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
-
This content has been removed.
-
DeguelloTex wrote: »
You keep jumping from "may be the case" to "is the case"PeachyCarol wrote: »
I don't think I am derailing. The cravings go hand-in-hand with the addiction.PeachyCarol wrote: »
Very cute, with the THINKING. Lol.PeachyCarol wrote: »
Disagree. It is the food. I quit the white pasta because if I ate it, I craved more. NB: I didn't eat more. I craved more.PeachyCarol wrote: »As far as I know, no one has ever started a "Help!!! I crave _________" thread, so bringing up the issue of craving, or appealing to it in the context of this thread is sort of besides the point.
No one argues that people get urges for different foods at different times, and most people don't tend to find them problematic, either. I certainly never thought my pregnancy cravings were problems. Unless you count craving cantaloupe in the dead of winter a problem. Because it was. Couldn't find it anywhere.
Again, to reiterate, the point is science does not support the notion that IN HUMANS the substance is the problem. The problem is the behavior behind the substance. The key to breaking the bad behavior pattern with the substance is understanding what lead to it.
Unfortunately for a lot of people who think the problem is the food itself, they have to do a lot of hard thinking to analyze WHY their eating is out of control to begin to address it.
The craving was annoying, so I quit it. Plus, whole wheat pasta is healthier, so good on that.
The craving wouldn't go away until I'd had a good night's sleep. It was when I began reading here that I found others had the same issue.
It's a thing. It's real. It might not happen to everyone, but it happens.
If this is unrelated to the whole "You're not addicted!", though, I'll be happy to drop it.
You can disagree until the cows come home, but the scientific EVIDENCE does not support your FEELINGS.
White pasta and whole wheat pasta have the same blood sugar impact. (GI/GL)
But yes, this is unrelated, unless you are willing to admit that you might have had some possible hedonic response to the white pasta which triggered an emotional connection or something deeper, it's probably best to drop it. As I said, this requires THINKING.
I don't think I have an emotional connection to pasta, lol. No. I just noticed that when I had it, I wanted more. All day. I didn't look for it. I noticed it after it happened.
Since I didn't eat more, I'll vote No on hedonistic behavior, too.
As I said, I didn't overeat the pasta. I craved it. Others have had the same response. We crave it only if we eat it, though. Not before. Comes after. Do you THINK there might be some connection there? Even if you cannot google...I mean "research" it and find a name for it...when you THINK, do you notice a connection?
Hedonic response isn't hedonistic behavior.
Google it. It's about enjoying taste or texture or some other sensory input.
I capitalized the word thinking to stress the importance of it in the process, not to mock you.
If you do not wish to delve further into your behavior, then yes, you're derailing the thread.
You aren't suggesting that the cravings aren't real, are you? I'm sure you aren't.
So, when you connect the craving to having eaten a food and you THINK about it, do you see a connection?
There is no addiction to a food substance. It does not exist.
I said I was not mocking you, please stop mocking me.
I was stressing the importance of thinking as part of the process of digging to the root of behavioral issues.
If you want to discuss the topic at hand, since you keep asserting that addiction to substance exists, you should provide more than your "craving" for evidence.
Ample proof has been shown here that no such scientific support for any claims of substantive addiction to any food exist in humans.
Craving =/= addiction.
Were I to mock you, I'd do a much, much better job. It wouldn't even "require THINKING."
It seems that you are not going to address the possibility that people might have an actual problem and will continue to insist that they cannot possibly have any sort of physical response to food. If you "THINK" about it, one day you may find that at least some of these people do have a physical reaction. You might not believe it until others have figured it out and given it a name you can google, but one day, you'll find out that it exists.
Scientific minds consider possibilities, by the way. That's how they "THINK."
When you understand that people really do have a physical reaction that causes a craving, then you'll begin to have some idea how you might be able to say something nice and helpful...or give them the Brutal Truth, if you're a fan of brutality.
Until then, the only people who might be helped are people who are overeating because their emotions were tied up in food. And it's highly unlikely that even someone who is qualified to help would be able to do it online. So, all we can do is give some encouragement...or brutality, depending on what the person thinks is helpful. We aren't going to solve anyone's issues online.
Please, please stop trying to derail an awesome thread that's miraculously made it six pages.
Bringing up the idea that some people actually have a real, physical issue is not derailing. It's addressing the topic.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »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.
It makes a difference in terms of the intervention, plan or treatment that is recommended.
@shell1005 - how so? I've used the same techniques to manage food cravings that I've used for alcohol and other substances and addictive behaviors.
Using core strategies across similar problems does not mean that the problems are the same animal. You can use some addiction-based strategies to help address cravings, but it doesn't mean a craving is the same thing as an addiction. You can use some anger management-based strategies to address over-reaction, but it doesn't mean that all over-reacting is the same thing as domestic violence. You can use cognitive-behavioral strategies to address self-defeating thought patterns, but it doesn't mean that all self-defeating thought patterns are the same thing as clinical depression.
That's part of what this thread is meant to address (I think - Carol can correct me if I'm wrong about that). Simply over-applying the label of addiction to a very wide range of behaviors actually does a disservice to the people suffering because of those behaviors. Being willing to take a closer look at those behaviors and define them more accurately can lead to more effective strategies and interventions.
I think this is indeed relevant in a clinical setting but not on the MFP forums.
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
You keep jumping from "may be the case" to "is the case"PeachyCarol wrote: »
I don't think I am derailing. The cravings go hand-in-hand with the addiction.PeachyCarol wrote: »
Very cute, with the THINKING. Lol.PeachyCarol wrote: »
Disagree. It is the food. I quit the white pasta because if I ate it, I craved more. NB: I didn't eat more. I craved more.PeachyCarol wrote: »As far as I know, no one has ever started a "Help!!! I crave _________" thread, so bringing up the issue of craving, or appealing to it in the context of this thread is sort of besides the point.
No one argues that people get urges for different foods at different times, and most people don't tend to find them problematic, either. I certainly never thought my pregnancy cravings were problems. Unless you count craving cantaloupe in the dead of winter a problem. Because it was. Couldn't find it anywhere.
Again, to reiterate, the point is science does not support the notion that IN HUMANS the substance is the problem. The problem is the behavior behind the substance. The key to breaking the bad behavior pattern with the substance is understanding what lead to it.
Unfortunately for a lot of people who think the problem is the food itself, they have to do a lot of hard thinking to analyze WHY their eating is out of control to begin to address it.
The craving was annoying, so I quit it. Plus, whole wheat pasta is healthier, so good on that.
The craving wouldn't go away until I'd had a good night's sleep. It was when I began reading here that I found others had the same issue.
It's a thing. It's real. It might not happen to everyone, but it happens.
If this is unrelated to the whole "You're not addicted!", though, I'll be happy to drop it.
You can disagree until the cows come home, but the scientific EVIDENCE does not support your FEELINGS.
White pasta and whole wheat pasta have the same blood sugar impact. (GI/GL)
But yes, this is unrelated, unless you are willing to admit that you might have had some possible hedonic response to the white pasta which triggered an emotional connection or something deeper, it's probably best to drop it. As I said, this requires THINKING.
I don't think I have an emotional connection to pasta, lol. No. I just noticed that when I had it, I wanted more. All day. I didn't look for it. I noticed it after it happened.
Since I didn't eat more, I'll vote No on hedonistic behavior, too.
As I said, I didn't overeat the pasta. I craved it. Others have had the same response. We crave it only if we eat it, though. Not before. Comes after. Do you THINK there might be some connection there? Even if you cannot google...I mean "research" it and find a name for it...when you THINK, do you notice a connection?
Hedonic response isn't hedonistic behavior.
Google it. It's about enjoying taste or texture or some other sensory input.
I capitalized the word thinking to stress the importance of it in the process, not to mock you.
If you do not wish to delve further into your behavior, then yes, you're derailing the thread.
You aren't suggesting that the cravings aren't real, are you? I'm sure you aren't.
So, when you connect the craving to having eaten a food and you THINK about it, do you see a connection?
There is no addiction to a food substance. It does not exist.
I said I was not mocking you, please stop mocking me.
I was stressing the importance of thinking as part of the process of digging to the root of behavioral issues.
If you want to discuss the topic at hand, since you keep asserting that addiction to substance exists, you should provide more than your "craving" for evidence.
Ample proof has been shown here that no such scientific support for any claims of substantive addiction to any food exist in humans.
Craving =/= addiction.
Were I to mock you, I'd do a much, much better job. It wouldn't even "require THINKING."
It seems that you are not going to address the possibility that people might have an actual problem and will continue to insist that they cannot possibly have any sort of physical response to food. If you "THINK" about it, one day you may find that at least some of these people do have a physical reaction. You might not believe it until others have figured it out and given it a name you can google, but one day, you'll find out that it exists.
Scientific minds consider possibilities, by the way. That's how they "THINK."
When you understand that people really do have a physical reaction that causes a craving, then you'll begin to have some idea how you might be able to say something nice and helpful...or give them the Brutal Truth, if you're a fan of brutality.
Until then, the only people who might be helped are people who are overeating because their emotions were tied up in food. And it's highly unlikely that even someone who is qualified to help would be able to do it online. So, all we can do is give some encouragement...or brutality, depending on what the person thinks is helpful. We aren't going to solve anyone's issues online.
Please, please stop trying to derail an awesome thread that's miraculously made it six pages.
Bringing up the idea that some people actually have a real, physical issue is not derailing. It's addressing the topic.
You have yet to provide any evidence of your position, so yes, it is derailing. Carol has given research indicating that the food substance itself is not addictive in humans, rather it is the behavior that one can become addicted to in the same way that gambling and sex are considered addictions - actual research not "research."
Because you feel out of control around pasta isn't evidence of anything besides you feel out of control around pasta, and that's why people are telling you you're derailing the thread.
People have even been so kind to point you in the research direction that cravings and addictions are not the same thing, but you dismissed them out of hand. This begs the question, where is the research of your position? If you don't have it, please stop. This is a good thread.
0 -
My strategy to address people who feel that they are addicted to a good substance is to encourage them to see a therapist. Because even if, as the research suggests, they are not actually addicted to sugar/carbs/whatever, but they believe that they are, a therapist will be the helpful in dealing with that.
I do like the idea of having some general suggestions and letting the OP decide, though.0 -
I don't feel out of control around pasta. You're missing the point. I specifically said that I don't overeat it and don't have an emotional whatever for pasta. It's not even one of my favorite foods. There is a physical response that causes a craving.DeguelloTex wrote: »
You keep jumping from "may be the case" to "is the case"PeachyCarol wrote: »
I don't think I am derailing. The cravings go hand-in-hand with the addiction.PeachyCarol wrote: »
Very cute, with the THINKING. Lol.PeachyCarol wrote: »
Disagree. It is the food. I quit the white pasta because if I ate it, I craved more. NB: I didn't eat more. I craved more.PeachyCarol wrote: »As far as I know, no one has ever started a "Help!!! I crave _________" thread, so bringing up the issue of craving, or appealing to it in the context of this thread is sort of besides the point.
No one argues that people get urges for different foods at different times, and most people don't tend to find them problematic, either. I certainly never thought my pregnancy cravings were problems. Unless you count craving cantaloupe in the dead of winter a problem. Because it was. Couldn't find it anywhere.
Again, to reiterate, the point is science does not support the notion that IN HUMANS the substance is the problem. The problem is the behavior behind the substance. The key to breaking the bad behavior pattern with the substance is understanding what lead to it.
Unfortunately for a lot of people who think the problem is the food itself, they have to do a lot of hard thinking to analyze WHY their eating is out of control to begin to address it.
The craving was annoying, so I quit it. Plus, whole wheat pasta is healthier, so good on that.
The craving wouldn't go away until I'd had a good night's sleep. It was when I began reading here that I found others had the same issue.
It's a thing. It's real. It might not happen to everyone, but it happens.
If this is unrelated to the whole "You're not addicted!", though, I'll be happy to drop it.
You can disagree until the cows come home, but the scientific EVIDENCE does not support your FEELINGS.
White pasta and whole wheat pasta have the same blood sugar impact. (GI/GL)
But yes, this is unrelated, unless you are willing to admit that you might have had some possible hedonic response to the white pasta which triggered an emotional connection or something deeper, it's probably best to drop it. As I said, this requires THINKING.
I don't think I have an emotional connection to pasta, lol. No. I just noticed that when I had it, I wanted more. All day. I didn't look for it. I noticed it after it happened.
Since I didn't eat more, I'll vote No on hedonistic behavior, too.
As I said, I didn't overeat the pasta. I craved it. Others have had the same response. We crave it only if we eat it, though. Not before. Comes after. Do you THINK there might be some connection there? Even if you cannot google...I mean "research" it and find a name for it...when you THINK, do you notice a connection?
Hedonic response isn't hedonistic behavior.
Google it. It's about enjoying taste or texture or some other sensory input.
I capitalized the word thinking to stress the importance of it in the process, not to mock you.
If you do not wish to delve further into your behavior, then yes, you're derailing the thread.
You aren't suggesting that the cravings aren't real, are you? I'm sure you aren't.
So, when you connect the craving to having eaten a food and you THINK about it, do you see a connection?
There is no addiction to a food substance. It does not exist.
I said I was not mocking you, please stop mocking me.
I was stressing the importance of thinking as part of the process of digging to the root of behavioral issues.
If you want to discuss the topic at hand, since you keep asserting that addiction to substance exists, you should provide more than your "craving" for evidence.
Ample proof has been shown here that no such scientific support for any claims of substantive addiction to any food exist in humans.
Craving =/= addiction.
Were I to mock you, I'd do a much, much better job. It wouldn't even "require THINKING."
It seems that you are not going to address the possibility that people might have an actual problem and will continue to insist that they cannot possibly have any sort of physical response to food. If you "THINK" about it, one day you may find that at least some of these people do have a physical reaction. You might not believe it until others have figured it out and given it a name you can google, but one day, you'll find out that it exists.
Scientific minds consider possibilities, by the way. That's how they "THINK."
When you understand that people really do have a physical reaction that causes a craving, then you'll begin to have some idea how you might be able to say something nice and helpful...or give them the Brutal Truth, if you're a fan of brutality.
Until then, the only people who might be helped are people who are overeating because their emotions were tied up in food. And it's highly unlikely that even someone who is qualified to help would be able to do it online. So, all we can do is give some encouragement...or brutality, depending on what the person thinks is helpful. We aren't going to solve anyone's issues online.
Please, please stop trying to derail an awesome thread that's miraculously made it six pages.
Bringing up the idea that some people actually have a real, physical issue is not derailing. It's addressing the topic.
You have yet to provide any evidence of your position, so yes, it is derailing. Carol has given research indicating that the food substance itself is not addictive in humans, rather it is the behavior that one can become addicted to in the same way that gambling and sex are considered addictions - actual research not "research."
Because you feel out of control around pasta isn't evidence of anything besides you feel out of control around pasta, and that's why people are telling you you're derailing the thread.
People have even been so kind to point you in the research direction that cravings and addictions are not the same thing, but you dismissed them out of hand. This begs the question, where is the research of your position? If you don't have it, please stop. This is a good thread.
It's not just me, either. Other posters have said the same thing. If they eat it, they crave more. It's a physical response.
I think this is exactly what many people are describing when they say they are "addicted."
I will stop posting. Pretending that we are "out of control" around food won't help you address the actual issue, though. You'll be addressing an issue that doesn't exist.
I don't think the name for it exists yet, so you won't find it. Yet. The scientifically-minded people will consider the idea that it exists even though it doesn't have a name yet.
...and I'm out.0 -
Personally, I liked the original post, thought it was a great point of view. That's my opinion on a stranger's analysis/interpretation of someone else's research. Other people can have different opinions on the same research, telling someone to stop posting because you disagree with them is absurd.
After reading through all of these pages, I do agree with someone way back there who pointed out that it doesn't really matter. It matters to recognize a problem and make decisions to fix it, regardless if someone chooses to name the problem as an addiction or martians or snozzberries.0 -
I think it's relevant. I think it's actually at the core of this. Cravings and addictions.Sometimes a craving really is a craving. One day the science will support it. They will give it a name. Then people who don't believe it will be able to google it...or as so many people like to call it, "research" it...and will be able to believe it.
The science supporting the existence of cravings has been in existence for a very long time. But that's not what this thread is addressing.
You seem interested in that topic, so I'd suggest googling it since you don't seem to believe that there are some actual researchers commenting in this thread. The information you get via google may not be robust, but it should be adequate to get you started on your learning journey.
When I want to learn about something, I am not limited to googling. I don't even consider googling something to be research.
You seemed completely unaware that the science about cravings is well-established, and you seemed very interested in the topic. Since you're in the 'baby steps' phase of learning about it, there's no shame in using google to get yourself started. In fact, doing so would probably be helpful because it would start to shed some light on the difference between cravings and addiction. I think you've gotten yourself a little muddled between the two concepts, which isn't unusual - so a little more exploration would probably be both interesting and helpful.
Definitely a great suggestion and would no doubt help keep this thread on topic.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
I don't feel out of control around pasta. You're missing the point. I specifically said that I don't overeat it and don't have an emotional whatever for pasta. It's not even one of my favorite foods. There is a physical response that causes a craving.DeguelloTex wrote: »
You keep jumping from "may be the case" to "is the case"PeachyCarol wrote: »
I don't think I am derailing. The cravings go hand-in-hand with the addiction.PeachyCarol wrote: »
Very cute, with the THINKING. Lol.PeachyCarol wrote: »
Disagree. It is the food. I quit the white pasta because if I ate it, I craved more. NB: I didn't eat more. I craved more.PeachyCarol wrote: »As far as I know, no one has ever started a "Help!!! I crave _________" thread, so bringing up the issue of craving, or appealing to it in the context of this thread is sort of besides the point.
No one argues that people get urges for different foods at different times, and most people don't tend to find them problematic, either. I certainly never thought my pregnancy cravings were problems. Unless you count craving cantaloupe in the dead of winter a problem. Because it was. Couldn't find it anywhere.
Again, to reiterate, the point is science does not support the notion that IN HUMANS the substance is the problem. The problem is the behavior behind the substance. The key to breaking the bad behavior pattern with the substance is understanding what lead to it.
Unfortunately for a lot of people who think the problem is the food itself, they have to do a lot of hard thinking to analyze WHY their eating is out of control to begin to address it.
The craving was annoying, so I quit it. Plus, whole wheat pasta is healthier, so good on that.
The craving wouldn't go away until I'd had a good night's sleep. It was when I began reading here that I found others had the same issue.
It's a thing. It's real. It might not happen to everyone, but it happens.
If this is unrelated to the whole "You're not addicted!", though, I'll be happy to drop it.
You can disagree until the cows come home, but the scientific EVIDENCE does not support your FEELINGS.
White pasta and whole wheat pasta have the same blood sugar impact. (GI/GL)
But yes, this is unrelated, unless you are willing to admit that you might have had some possible hedonic response to the white pasta which triggered an emotional connection or something deeper, it's probably best to drop it. As I said, this requires THINKING.
I don't think I have an emotional connection to pasta, lol. No. I just noticed that when I had it, I wanted more. All day. I didn't look for it. I noticed it after it happened.
Since I didn't eat more, I'll vote No on hedonistic behavior, too.
As I said, I didn't overeat the pasta. I craved it. Others have had the same response. We crave it only if we eat it, though. Not before. Comes after. Do you THINK there might be some connection there? Even if you cannot google...I mean "research" it and find a name for it...when you THINK, do you notice a connection?
Hedonic response isn't hedonistic behavior.
Google it. It's about enjoying taste or texture or some other sensory input.
I capitalized the word thinking to stress the importance of it in the process, not to mock you.
If you do not wish to delve further into your behavior, then yes, you're derailing the thread.
You aren't suggesting that the cravings aren't real, are you? I'm sure you aren't.
So, when you connect the craving to having eaten a food and you THINK about it, do you see a connection?
There is no addiction to a food substance. It does not exist.
I said I was not mocking you, please stop mocking me.
I was stressing the importance of thinking as part of the process of digging to the root of behavioral issues.
If you want to discuss the topic at hand, since you keep asserting that addiction to substance exists, you should provide more than your "craving" for evidence.
Ample proof has been shown here that no such scientific support for any claims of substantive addiction to any food exist in humans.
Craving =/= addiction.
Were I to mock you, I'd do a much, much better job. It wouldn't even "require THINKING."
It seems that you are not going to address the possibility that people might have an actual problem and will continue to insist that they cannot possibly have any sort of physical response to food. If you "THINK" about it, one day you may find that at least some of these people do have a physical reaction. You might not believe it until others have figured it out and given it a name you can google, but one day, you'll find out that it exists.
Scientific minds consider possibilities, by the way. That's how they "THINK."
When you understand that people really do have a physical reaction that causes a craving, then you'll begin to have some idea how you might be able to say something nice and helpful...or give them the Brutal Truth, if you're a fan of brutality.
Until then, the only people who might be helped are people who are overeating because their emotions were tied up in food. And it's highly unlikely that even someone who is qualified to help would be able to do it online. So, all we can do is give some encouragement...or brutality, depending on what the person thinks is helpful. We aren't going to solve anyone's issues online.
Please, please stop trying to derail an awesome thread that's miraculously made it six pages.
Bringing up the idea that some people actually have a real, physical issue is not derailing. It's addressing the topic.
You have yet to provide any evidence of your position, so yes, it is derailing. Carol has given research indicating that the food substance itself is not addictive in humans, rather it is the behavior that one can become addicted to in the same way that gambling and sex are considered addictions - actual research not "research."
Because you feel out of control around pasta isn't evidence of anything besides you feel out of control around pasta, and that's why people are telling you you're derailing the thread.
People have even been so kind to point you in the research direction that cravings and addictions are not the same thing, but you dismissed them out of hand. This begs the question, where is the research of your position? If you don't have it, please stop. This is a good thread.
It's not just me, either. Other posters have said the same thing. If they eat it, they crave more. It's a physical response.
I think this is exactly what many people are describing when they say they are "addicted."
I will stop posting. Pretending that we are "out of control" around food won't help you address the actual issue, though. You'll be addressing an issue that doesn't exist.
I don't think the name for it exists yet, so you won't find it. Yet. The scientifically-minded people will consider the idea that it exists even though it doesn't have a name yet.
...and I'm out.
What about those that don't? I have zero reaction to pasta. I do, however, experience what you are talking about with pickles. I don't particularly crave them or overeat them, but when I have them I feel the desire to keep coming back for more. So the addictive substance makes some people addicted but not others? And what's the nutritional difference between whole wheat and white pasta? If you add wheat bran to your white pasta, making it nearly identical to whole wheat, would you still have this reaction? You really don't need to have an emotional attachment of some sort. It could be that for whatever reason in the past you got used to coming back for more white pasta, and the habit just stuck.
To say food does not affect people physically is not entirely accurate. It does. For example I'm currently attempting to quit smoking and I feel that I'm gravitating strongly towards dark chocolate which is very unusual for me, the darker the better (just had a couple of 90% squares). This piqued my curiosity and reading more it appears to be a mild stimulant of certain neurotransmitters that smoking affects as well. Now does this mean addiction? No it doesn't. Physical response =/= physical dependency, even if it mimics an addictive substance. People have a physical response to nice smelling shower gels, to a fresh breeze, to a smiling baby... Does that mean they are addicted and physically dependent on shower gels, breezes and babies? That's why what you are describing is outside the scope of this topic.
Craving (whether for physical or emotional reasons) is not the same as being exposed to a substance that causes physical dependency and a clear well-defined withdrawal process.1 -
This content has been removed.
-
Most addictions also have underlying issues. Drinking diet Pepsi does nothing to combat the insomnia, teeth staining etc. I think you have to pick your battles, and for me not drinking Pepsi, does not have a down side.
again, lack of will power does not equal addiction.
maybe dealing with the underlying issue that makes your relationship with pepsi unhealthy would be the way to go ..
or, you could just drink diet...
0 -
That's part of what this thread is meant to address (I think - Carol can correct me if I'm wrong about that). Simply over-applying the label of addiction to a very wide range of behaviors actually does a disservice to the people suffering because of those behaviors. Being willing to take a closer look at those behaviors and define them more accurately can lead to more effective strategies and interventions.
Out of curiosity (and because you seem to know what you are talking about mostly) if you came across someone on the forums who claimed to be addicted to food what kind of questions would you ask them to elicit what the root cause of their issues were?
In addition, do you think there is generally a more preferable way of presenting or approaching this information which influences behaviour better than other approaches or is it really a "it depends" question?
I'll gladly discuss that with you via PM if you are interested, but I don't think it's a good idea to try it here. I don't believe you have to be a 'professional' to invite people to think through their impulses, cravings, and gut-level experiences (almost 70 years - and longer if you count A.A. - of experience among members of peer support groups for virtually any issue are proof of that), but considering how to approach it in this thread doesn't strike me as a discussion that will end up in a good place.
I want to be respectful of your question, but I am already regretting becoming as involved in this thread as I have been so far. I was so glad to see PeachyCarol's very thoughtful post, though, that it was pretty irresistible (omg an uncontrollable urge! JUST KIDDING).
I'm newish here, but to be blunt, my experience on these boards to date has shown me that I'm not a great fit for this community. There's nothing wrong with me or with the community - it's simply a reality that not every community can be a good fit for every individual! But constantly having to using a 'walk on eggshells' communication style here has worn me down, so I look elsewhere for support and dialogue. I don't want to pull this thread off-topic, and even if my involvement here is increasingly limited I'd rather not get labeled as a troll or whatever. So shoot me a PM if you like, and in the meantime I think I'll go back to lurker mode.
Much appreciation for the discussion so far!
Whilst understandable, these boards are a far poorer place for these kinds of decisions...
you're not the first..I find that very sad0 -
I have similar experiences as other addictive behaviors. I have quit and started again and again over a life time. In the past if I thought I could have an occasional Pepsi, the cravings for more would increase, and I was drinking a liter or more a day again within a week. It is hard on teeth and the caffeine interferes with sleep. I would turn to it because I wanted an energy boast just to throw myself into a cycle of lacking energy because I didn't get enough sleep and not getting enough sleep because I was drinking too much Pepsi. When others would comment on my excessive use, I would become defensive. Caffeine free would not have the same power. I dislike the taste of other caffeinated drinks, so they are not a temptation.PeachyCarol wrote: »daniwilford wrote: »I actually found calling my unhealthy relationship with Pepsi an addiction, helped me. Reading materials that focused on recovering from addiction gave me some valuable tools. Since I don't really need Pepsi, I am planning on abstaining for the rest of my life. Some might say I need a therapy, because I call it an addition but I can't imagine a therapist would agree to treat me for such a silly condition as calling my unhealthy relationship with Pepsi an addiction; or try to help me improve said relationship, so I could drink it in moderation.
Eh... what you experienced was probably akin to something like caffeine addiction, actually.
What was your Pepsi habit that you considered it problematic enough to call it an addiction? That's the whole point of this post? It's all about behaviors. Substituting unhealthy behavior with healthy behavior will help people who don't truly meet the addiction threshold (most of the people on these boards who say they're "addicted" to something) get past their problem.
0 -
I don't feel out of control around pasta. You're missing the point. I specifically said that I don't overeat it and don't have an emotional whatever for pasta. It's not even one of my favorite foods. There is a physical response that causes a craving.DeguelloTex wrote: »
You keep jumping from "may be the case" to "is the case"PeachyCarol wrote: »
I don't think I am derailing. The cravings go hand-in-hand with the addiction.PeachyCarol wrote: »
Very cute, with the THINKING. Lol.PeachyCarol wrote: »
Disagree. It is the food. I quit the white pasta because if I ate it, I craved more. NB: I didn't eat more. I craved more.PeachyCarol wrote: »As far as I know, no one has ever started a "Help!!! I crave _________" thread, so bringing up the issue of craving, or appealing to it in the context of this thread is sort of besides the point.
No one argues that people get urges for different foods at different times, and most people don't tend to find them problematic, either. I certainly never thought my pregnancy cravings were problems. Unless you count craving cantaloupe in the dead of winter a problem. Because it was. Couldn't find it anywhere.
Again, to reiterate, the point is science does not support the notion that IN HUMANS the substance is the problem. The problem is the behavior behind the substance. The key to breaking the bad behavior pattern with the substance is understanding what lead to it.
Unfortunately for a lot of people who think the problem is the food itself, they have to do a lot of hard thinking to analyze WHY their eating is out of control to begin to address it.
The craving was annoying, so I quit it. Plus, whole wheat pasta is healthier, so good on that.
The craving wouldn't go away until I'd had a good night's sleep. It was when I began reading here that I found others had the same issue.
It's a thing. It's real. It might not happen to everyone, but it happens.
If this is unrelated to the whole "You're not addicted!", though, I'll be happy to drop it.
You can disagree until the cows come home, but the scientific EVIDENCE does not support your FEELINGS.
White pasta and whole wheat pasta have the same blood sugar impact. (GI/GL)
But yes, this is unrelated, unless you are willing to admit that you might have had some possible hedonic response to the white pasta which triggered an emotional connection or something deeper, it's probably best to drop it. As I said, this requires THINKING.
I don't think I have an emotional connection to pasta, lol. No. I just noticed that when I had it, I wanted more. All day. I didn't look for it. I noticed it after it happened.
Since I didn't eat more, I'll vote No on hedonistic behavior, too.
As I said, I didn't overeat the pasta. I craved it. Others have had the same response. We crave it only if we eat it, though. Not before. Comes after. Do you THINK there might be some connection there? Even if you cannot google...I mean "research" it and find a name for it...when you THINK, do you notice a connection?
Hedonic response isn't hedonistic behavior.
Google it. It's about enjoying taste or texture or some other sensory input.
I capitalized the word thinking to stress the importance of it in the process, not to mock you.
If you do not wish to delve further into your behavior, then yes, you're derailing the thread.
You aren't suggesting that the cravings aren't real, are you? I'm sure you aren't.
So, when you connect the craving to having eaten a food and you THINK about it, do you see a connection?
There is no addiction to a food substance. It does not exist.
I said I was not mocking you, please stop mocking me.
I was stressing the importance of thinking as part of the process of digging to the root of behavioral issues.
If you want to discuss the topic at hand, since you keep asserting that addiction to substance exists, you should provide more than your "craving" for evidence.
Ample proof has been shown here that no such scientific support for any claims of substantive addiction to any food exist in humans.
Craving =/= addiction.
Were I to mock you, I'd do a much, much better job. It wouldn't even "require THINKING."
It seems that you are not going to address the possibility that people might have an actual problem and will continue to insist that they cannot possibly have any sort of physical response to food. If you "THINK" about it, one day you may find that at least some of these people do have a physical reaction. You might not believe it until others have figured it out and given it a name you can google, but one day, you'll find out that it exists.
Scientific minds consider possibilities, by the way. That's how they "THINK."
When you understand that people really do have a physical reaction that causes a craving, then you'll begin to have some idea how you might be able to say something nice and helpful...or give them the Brutal Truth, if you're a fan of brutality.
Until then, the only people who might be helped are people who are overeating because their emotions were tied up in food. And it's highly unlikely that even someone who is qualified to help would be able to do it online. So, all we can do is give some encouragement...or brutality, depending on what the person thinks is helpful. We aren't going to solve anyone's issues online.
Please, please stop trying to derail an awesome thread that's miraculously made it six pages.
Bringing up the idea that some people actually have a real, physical issue is not derailing. It's addressing the topic.
You have yet to provide any evidence of your position, so yes, it is derailing. Carol has given research indicating that the food substance itself is not addictive in humans, rather it is the behavior that one can become addicted to in the same way that gambling and sex are considered addictions - actual research not "research."
Because you feel out of control around pasta isn't evidence of anything besides you feel out of control around pasta, and that's why people are telling you you're derailing the thread.
People have even been so kind to point you in the research direction that cravings and addictions are not the same thing, but you dismissed them out of hand. This begs the question, where is the research of your position? If you don't have it, please stop. This is a good thread.
It's not just me, either. Other posters have said the same thing. If they eat it, they crave more. It's a physical response.
I think this is exactly what many people are describing when they say they are "addicted."
I will stop posting. Pretending that we are "out of control" around food won't help you address the actual issue, though. You'll be addressing an issue that doesn't exist.
I don't think the name for it exists yet, so you won't find it. Yet. The scientifically-minded people will consider the idea that it exists even though it doesn't have a name yet.
...and I'm out.
The highlighted section in your post is exactly where you are getting your side of the argument wrong. There is no physical response in the body when you have a craving for a food. The dopamine response in the brain that some refer to as a craving for a food that can happen before the food is eaten, and sometimes in response to the food being eaten, doesn't even qualify as a 'craving'. And it has nothing to do with 'addiction' as has been shown in the OP and multiple times in this thread.
A craving is just an idea in the brain, telling you that you might like a particular food. It's not a physical thing. Yes, your body might respond in a physical way, with salivation, hunger pangs, and a needful feeling, but that's nothing different than the biological response Pavlov's dogs had to the ringing of the dinner bell during his tests.
You can believe whatever you like; that is your right as a person.
To blithely continue to ignore hard evidence as it is presented to you, and to go so far as to refuse to research any of it for yourself, and to say things like "I don't believe Google is research" when it clearly is exactly that - a tool for research - proves that you are doing nothing more in this thread than continuing to argue for argument's sake and clearly don't even believe what you are saying yourself, since you are not willing to back up your own statements.1 -
addiction does not just need to be physical
def:
physically and mentally dependent on a particular substance, and unable to stop taking it without incurring adverse effects.0 -
But constantly having to using a 'walk on eggshells' communication style here has worn me down, so I look elsewhere for support and dialogue.
You don't have to. There are quite a few of us here who are fairly....blunt edged instruments (and can accept it from others).
There are many tribes @ MFP...
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.
Slightly off-topic, and I know this is a few pages back, but +1 To this last point. I am a type 1 diabetic who recently moved to a new area and had to switch my GP and my endocrinologist. My GP referred me to the ONE AND ONLY endocrinologist in town. Despite the fact that I have a chronic illness that requires regular endo visits and that I needed medication my GP wasn't comfortable prescribing (she wanted the endo to prescribe), I could not see the endocrinologist for six months. I asked at the appointment why it took so long to see me when it was kind of an emergency, and he said that his schedule is absolutely PACKED with people who make appointments themselves (no referral) to see if they have metabolism issues that make it impossible for them to lose weight. That's frustrating. I know that 90-95% of these appointments will result in the same advice that the person could get from MFP: log your calories, weigh your food, you're eating more than you think. If you do these things and there is still a problem, then get medical help. Which is what everyone on these boards suggests. I have never once seen someone tell another poster, "Absolutely never see a doctor for this."
On topic, good post, OP. I had issues with binge eating, even though my approach to weight loss did not restrict any certain foods. I had to look at my approach to food and the mindset I had, not the specific foods themselves. Still a work in progress, but if I binge at the movies, it's not because the popcorn had carbs or sugar. It's because of the emotional attachment I've always placed on being able to eat a certain way at the movies.
I was always attached to eating at the movies too! I had to step back from it and objectively think "Really, you can't go 90 minutes without stuffing your face with a ridiculously high calorie food just because you're in a special room?" It's actually pretty silly when you think about it.
0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »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.
It makes a difference in terms of the intervention, plan or treatment that is recommended.
@shell1005 - how so? I've used the same techniques to manage food cravings that I've used for alcohol and other substances and addictive behaviors.
Using core strategies across similar problems does not mean that the problems are the same animal. You can use some addiction-based strategies to help address cravings, but it doesn't mean a craving is the same thing as an addiction. You can use some anger management-based strategies to address over-reaction, but it doesn't mean that all over-reacting is the same thing as domestic violence. You can use cognitive-behavioral strategies to address self-defeating thought patterns, but it doesn't mean that all self-defeating thought patterns are the same thing as clinical depression.
That's part of what this thread is meant to address (I think - Carol can correct me if I'm wrong about that). Simply over-applying the label of addiction to a very wide range of behaviors actually does a disservice to the people suffering because of those behaviors. Being willing to take a closer look at those behaviors and define them more accurately can lead to more effective strategies and interventions.
That's EXACTLY what this thread is meant to address. The manner used to address the problem makes what people are calling it irrelevant.
HOWEVER, I firmly think self-talk is important because it frames your mindset AND I believe it's a disservice to those who have truly struggled with real addiction for those with what amounts to a relatively minor behavioral problem to call it an addiction.
0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »
I don't think I am derailing. The cravings go hand-in-hand with the addiction.PeachyCarol wrote: »
Very cute, with the THINKING. Lol.PeachyCarol wrote: »
Disagree. It is the food. I quit the white pasta because if I ate it, I craved more. NB: I didn't eat more. I craved more.PeachyCarol wrote: »As far as I know, no one has ever started a "Help!!! I crave _________" thread, so bringing up the issue of craving, or appealing to it in the context of this thread is sort of besides the point.
No one argues that people get urges for different foods at different times, and most people don't tend to find them problematic, either. I certainly never thought my pregnancy cravings were problems. Unless you count craving cantaloupe in the dead of winter a problem. Because it was. Couldn't find it anywhere.
Again, to reiterate, the point is science does not support the notion that IN HUMANS the substance is the problem. The problem is the behavior behind the substance. The key to breaking the bad behavior pattern with the substance is understanding what lead to it.
Unfortunately for a lot of people who think the problem is the food itself, they have to do a lot of hard thinking to analyze WHY their eating is out of control to begin to address it.
The craving was annoying, so I quit it. Plus, whole wheat pasta is healthier, so good on that.
The craving wouldn't go away until I'd had a good night's sleep. It was when I began reading here that I found others had the same issue.
It's a thing. It's real. It might not happen to everyone, but it happens.
If this is unrelated to the whole "You're not addicted!", though, I'll be happy to drop it.
You can disagree until the cows come home, but the scientific EVIDENCE does not support your FEELINGS.
White pasta and whole wheat pasta have the same blood sugar impact. (GI/GL)
But yes, this is unrelated, unless you are willing to admit that you might have had some possible hedonic response to the white pasta which triggered an emotional connection or something deeper, it's probably best to drop it. As I said, this requires THINKING.
I don't think I have an emotional connection to pasta, lol. No. I just noticed that when I had it, I wanted more. All day. I didn't look for it. I noticed it after it happened.
Since I didn't eat more, I'll vote No on hedonistic behavior, too.
As I said, I didn't overeat the pasta. I craved it. Others have had the same response. We crave it only if we eat it, though. Not before. Comes after. Do you THINK there might be some connection there? Even if you cannot google...I mean "research" it and find a name for it...when you THINK, do you notice a connection?
Hedonic response isn't hedonistic behavior.
Google it. It's about enjoying taste or texture or some other sensory input.
I capitalized the word thinking to stress the importance of it in the process, not to mock you.
If you do not wish to delve further into your behavior, then yes, you're derailing the thread.
You aren't suggesting that the cravings aren't real, are you? I'm sure you aren't.
So, when you connect the craving to having eaten a food and you THINK about it, do you see a connection?
There is no addiction to a food substance. It does not exist.
I said I was not mocking you, please stop mocking me.
I was stressing the importance of thinking as part of the process of digging to the root of behavioral issues.
If you want to discuss the topic at hand, since you keep asserting that addiction to substance exists, you should provide more than your "craving" for evidence.
Ample proof has been shown here that no such scientific support for any claims of substantive addiction to any food exist in humans.
Craving =/= addiction.
Were I to mock you, I'd do a much, much better job. It wouldn't even "require THINKING."
It seems that you are not going to address the possibility that people might have an actual problem and will continue to insist that they cannot possibly have any sort of physical response to food. If you "THINK" about it, one day you may find that at least some of these people do have a physical reaction. You might not believe it until others have figured it out and given it a name you can google, but one day, you'll find out that it exists.
Scientific minds consider possibilities, by the way. That's how they "THINK."
When you understand that people really do have a physical reaction that causes a craving, then you'll begin to have some idea how you might be able to say something nice and helpful...or give them the Brutal Truth, if you're a fan of brutality.
Until then, the only people who might be helped are people who are overeating because their emotions were tied up in food. And it's highly unlikely that even someone who is qualified to help would be able to do it online. So, all we can do is give some encouragement...or brutality, depending on what the person thinks is helpful. We aren't going to solve anyone's issues online.
I'm sorry, did you read the research that's been posted in the thread? I believe that addressed the issue of people thinking they have a response to the actual food.
I've posted appropriate quotes from both the paper I posted and the review Caitwn posted, but the research delves much, much further into the matter. The 2014 review in particular does a fine job of analyzing and explaining why there's no addiction to the substance of any food.
That's what I'm offering to "address" the point.
If you're not going to bother to read it to get the full explanation, that's hardly my problem.
0 -
PeachyCarol 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.
Slightly off-topic, and I know this is a few pages back, but +1 To this last point. I am a type 1 diabetic who recently moved to a new area and had to switch my GP and my endocrinologist. My GP referred me to the ONE AND ONLY endocrinologist in town. Despite the fact that I have a chronic illness that requires regular endo visits and that I needed medication my GP wasn't comfortable prescribing (she wanted the endo to prescribe), I could not see the endocrinologist for six months. I asked at the appointment why it took so long to see me when it was kind of an emergency, and he said that his schedule is absolutely PACKED with people who make appointments themselves (no referral) to see if they have metabolism issues that make it impossible for them to lose weight. That's frustrating. I know that 90-95% of these appointments will result in the same advice that the person could get from MFP: log your calories, weigh your food, you're eating more than you think. If you do these things and there is still a problem, then get medical help. Which is what everyone on these boards suggests. I have never once seen someone tell another poster, "Absolutely never see a doctor for this."
On topic, good post, OP. I had issues with binge eating, even though my approach to weight loss did not restrict any certain foods. I had to look at my approach to food and the mindset I had, not the specific foods themselves. Still a work in progress, but if I binge at the movies, it's not because the popcorn had carbs or sugar. It's because of the emotional attachment I've always placed on being able to eat a certain way at the movies.
I was always attached to eating at the movies too! I had to step back from it and objectively think "Really, you can't go 90 minutes without stuffing your face with a ridiculously high calorie food just because you're in a special room?" It's actually pretty silly when you think about it.
It is! Especially when movie popcorn/snacks aren't even my favorite. I love a bag of Target popcorn and it's way easier to fit that into my daily calories than a small, unbuttered Regal popcorn. My last movie binge (of which I walked in with great intentions!) included a large, buttered popcorn, a cookie ice cream sandwich, Nathan's corn dog nuggets, and a bag of Tropical Skittles. Zero self control haha. Getting there though!
0 -
Debating about the word craving has no bearing on this thread. It is the equivalent of saying that everyone who gets horny are addicted to sex.
I don't feel out of control around pasta. You're missing the point. I specifically said that I don't overeat it and don't have an emotional whatever for pasta. It's not even one of my favorite foods. There is a physical response that causes a craving.DeguelloTex wrote: »
You keep jumping from "may be the case" to "is the case"PeachyCarol wrote: »
I don't think I am derailing. The cravings go hand-in-hand with the addiction.PeachyCarol wrote: »
Very cute, with the THINKING. Lol.PeachyCarol wrote: »
Disagree. It is the food. I quit the white pasta because if I ate it, I craved more. NB: I didn't eat more. I craved more.PeachyCarol wrote: »As far as I know, no one has ever started a "Help!!! I crave _________" thread, so bringing up the issue of craving, or appealing to it in the context of this thread is sort of besides the point.
No one argues that people get urges for different foods at different times, and most people don't tend to find them problematic, either. I certainly never thought my pregnancy cravings were problems. Unless you count craving cantaloupe in the dead of winter a problem. Because it was. Couldn't find it anywhere.
Again, to reiterate, the point is science does not support the notion that IN HUMANS the substance is the problem. The problem is the behavior behind the substance. The key to breaking the bad behavior pattern with the substance is understanding what lead to it.
Unfortunately for a lot of people who think the problem is the food itself, they have to do a lot of hard thinking to analyze WHY their eating is out of control to begin to address it.
The craving was annoying, so I quit it. Plus, whole wheat pasta is healthier, so good on that.
The craving wouldn't go away until I'd had a good night's sleep. It was when I began reading here that I found others had the same issue.
It's a thing. It's real. It might not happen to everyone, but it happens.
If this is unrelated to the whole "You're not addicted!", though, I'll be happy to drop it.
You can disagree until the cows come home, but the scientific EVIDENCE does not support your FEELINGS.
White pasta and whole wheat pasta have the same blood sugar impact. (GI/GL)
But yes, this is unrelated, unless you are willing to admit that you might have had some possible hedonic response to the white pasta which triggered an emotional connection or something deeper, it's probably best to drop it. As I said, this requires THINKING.
I don't think I have an emotional connection to pasta, lol. No. I just noticed that when I had it, I wanted more. All day. I didn't look for it. I noticed it after it happened.
Since I didn't eat more, I'll vote No on hedonistic behavior, too.
As I said, I didn't overeat the pasta. I craved it. Others have had the same response. We crave it only if we eat it, though. Not before. Comes after. Do you THINK there might be some connection there? Even if you cannot google...I mean "research" it and find a name for it...when you THINK, do you notice a connection?
Hedonic response isn't hedonistic behavior.
Google it. It's about enjoying taste or texture or some other sensory input.
I capitalized the word thinking to stress the importance of it in the process, not to mock you.
If you do not wish to delve further into your behavior, then yes, you're derailing the thread.
You aren't suggesting that the cravings aren't real, are you? I'm sure you aren't.
So, when you connect the craving to having eaten a food and you THINK about it, do you see a connection?
There is no addiction to a food substance. It does not exist.
I said I was not mocking you, please stop mocking me.
I was stressing the importance of thinking as part of the process of digging to the root of behavioral issues.
If you want to discuss the topic at hand, since you keep asserting that addiction to substance exists, you should provide more than your "craving" for evidence.
Ample proof has been shown here that no such scientific support for any claims of substantive addiction to any food exist in humans.
Craving =/= addiction.
Were I to mock you, I'd do a much, much better job. It wouldn't even "require THINKING."
It seems that you are not going to address the possibility that people might have an actual problem and will continue to insist that they cannot possibly have any sort of physical response to food. If you "THINK" about it, one day you may find that at least some of these people do have a physical reaction. You might not believe it until others have figured it out and given it a name you can google, but one day, you'll find out that it exists.
Scientific minds consider possibilities, by the way. That's how they "THINK."
When you understand that people really do have a physical reaction that causes a craving, then you'll begin to have some idea how you might be able to say something nice and helpful...or give them the Brutal Truth, if you're a fan of brutality.
Until then, the only people who might be helped are people who are overeating because their emotions were tied up in food. And it's highly unlikely that even someone who is qualified to help would be able to do it online. So, all we can do is give some encouragement...or brutality, depending on what the person thinks is helpful. We aren't going to solve anyone's issues online.
Please, please stop trying to derail an awesome thread that's miraculously made it six pages.
Bringing up the idea that some people actually have a real, physical issue is not derailing. It's addressing the topic.
You have yet to provide any evidence of your position, so yes, it is derailing. Carol has given research indicating that the food substance itself is not addictive in humans, rather it is the behavior that one can become addicted to in the same way that gambling and sex are considered addictions - actual research not "research."
Because you feel out of control around pasta isn't evidence of anything besides you feel out of control around pasta, and that's why people are telling you you're derailing the thread.
People have even been so kind to point you in the research direction that cravings and addictions are not the same thing, but you dismissed them out of hand. This begs the question, where is the research of your position? If you don't have it, please stop. This is a good thread.
It's not just me, either. Other posters have said the same thing. If they eat it, they crave more. It's a physical response.
I think this is exactly what many people are describing when they say they are "addicted."
I will stop posting. Pretending that we are "out of control" around food won't help you address the actual issue, though. You'll be addressing an issue that doesn't exist.
I don't think the name for it exists yet, so you won't find it. Yet. The scientifically-minded people will consider the idea that it exists even though it doesn't have a name yet.
...and I'm out.
A physical response does not mean an addictive response, though. They are not the same thing.
Their are neuorological pathways involved in addiction that are not involved with craving.
Your craving could be in response to so many different things. I'm not you and can't speculate.
I can only know what my cravings are like. My worst cravings ever were when I thought I was what I, at the time, called addicted to things like cheese or brownies. I felt they would call to me. They felt what my Nan called "more-ish". My craving was hedonic. I wanted that taste in my mouth. I wanted the texture, the chew, the mouthfeel.
In hindsight, I know so much more about my behavior with those foods because I've taken the time to step back from them and analyze them not as addictions, but as problematic behaviors I had with food.
I'll draw a parallel. I used to over drink. Was I addicted? No. But I did have a problem. There's a difference. I did not have a dependency on the substance, but I had developed problematic behavior with it. Alcohol is one of those things where true addiction is a mix of both behavior and substance addiction, but people can still have problems with it without being addicted to it. I fell into the latter category. If I still wanted to (just not worth the calories to me and my drink of choice is no longer available to me because gluten free beer is awful), I could drink in moderation. I quit drinking for a long time because I just wasn't able to do it without overdoing it.
0 -
That's part of what this thread is meant to address (I think - Carol can correct me if I'm wrong about that). Simply over-applying the label of addiction to a very wide range of behaviors actually does a disservice to the people suffering because of those behaviors. Being willing to take a closer look at those behaviors and define them more accurately can lead to more effective strategies and interventions.
Out of curiosity (and because you seem to know what you are talking about mostly) if you came across someone on the forums who claimed to be addicted to food what kind of questions would you ask them to elicit what the root cause of their issues were?
In addition, do you think there is generally a more preferable way of presenting or approaching this information which influences behaviour better than other approaches or is it really a "it depends" question?
I'll gladly discuss that with you via PM if you are interested, but I don't think it's a good idea to try it here. I don't believe you have to be a 'professional' to invite people to think through their impulses, cravings, and gut-level experiences (almost 70 years - and longer if you count A.A. - of experience among members of peer support groups for virtually any issue is proof of that), but considering how to approach it in this thread doesn't strike me as a discussion that will end up in a good place.
I want to be respectful of your question, but I am already regretting becoming as involved in this thread as I have been so far. I was so glad to see PeachyCarol's very thoughtful post, though, that it was pretty irresistible (omg an uncontrollable urge! JUST KIDDING).
I'm newish here, but to be blunt, my experience on these boards to date has shown me that I'm not a great fit for this community. There's nothing wrong with me or with the community - it's simply a reality that not every community can be a good fit for every individual! But constantly having to using a 'walk on eggshells' communication style here has worn me down, so I look elsewhere for support and dialogue. I don't want to pull this thread off-topic, and even if my involvement here is increasingly limited I'd rather not get labeled as a troll or whatever. So shoot me a PM if you like, and in the meantime I think I'll go back to lurker mode.
Much appreciation for the discussion so far!
@Caitwn - even though we often disagree, I would really miss you if you left. I find your posts to have a lot of value and I appreciate your perspective.0 -
justrollme wrote: »
Personally, I liked the original post, thought it was a great point of view. That's my opinion on a stranger's analysis/interpretation of someone else's research. Other people can have different opinions on the same research, telling someone to stop posting because you disagree with them is absurd.
After reading through all of these pages, I do agree with someone way back there who pointed out that it doesn't really matter. It matters to recognize a problem and make decisions to fix it, regardless if someone chooses to name the problem as an addiction or martians or snozzberries.
I was one of those people but you said it better.
Proper labeling may matter in a clinical setting, but not on the MFP boards.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
justrollme wrote: »
Personally, I liked the original post, thought it was a great point of view. That's my opinion on a stranger's analysis/interpretation of someone else's research. Other people can have different opinions on the same research, telling someone to stop posting because you disagree with them is absurd.
After reading through all of these pages, I do agree with someone way back there who pointed out that it doesn't really matter. It matters to recognize a problem and make decisions to fix it, regardless if someone chooses to name the problem as an addiction or martians or snozzberries.
I'd respectfully disagree. Knowing exactly what a problem is, and where it started, is at the heart of fixing it. You can't fix someone's overeating problem if you are treating it as a food addiction and it isn't. Since most overeating issues are, at heart, a cover for some other issue, it takes the work of finding out what that other issue is to fix the problem. Otherwise the overeating will continue. Even if it doesn't, another masking problem will raise its ugly head to continue to cover for the deep seated issue that hasn't been discovered and solved.
Many, many people use overeating to treat something as simple as stress, while others use it to treat something as complicated as childhood sexual abuse. Until it's known what the overeating is being used to 'treat', it will continue, or convert to something else.0 -
If they are looking for help and come to someone with an open mind, together both can fix it. (well, not you, obviously, because you aren't looking to help, but if they come to me for help, I'm here for them).0 -
UltimateRBF wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »
I don't think I am derailing. The cravings go hand-in-hand with the addiction.PeachyCarol wrote: »
Very cute, with the THINKING. Lol.PeachyCarol wrote: »
Disagree. It is the food. I quit the white pasta because if I ate it, I craved more. NB: I didn't eat more. I craved more.PeachyCarol wrote: »As far as I know, no one has ever started a "Help!!! I crave _________" thread, so bringing up the issue of craving, or appealing to it in the context of this thread is sort of besides the point.
No one argues that people get urges for different foods at different times, and most people don't tend to find them problematic, either. I certainly never thought my pregnancy cravings were problems. Unless you count craving cantaloupe in the dead of winter a problem. Because it was. Couldn't find it anywhere.
Again, to reiterate, the point is science does not support the notion that IN HUMANS the substance is the problem. The problem is the behavior behind the substance. The key to breaking the bad behavior pattern with the substance is understanding what lead to it.
Unfortunately for a lot of people who think the problem is the food itself, they have to do a lot of hard thinking to analyze WHY their eating is out of control to begin to address it.
The craving was annoying, so I quit it. Plus, whole wheat pasta is healthier, so good on that.
The craving wouldn't go away until I'd had a good night's sleep. It was when I began reading here that I found others had the same issue.
It's a thing. It's real. It might not happen to everyone, but it happens.
If this is unrelated to the whole "You're not addicted!", though, I'll be happy to drop it.
You can disagree until the cows come home, but the scientific EVIDENCE does not support your FEELINGS.
White pasta and whole wheat pasta have the same blood sugar impact. (GI/GL)
But yes, this is unrelated, unless you are willing to admit that you might have had some possible hedonic response to the white pasta which triggered an emotional connection or something deeper, it's probably best to drop it. As I said, this requires THINKING.
I don't think I have an emotional connection to pasta, lol. No. I just noticed that when I had it, I wanted more. All day. I didn't look for it. I noticed it after it happened.
Since I didn't eat more, I'll vote No on hedonistic behavior, too.
As I said, I didn't overeat the pasta. I craved it. Others have had the same response. We crave it only if we eat it, though. Not before. Comes after. Do you THINK there might be some connection there? Even if you cannot google...I mean "research" it and find a name for it...when you THINK, do you notice a connection?
Hedonic response isn't hedonistic behavior.
Google it. It's about enjoying taste or texture or some other sensory input.
I capitalized the word thinking to stress the importance of it in the process, not to mock you.
If you do not wish to delve further into your behavior, then yes, you're derailing the thread.
You aren't suggesting that the cravings aren't real, are you? I'm sure you aren't.
So, when you connect the craving to having eaten a food and you THINK about it, do you see a connection?
There is no addiction to a food substance. It does not exist.
I said I was not mocking you, please stop mocking me.
I was stressing the importance of thinking as part of the process of digging to the root of behavioral issues.
If you want to discuss the topic at hand, since you keep asserting that addiction to substance exists, you should provide more than your "craving" for evidence.
Ample proof has been shown here that no such scientific support for any claims of substantive addiction to any food exist in humans.
Craving =/= addiction.
Were I to mock you, I'd do a much, much better job. It wouldn't even "require THINKING."
It seems that you are not going to address the possibility that people might have an actual problem and will continue to insist that they cannot possibly have any sort of physical response to food. If you "THINK" about it, one day you may find that at least some of these people do have a physical reaction. You might not believe it until others have figured it out and given it a name you can google, but one day, you'll find out that it exists.
Scientific minds consider possibilities, by the way. That's how they "THINK."
When you understand that people really do have a physical reaction that causes a craving, then you'll begin to have some idea how you might be able to say something nice and helpful...or give them the Brutal Truth, if you're a fan of brutality.
Until then, the only people who might be helped are people who are overeating because their emotions were tied up in food. And it's highly unlikely that even someone who is qualified to help would be able to do it online. So, all we can do is give some encouragement...or brutality, depending on what the person thinks is helpful. We aren't going to solve anyone's issues online.
For all your talk about science I have never, not once, seen you post anything to back up the claims you make.
And I've reported your passive aggressive insults and derailing.
cosign0
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