain my teenage self didn't know how to deal with.
Even today, I have struggled on and off with body dysmorphia because of that problem during my formative years. I've worked a lot to keep a healthy mind because I know what can happen if l lose touch with that.
Telling people they're addicted to food and that it's okay to keep on with that behavior is nothing more than enabling them, and giving them permission to continue the unhealthy behavior. Trying to find a better way to take that excuse away, and help them learn that the food is not the problem, is a step in the right direction.1
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
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions