The worst addiction in the world is FOOD
Replies
-
Depending on what blog you were linked to, there well could have been peer reviewed literature discounting Lustig's theories. Peer reviewed journals aren't going to have papers published directly arguing why one expert is wrong or not. There are peer reviewed papers and statistical documents that discount what Lustig says, though usually a blog format citing them is more useful as it puts them in context to point-counterpoint what Lustig has said.kshama2001 wrote: »UltimateRBF wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »TheopolisAmbroiseIII wrote: »I accidentally fell into this forum trap once. Note; fat weighs the same as muscle and addiction is limited SOLELY to heroin. If you remember those two facts, you're better able to swim these waters. Oh, and speaking of waters, you don't need 8 glasses a day.
You forgot meth, but otherwise got it
And the need to always have peer-reviewed studies to back your claims.
Yeah, don't you hate it when people ask for evidence of claims made. Those haters!
The irony is when someone was bashing Lustig and I asked for evidence using the same standard and no one had anything but some blogs.
it can happen though (see the recent study of Kevin Hall on Taubes' insuline hypothesis)
0 -
ManiacalLaugh wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »ManiacalLaugh wrote: »TheopolisAmbroiseIII wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »TheopolisAmbroiseIII wrote: »I accidentally fell into this forum trap once. Note; fat weighs the same as muscle and addiction is limited SOLELY to heroin. If you remember those two facts, you're better able to swim these waters. Oh, and speaking of waters, you don't need 8 glasses a day.
You forgot meth, but otherwise got it
Something something lack of willpower..
I think this particular argument resurfaces again and again because of the different levels of power different people give the word 'addiction'.
Yes, there's a clinical definition, but there's a clinical definition of a lot of things that we 'misuse' the name for and it doesn't generate this level of wrath.
Some people have never witnessed hard drug addiction first hand, and some people deal with it daily.
This disparity generates some people cavalierly using a hot button word. We all either need to take the power the word has away by agreeing that any 'compulsion' can be overcome with various levels of personal effort, support and struggle, or we all need to agree that 'addiction' is a serious word, and we shouldn't bandy it about.
The same thing occurs with the term "depressed". It doesn't mean 'sad', you're not 'depressed' because they're out of sprinkles for your sundae.
I really want to see this argument pop up whenever someone says they're totally "addicted" to Quest Bars, or the new donuts at Tim Hortons. It only ever seems to become a major debate when someone uses the term when talking about their negative obsession/compulsion/whatever-you-want-to-call-it with food. That's a bit of a shame, considering the discussion gets bogged down by semantics when the OP is usually just hoping for a genuine vent or is asking for help (and, from what I've found, is more than aware of the difference between meth/heroine addiction and food "addiction").
I actually thought the discussion had moved on from the semantic one, and it's really the people complaining that there's a negative reaction to using the word who are dragging it back into the semantic discussion.
Personally, I think it's usually quite clear when someone uses the term casually -- I'm addicted to pizza or shoes or whatever -- and am not bothered by that. On MFP, though, it's common to directly compare an addiction to "sugar" to one to "heroin" which is why it gets responded to in those cases as if the point being made is, in fact, intended seriously.
Here, I think OP was genuinely talking about feelings of out of controlness around food that many of us have dealt with, and I understand where she's coming from, but I still really hate the "food is the hardest addiction" thing because that's really not accurate to my experience (which yes is colored by too much experience with alcohol and drug addiction).
I don't think I was mean to OP, though -- I do think the out of control feeling is a real thing and is important to talk about and figure out how to deal with, even if I don't happen to think focusing on it as an addiction is actually useful to that. I don't think it's a terrible thing to use the word, but I also will disagree. (Sometimes on this forum you get the idea that disagreeing is considered cruelty and I find that odd.)
I don't think it's a matter of being "mean" to anyone. Most people can learn through the civil debates that go on here and take them for what they are.
I just find it a shame when someone posts "I feel lost; I feel out of control; I need help" and 20 people reply, "Let me tell you why you're wrong and by the way, you just trivialized addiction, so shame on you."
IMO, posts like, "I know you feel out of control, but you're not, and you can do this. Here's some legitimate advice for helping you gain traction..." are a lot more helpful while shifting the focus off of "helpless addiction" and back onto them and what they can do to take responsibility for their own health.
I actually think a lot of the posts did focus on the problem, including some (like mine) which also noted that we don't think of it as an addiction.
I think it's the subsequent commentary that took issue with questioning the use of the term (within posts that generally were focused on practical advice) that threaten to derail. (But then I suppose I'm participating in that by responding.)
I agree that posts about "I know you feel out of control but..." are what's helpful, but I will continue to think that noting within such a post disagreement with the term "addiction" for food does not make that post unhelpful and often serves a purpose related to the advice given.0 -
Nope. You can live without consuming sugar. You cannot live without sugar. So it is not possible to detox out of sugar like you can with crack.tennisdude2004 wrote: »
Also, broccoli is a lot healthier than crack.0 -
Thank you @ManiacalLaugh and @mjbself . I remember why I don't post in forums. I either assume there are people like me that think like me, that can relate, or I don't clearly convey my intentions of the post. People jumped all over this like an addict to food..lol. See what I did there? Instead of using an actual drug...hahahaha. Anyway..I got some very interesting views, arguments, and supportive remarks. All are appreciated.0
-
ManiacalLaugh wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »ManiacalLaugh wrote: »TheopolisAmbroiseIII wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »TheopolisAmbroiseIII wrote: »I accidentally fell into this forum trap once. Note; fat weighs the same as muscle and addiction is limited SOLELY to heroin. If you remember those two facts, you're better able to swim these waters. Oh, and speaking of waters, you don't need 8 glasses a day.
You forgot meth, but otherwise got it
Something something lack of willpower..
I think this particular argument resurfaces again and again because of the different levels of power different people give the word 'addiction'.
Yes, there's a clinical definition, but there's a clinical definition of a lot of things that we 'misuse' the name for and it doesn't generate this level of wrath.
Some people have never witnessed hard drug addiction first hand, and some people deal with it daily.
This disparity generates some people cavalierly using a hot button word. We all either need to take the power the word has away by agreeing that any 'compulsion' can be overcome with various levels of personal effort, support and struggle, or we all need to agree that 'addiction' is a serious word, and we shouldn't bandy it about.
The same thing occurs with the term "depressed". It doesn't mean 'sad', you're not 'depressed' because they're out of sprinkles for your sundae.
I really want to see this argument pop up whenever someone says they're totally "addicted" to Quest Bars, or the new donuts at Tim Hortons. It only ever seems to become a major debate when someone uses the term when talking about their negative obsession/compulsion/whatever-you-want-to-call-it with food. That's a bit of a shame, considering the discussion gets bogged down by semantics when the OP is usually just hoping for a genuine vent or is asking for help (and, from what I've found, is more than aware of the difference between meth/heroine addiction and food "addiction").
I actually thought the discussion had moved on from the semantic one, and it's really the people complaining that there's a negative reaction to using the word who are dragging it back into the semantic discussion.
Personally, I think it's usually quite clear when someone uses the term casually -- I'm addicted to pizza or shoes or whatever -- and am not bothered by that. On MFP, though, it's common to directly compare an addiction to "sugar" to one to "heroin" which is why it gets responded to in those cases as if the point being made is, in fact, intended seriously.
Here, I think OP was genuinely talking about feelings of out of controlness around food that many of us have dealt with, and I understand where she's coming from, but I still really hate the "food is the hardest addiction" thing because that's really not accurate to my experience (which yes is colored by too much experience with alcohol and drug addiction).
I don't think I was mean to OP, though -- I do think the out of control feeling is a real thing and is important to talk about and figure out how to deal with, even if I don't happen to think focusing on it as an addiction is actually useful to that. I don't think it's a terrible thing to use the word, but I also will disagree. (Sometimes on this forum you get the idea that disagreeing is considered cruelty and I find that odd.)
I don't think it's a matter of being "mean" to anyone. Most people can learn through the civil debates that go on here and take them for what they are.
I just find it a shame when someone posts "I feel lost; I feel out of control; I need help" and 20 people reply, "Let me tell you why you're wrong and by the way, you just trivialized addiction, so shame on you."
IMO, posts like, "I know you feel out of control, but you're not, and you can do this. Here's some legitimate advice for helping you gain traction..." are a lot more helpful while shifting the focus off of "helpless addiction" and back onto them and what they can do to take responsibility for their own health.
Agreed. I made four posts in the spirit of being helpful before I got sucked into the semantics debate.
0 -
Thinking about it food addiction (accepting it is an addiction. It isnt) is one of the better addictions to have. It cna make you unhappy, but being fat takes its time to become fatal and theres plenty you cna do about it. Drink, drug and gambling addictions are far worse.0
-
You know, several years ago, my father told me I was addicted to food - I told him he was nuts. I thought that was insane that someone could be addicted to something that they need to survive.
Actually - he was right. People get an endorphin rush from food just as if they were "self-medicating" with any other substance, and then the low comes and the viscious cycle starts over again.
I can tell you that I am a food addict and used food to bottle up and not deal with my emotions. I would eat my way through things until the emotional pain went away, but often that left me feeling physically sick from all the food I'd eaten.
I did start seeing a therapist. He's actually had gastric bypass surgery and his highest weight was about 30 or so pounds more than mine. I remember after losing some weight, he asked if I found myself getting more agitated with people. I was very surprised that I was - he said that was because I was dealing with my emotions instead of eating my way through them.
It's all a process. Getting a therapist will help you redefine your relationship with food. You'll also need to spend about 15 minutes a day on "me time". That's time for you to do whatever you want (except eat) for 15 minutes. Walk - knit - crochet - work in the garden - get a manicure - read a book, watch a movie - play a coputer game - something you enjoy.
Those have been big helps for me thus far.
0 -
No one is addicted to broccoli, lean steaks, low fat cheese and hard boiled eggs. They may BELIEVE that they are addicted to fatty, sugary salt bombs, but those are not food. Those are food like products. If you consider yourself addicted to them go cold turkey and stop using before you start pimping your kids.0
-
@lyndahh75 - the Low Carb group may have threads on dealing with sugar cravings. http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/group/394-low-carber-daily-forum-the-lcd-group0
-
The research directly cites Taubes's and Ludwig's work and their competing hypotheses. I don't see the metabolic ward study actually say anything directly to Taubes. It is a subtle difference that make is impersonal. The metabolic ward study isn't a paper itself written to prove that Taubes as a person is wrong.Gianfranco_R wrote: »
Depending on what blog you were linked to, there well could have been peer reviewed literature discounting Lustig's theories. Peer reviewed journals aren't going to have papers published directly arguing why one expert is wrong or not. There are peer reviewed papers and statistical documents that discount what Lustig says, though usually a blog format citing them is more useful as it puts them in context to point-counterpoint what Lustig has said.kshama2001 wrote: »UltimateRBF wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »TheopolisAmbroiseIII wrote: »I accidentally fell into this forum trap once. Note; fat weighs the same as muscle and addiction is limited SOLELY to heroin. If you remember those two facts, you're better able to swim these waters. Oh, and speaking of waters, you don't need 8 glasses a day.
You forgot meth, but otherwise got it
And the need to always have peer-reviewed studies to back your claims.
Yeah, don't you hate it when people ask for evidence of claims made. Those haters!
The irony is when someone was bashing Lustig and I asked for evidence using the same standard and no one had anything but some blogs.
it can happen though (see the recent study of Kevin Hall on Taubes' insuline hypothesis)0 -
You can't say that unless you know how many crack macros a person has left for the day.lemurcat12 wrote: »
Nope. You can live without consuming sugar. You cannot live without sugar. So it is not possible to detox out of sugar like you can with crack.tennisdude2004 wrote: »
Also, broccoli is a lot healthier than crack.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »ManiacalLaugh wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »ManiacalLaugh wrote: »TheopolisAmbroiseIII wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »TheopolisAmbroiseIII wrote: »I accidentally fell into this forum trap once. Note; fat weighs the same as muscle and addiction is limited SOLELY to heroin. If you remember those two facts, you're better able to swim these waters. Oh, and speaking of waters, you don't need 8 glasses a day.
You forgot meth, but otherwise got it
Something something lack of willpower..
I think this particular argument resurfaces again and again because of the different levels of power different people give the word 'addiction'.
Yes, there's a clinical definition, but there's a clinical definition of a lot of things that we 'misuse' the name for and it doesn't generate this level of wrath.
Some people have never witnessed hard drug addiction first hand, and some people deal with it daily.
This disparity generates some people cavalierly using a hot button word. We all either need to take the power the word has away by agreeing that any 'compulsion' can be overcome with various levels of personal effort, support and struggle, or we all need to agree that 'addiction' is a serious word, and we shouldn't bandy it about.
The same thing occurs with the term "depressed". It doesn't mean 'sad', you're not 'depressed' because they're out of sprinkles for your sundae.
I really want to see this argument pop up whenever someone says they're totally "addicted" to Quest Bars, or the new donuts at Tim Hortons. It only ever seems to become a major debate when someone uses the term when talking about their negative obsession/compulsion/whatever-you-want-to-call-it with food. That's a bit of a shame, considering the discussion gets bogged down by semantics when the OP is usually just hoping for a genuine vent or is asking for help (and, from what I've found, is more than aware of the difference between meth/heroine addiction and food "addiction").
I actually thought the discussion had moved on from the semantic one, and it's really the people complaining that there's a negative reaction to using the word who are dragging it back into the semantic discussion.
Personally, I think it's usually quite clear when someone uses the term casually -- I'm addicted to pizza or shoes or whatever -- and am not bothered by that. On MFP, though, it's common to directly compare an addiction to "sugar" to one to "heroin" which is why it gets responded to in those cases as if the point being made is, in fact, intended seriously.
Here, I think OP was genuinely talking about feelings of out of controlness around food that many of us have dealt with, and I understand where she's coming from, but I still really hate the "food is the hardest addiction" thing because that's really not accurate to my experience (which yes is colored by too much experience with alcohol and drug addiction).
I don't think I was mean to OP, though -- I do think the out of control feeling is a real thing and is important to talk about and figure out how to deal with, even if I don't happen to think focusing on it as an addiction is actually useful to that. I don't think it's a terrible thing to use the word, but I also will disagree. (Sometimes on this forum you get the idea that disagreeing is considered cruelty and I find that odd.)
I don't think it's a matter of being "mean" to anyone. Most people can learn through the civil debates that go on here and take them for what they are.
I just find it a shame when someone posts "I feel lost; I feel out of control; I need help" and 20 people reply, "Let me tell you why you're wrong and by the way, you just trivialized addiction, so shame on you."
IMO, posts like, "I know you feel out of control, but you're not, and you can do this. Here's some legitimate advice for helping you gain traction..." are a lot more helpful while shifting the focus off of "helpless addiction" and back onto them and what they can do to take responsibility for their own health.
Agreed. I made four posts in the spirit of being helpful before I got sucked into the semantics debate.
A suggestion for a compromise, since perhaps we all agree that the semantic argument is annoying.
(1) Those of you who think the term "addiction" doesn't matter or fits okay simply respond with some practical suggestions (I noticed that you made some in this thread that I happen to agree with).
(2) Those of us who want to help and understand the out of control feeling but think the use of the term "addiction" is unhelpful or is simply something inaccurate that we cannot feel comfortable seeming to agree with will respond with some practical suggestions or questions as to the specifics (which I think are usually needed before making suggestions) while also noting gently that we don't think "addiction" is the right term. (This is what I tried to do here.)
(3) We don't engage each other in a debate about the term or post complaints about how the other responded with respect to the term (or rant about supposed MFP response in general).
(4) We ignore truly unhelpful responses that aren't directed at OP's question.
I am not suggesting that anyone do what I say here, of course -- everyone will do what they want within the rules -- but I do think this would help avoid some of the derailing which those of you bitching about the "semantic battles" say you want to avoid.
I've repeatedly found that even when I write a substantive helpful post that gently explains that I don't think addiction is the correct word as an aside (which is what I normally try to do), the substantive stuff gets ignored and lots of people feel compelled to start an argument with me about my disagreement with the "addiction" term. I'm sorry, but although I don't plan to derail or be mean to the OP or blame the OP for word choice or any such thing it is important enough to me that I can't respond without at least noting that I disagree with the term personally.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Because it's a behavioral issue, not a substance issue.LyndaSheppardHowitt wrote: »Withaflourish, your statement is a bit ignorant. How can you be so certain that not one person is addicted to food?
However, that discussion is going to get your thread deleted sooner rather than later.
do you always speak on things you dont understand?0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »@lyndahh75 - the Low Carb group may have threads on dealing with sugar cravings. http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/group/394-low-carber-daily-forum-the-lcd-group
Lots of people have dealt with craving highly palatable foods (including sugary ones) without going low carb. Why send her off to the low carbers?0 -
Rage_Phish wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Because it's a behavioral issue, not a substance issue.LyndaSheppardHowitt wrote: »Withaflourish, your statement is a bit ignorant. How can you be so certain that not one person is addicted to food?
However, that discussion is going to get your thread deleted sooner rather than later.
do you always speak on things you dont understand?
"Intelligent people look crazy to non-intelligent people": Albert Einstein (father of all internet quotes).0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »UltimateRBF wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »TheopolisAmbroiseIII wrote: »I accidentally fell into this forum trap once. Note; fat weighs the same as muscle and addiction is limited SOLELY to heroin. If you remember those two facts, you're better able to swim these waters. Oh, and speaking of waters, you don't need 8 glasses a day.
You forgot meth, but otherwise got it
And the need to always have peer-reviewed studies to back your claims.
Yeah, don't you hate it when people ask for evidence of claims made. Those haters!
The irony is when someone was bashing Lustig and I asked for evidence using the same standard and no one had anything but some blogs.
There's a difference between asking for proof of an opinion and proof of a scientific claim.
I can form an opinion of Lustig's work based on simply reading it and comparing it to other's work in his field.
Sugar addiction in humans? There's no scientific finding on that. It's all rat studies.
Try an equal comparison next time.
0 -
All the new functionality and flag features in the world won't stop people from being internet people when they get on the internet.
HIGH FIVE EVERYONE GOOD THREAD!0 -
ManiacalLaugh wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »ManiacalLaugh wrote: »TheopolisAmbroiseIII wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »TheopolisAmbroiseIII wrote: »I accidentally fell into this forum trap once. Note; fat weighs the same as muscle and addiction is limited SOLELY to heroin. If you remember those two facts, you're better able to swim these waters. Oh, and speaking of waters, you don't need 8 glasses a day.
You forgot meth, but otherwise got it
Something something lack of willpower..
I think this particular argument resurfaces again and again because of the different levels of power different people give the word 'addiction'.
Yes, there's a clinical definition, but there's a clinical definition of a lot of things that we 'misuse' the name for and it doesn't generate this level of wrath.
Some people have never witnessed hard drug addiction first hand, and some people deal with it daily.
This disparity generates some people cavalierly using a hot button word. We all either need to take the power the word has away by agreeing that any 'compulsion' can be overcome with various levels of personal effort, support and struggle, or we all need to agree that 'addiction' is a serious word, and we shouldn't bandy it about.
The same thing occurs with the term "depressed". It doesn't mean 'sad', you're not 'depressed' because they're out of sprinkles for your sundae.
I really want to see this argument pop up whenever someone says they're totally "addicted" to Quest Bars, or the new donuts at Tim Hortons. It only ever seems to become a major debate when someone uses the term when talking about their negative obsession/compulsion/whatever-you-want-to-call-it with food. That's a bit of a shame, considering the discussion gets bogged down by semantics when the OP is usually just hoping for a genuine vent or is asking for help (and, from what I've found, is more than aware of the difference between meth/heroine addiction and food "addiction").
I actually thought the discussion had moved on from the semantic one, and it's really the people complaining that there's a negative reaction to using the word who are dragging it back into the semantic discussion.
Personally, I think it's usually quite clear when someone uses the term casually -- I'm addicted to pizza or shoes or whatever -- and am not bothered by that. On MFP, though, it's common to directly compare an addiction to "sugar" to one to "heroin" which is why it gets responded to in those cases as if the point being made is, in fact, intended seriously.
Here, I think OP was genuinely talking about feelings of out of controlness around food that many of us have dealt with, and I understand where she's coming from, but I still really hate the "food is the hardest addiction" thing because that's really not accurate to my experience (which yes is colored by too much experience with alcohol and drug addiction).
I don't think I was mean to OP, though -- I do think the out of control feeling is a real thing and is important to talk about and figure out how to deal with, even if I don't happen to think focusing on it as an addiction is actually useful to that. I don't think it's a terrible thing to use the word, but I also will disagree. (Sometimes on this forum you get the idea that disagreeing is considered cruelty and I find that odd.)
I don't think it's a matter of being "mean" to anyone. Most people can learn through the civil debates that go on here and take them for what they are.
I just find it a shame when someone posts "I feel lost; I feel out of control; I need help" and 20 people reply, "Let me tell you why you're wrong and by the way, you just trivialized addiction, so shame on you."
IMO, posts like, "I know you feel out of control, but you're not, and you can do this. Here's some legitimate advice for helping you gain traction..." are a lot more helpful while shifting the focus off of "helpless addiction" and back onto them and what they can do to take responsibility for their own health.
You know you're not exactly helping either?
However, there's a point to be made for those feeling themselves addicted that I used to try to get across. I don't bother any more, because these threads always get pulled. I'll give it a go one last time just for you, though.
I used to consider myself addicted to all carbs, and especially sugar.
After working past that, I came to realize that having thought of myself that way was a horrible thing to have done, because it put me in a position of powerlessness over the food. I gave the food too much credit and me far too little.
It wasn't until I embraced the notion that I really and truly could control what I put in my mouth and that all food was just fine to have that I was able to sensibly consume those foods without feeling like they controlled me. It's all a circular sounding sort of thing, but really, it's a mind game.
When I believed the food had the power, it did. When I believed I have the power, I do.
It sounds easy on the face of it, but I know it's not. It's a long road getting there, and there's a lot of work to do on yourself.
However, I think it's an important journey to take, and I think it would be foolish of me, with the experience I've had, to encourage others to disempower themselves with their own thought process.
I understand they are trying to use a word that sums up their feelings of helplessness. It's all well and fine to validate the fact that they are suffering. It's not well and fine to reinforce the idea that they're helpless. Because they're not. Everyone has it within themselves to be amazing. They just might need someone to tell them they believe it's their time to shine.
So OP, I know you're struggling now, but I believe you can get past this. It's just food. It's just ... chemicals. Grouped together in different combinations. Even that apple is just a group of chemicals. You're bigger and more powerful than any of that food. And some day, you'll grow into that realization and ... it will be fantastic.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »@lyndahh75 - the Low Carb group may have threads on dealing with sugar cravings. http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/group/394-low-carber-daily-forum-the-lcd-group
Lots of people have dealt with craving highly palatable foods (including sugary ones) without going low carb. Why send her off to the low carbers?
Because of some of the comments she made, I get the sense that the tone there might be a better fit.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 415 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions