White addiction
Replies
-
When you use the language of addiction you lose control and provide yourself with built in excuses
That is why terminology is important
Eating addiction is a behavioural issue where cognitive therapies can help
Food addiction however is a very much disputed term as food is not physically addictive
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763414002140Certain foods have rewarding and reinforcing properties; for example, high sugar-high fat combinations are rewarding for rodents and humans alike. From an evolutionary perspective, these rewarding properties increase motivation to seek out and obtain an adequate and nutritionally diverse energy supply. In our modern obesogenic environment, characterized by ready availability of highly palatable and energy-dense food, it seems that these rewarding properties of particular foods might overwhelm both cognitive restraint and homeostatic mechanisms, and lead to weight gain.
Whether or not its "addictive" in the strictest chemical sense if someone wants to control their intake and is repeatedly unsuccessful whether it is cane sugar, skittles,popcorn, bacon lard, or whiskey then that person may have a 'problem' with said food.
Video Games are not chemically addictive. If somebody was flunking class,ignoring social functions and obligations, and getting fired from work from playing too many video games and their friends tell them to only play after test days or to make sure all their studying was done first or to just IIFYT (If it fits your time). If they still find themselves playing too many video games over and over and doing poorly in school, I hope they tell them to ditch the XBox (PS4 is better anyways
) at least for the time because they relate to the VG in an unhealthy way and are not in control of it.
Sometimes cutting back and moderation in all things works great for people adn thats awesome. But sometimes a person can benefit from eliminating those foods and setting up their environment with foods they don't have control issues with. Maybe some day that person is able to reintroduce said food (and thats great) and maybe they'll always need to keep at arms length .
I know you are primarily responding to claim of physical chemical addiction "just like cocaine" so I hope you know I'm not meaning to attack you if thats how it comes off its just frustrating to see the "LOL, who can't eat sugar in moderation you weak little person"
While I agree with everything you've said here, I think perhaps you've missed the point rabbit was making.
Actual physical addiction issues aside, many of us find the terminology we use in our own minds and descriptions to be powerful. If your video game flunkie is wanting to make changes, which thought is more empowering?
1. "I can't help myself, I'm ADDICTED to video games!"
2. "I REALLY LIKE video games, and have difficulty controlling my behavior with regards to them!"
It's a subtle difference, but to me, statement 1 puts all the power in the hands (metaphorically of course) of the video games. It's the fault of the video games; we are powerless over them. Statement 2 acknowledges that it's ME that's the issue, that I have the power to control my behavior (I'm just not choosing to do so presently).
I think we'd all agree there's a significant mental issue that we all in our own way have to overcome with regard to whatever our own personal "video games" are. And that it doesn't help by shifting the blame or power to the substance over our own personal behavior and choices.
ETA: In no way do I think that this and this alone will completely solve the problem; but I do believe that a person who thinks more like statement #2 has a better chance of overcoming his/her issues - regardless of the method (that's not what's at debate here) - than person #1.0 -
When you use the language of addiction you lose control and provide yourself with built in excuses
That is why terminology is important
Eating addiction is a behavioural issue where cognitive therapies can help
Food addiction however is a very much disputed term as food is not physically addictive
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763414002140Certain foods have rewarding and reinforcing properties; for example, high sugar-high fat combinations are rewarding for rodents and humans alike. From an evolutionary perspective, these rewarding properties increase motivation to seek out and obtain an adequate and nutritionally diverse energy supply. In our modern obesogenic environment, characterized by ready availability of highly palatable and energy-dense food, it seems that these rewarding properties of particular foods might overwhelm both cognitive restraint and homeostatic mechanisms, and lead to weight gain.
Whether or not its "addictive" in the strictest chemical sense if someone wants to control their intake and is repeatedly unsuccessful whether it is cane sugar, skittles,popcorn, bacon lard, or whiskey then that person may have a 'problem' with said food.
Video Games are not chemically addictive. If somebody was flunking class,ignoring social functions and obligations, and getting fired from work from playing too many video games and their friends tell them to only play after test days or to make sure all their studying was done first or to just IIFYT (If it fits your time). If they still find themselves playing too many video games over and over and doing poorly in school, I hope they tell them to ditch the XBox (PS4 is better anyways) at least for the time because they relate to the VG in an unhealthy way and are not in control of it.
Sometimes cutting back and moderation in all things works great for people adn thats awesome. But sometimes a person can benefit from eliminating those foods and setting up their environment with foods they don't have control issues with. Maybe some day that person is able to reintroduce said food (and thats great) and maybe they'll always need to keep at arms length .
I know you are primarily responding to claim of physical chemical addiction "just like cocaine" so I hope you know I'm not meaning to attack you if thats how it comes off its just frustrating to see the "LOL, who can't eat sugar in moderation you weak little person"
I don't disagree ..elimination might be necessary for some in the initial stages ...but it's to the products that are made from sugar ...people can find it difficult to resist cake or cookies but pure granulated sugar? Nobody sits down and eats bag after bag straight ...it's the mix of sugar with fats and other carbs that is highly palatable
Also my point was eating addiction =\= food addiction and hence the treatment options are different
Right. If the sugar itself was addictive, then people would not be able to control their intake around ANY kind of sugar - whether that be straight table sugar out of the bag, sugar within baked goods, and sugar within fruit or dairy.
To the poster above, it is not dismissive to say that it is not an addiction, it is a habit that needs to be addressed. Learning how to moderate one's sugar intake - even if initially you do heavy restriction/elimination in order to be able to later decide if it can be reintroduced - is something that MANY people have had success with and have found empowering, that they are in control, not the food that they previously labelled as addictive.0 -
When you use the language of addiction you lose control and provide yourself with built in excuses
That is why terminology is important
Eating addiction is a behavioural issue where cognitive therapies can help
Food addiction however is a very much disputed term as food is not physically addictive
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763414002140Certain foods have rewarding and reinforcing properties; for example, high sugar-high fat combinations are rewarding for rodents and humans alike. From an evolutionary perspective, these rewarding properties increase motivation to seek out and obtain an adequate and nutritionally diverse energy supply. In our modern obesogenic environment, characterized by ready availability of highly palatable and energy-dense food, it seems that these rewarding properties of particular foods might overwhelm both cognitive restraint and homeostatic mechanisms, and lead to weight gain.
Whether or not its "addictive" in the strictest chemical sense if someone wants to control their intake and is repeatedly unsuccessful whether it is cane sugar, skittles,popcorn, bacon lard, or whiskey then that person may have a 'problem' with said food.
Video Games are not chemically addictive. If somebody was flunking class,ignoring social functions and obligations, and getting fired from work from playing too many video games and their friends tell them to only play after test days or to make sure all their studying was done first or to just IIFYT (If it fits your time). If they still find themselves playing too many video games over and over and doing poorly in school, I hope they tell them to ditch the XBox (PS4 is better anyways) at least for the time because they relate to the VG in an unhealthy way and are not in control of it.
Sometimes cutting back and moderation in all things works great for people adn thats awesome. But sometimes a person can benefit from eliminating those foods and setting up their environment with foods they don't have control issues with. Maybe some day that person is able to reintroduce said food (and thats great) and maybe they'll always need to keep at arms length .
I know you are primarily responding to claim of physical chemical addiction "just like cocaine" so I hope you know I'm not meaning to attack you if thats how it comes off its just frustrating to see the "LOL, who can't eat sugar in moderation you weak little person"
We don't, as far as I can tell, know whether the issue is too many video games per se or simply the desire not to play video games even IIFYT.
Without that, there's no way to give a coherent answer to the actual question, because we don't know the actual question.0 -
Hey, I am constantly loosing my fight against sugar. Choclote, dried fruits, sweets, cookies. Endless list that can't stop thinking about. How you fight sugar addiction? Is this anything to do with that that I don't eat much meat?
Eat 1g of protein for every pound of your lean body mass (LBM), to feed your muscle. So if your LBM is 115, eat 115g or so of protein.
You can break the sugar addiction by filling up on all that you should be eating: veggies, protein, healthy fats.
After a few days, your body will adjust, although you may still have a mental habit.
Weigh your food and log it...and stick with it.0 -
Ate all the foods you listed, stayed within calorie limit and lost weight. Had nothing to do with any white stuff, cocaine included.0
-
Lovee_Dove7 wrote: »Hey, I am constantly loosing my fight against sugar. Choclote, dried fruits, sweets, cookies. Endless list that can't stop thinking about. How you fight sugar addiction? Is this anything to do with that that I don't eat much meat?
Eat 1g of protein for every pound of your lean body mass (LBM), to feed your muscle. So if your LBM is 115, eat 115g or so of protein.
You can break the sugar addiction by filling up on all that you should be eating: veggies, protein, healthy fats.
After a few days, your body will adjust, although you may still have a mental habit.
Weigh your food and log it...and stick with it.
That's a lot of protein...no research has proved that that much is required even by elite athletes, although subject to no medical conditions it certainly isn't going to harm you any ...the range I often see is 0.64-0.8g per lb bodyweight (minimum targets of course) EDIT: sorry I misread that and didn't see the LBM for some reason...letting this stand for thread to make sense though
Eating addiction is a mental habit, there's no physical addiction to break ..I think that's the point we have been trying to make
0 -
juggernaut1974 wrote: »When you use the language of addiction you lose control and provide yourself with built in excuses
That is why terminology is important
Eating addiction is a behavioural issue where cognitive therapies can help
Food addiction however is a very much disputed term as food is not physically addictive
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763414002140Certain foods have rewarding and reinforcing properties; for example, high sugar-high fat combinations are rewarding for rodents and humans alike. From an evolutionary perspective, these rewarding properties increase motivation to seek out and obtain an adequate and nutritionally diverse energy supply. In our modern obesogenic environment, characterized by ready availability of highly palatable and energy-dense food, it seems that these rewarding properties of particular foods might overwhelm both cognitive restraint and homeostatic mechanisms, and lead to weight gain.
Whether or not its "addictive" in the strictest chemical sense if someone wants to control their intake and is repeatedly unsuccessful whether it is cane sugar, skittles,popcorn, bacon lard, or whiskey then that person may have a 'problem' with said food.
Video Games are not chemically addictive. If somebody was flunking class,ignoring social functions and obligations, and getting fired from work from playing too many video games and their friends tell them to only play after test days or to make sure all their studying was done first or to just IIFYT (If it fits your time). If they still find themselves playing too many video games over and over and doing poorly in school, I hope they tell them to ditch the XBox (PS4 is better anyways) at least for the time because they relate to the VG in an unhealthy way and are not in control of it.
Sometimes cutting back and moderation in all things works great for people adn thats awesome. But sometimes a person can benefit from eliminating those foods and setting up their environment with foods they don't have control issues with. Maybe some day that person is able to reintroduce said food (and thats great) and maybe they'll always need to keep at arms length .
I know you are primarily responding to claim of physical chemical addiction "just like cocaine" so I hope you know I'm not meaning to attack you if thats how it comes off its just frustrating to see the "LOL, who can't eat sugar in moderation you weak little person"
While I agree with everything you've said here, I think perhaps you've missed the point rabbit was making.
Actual physical addiction issues aside, many of us find the terminology we use in our own minds and descriptions to be powerful. If your video game flunkie is wanting to make changes, which thought is more empowering?
1. "I can't help myself, I'm ADDICTED to video games!"
2. "I REALLY LIKE video games, and have difficulty controlling my behavior with regards to them!"
It's a subtle difference, but to me, statement 1 puts all the power in the hands (metaphorically of course) of the video games. It's the fault of the video games; we are powerless over them. Statement 2 acknowledges that it's ME that's the issue, that I have the power to control my behavior (I'm just not choosing to do so presently).
I think we'd all agree there's a significant mental issue that we all in our own way have to overcome with regard to whatever our own personal "video games" are. And that it doesn't help by shifting the blame or power to the substance over our own personal behavior and choices.
ETA: In no way do I think that this and this alone will completely solve the problem; but I do believe that a person who thinks more like statement #2 has a better chance of overcoming his/her issues - regardless of the method (that's not what's at debate here) - than person #1.
I absolutely agree that the internal message we tell ourselves greatly affects the outcome. If you believe that you are in control, you are. If you believe you are the victim of an addiction, and that it controls you, then it has the control.
I can safely say that I alone am responsible for whether I gain, maintain, or lose weight. I decide what I eat, my food doesn't decide for me.0 -
Lovee_Dove7 wrote: »Hey, I am constantly loosing my fight against sugar. Choclote, dried fruits, sweets, cookies. Endless list that can't stop thinking about. How you fight sugar addiction? Is this anything to do with that that I don't eat much meat?
Eat 1g of protein for every pound of your lean body mass (LBM), to feed your muscle. So if your LBM is 115, eat 115g or so of protein.
You can break the sugar addiction by filling up on all that you should be eating: veggies, protein, healthy fats.
After a few days, your body will adjust, although you may still have a mental habit.
Weigh your food and log it...and stick with it.
That's a lot of protein...no research has proved that that much is required even by elite athletes, although subject to no medical conditions it certainly isn't going to harm you any ...the range I often see is 0.64-0.8g per lb bodyweight (minimum targets of course)
Eating addiction is a mental habit, there's no physical addiction to break ..I think that's the point we have been trying to make
I think you're saying about the same thing...the #'s you used refer to total body weight; Lovee's refer to only Lean Mass.
Someone at 150 lbs and 20% BF who eats 1 gram per pound of lean mass would have a goal of 120 grams
Same person who uses 0.8g per pound of total weight would also have a goal of 120 grams.
Though, as stated, I agree on the comments regarding "addiction."0 -
juggernaut1974 wrote: »Lovee_Dove7 wrote: »Hey, I am constantly loosing my fight against sugar. Choclote, dried fruits, sweets, cookies. Endless list that can't stop thinking about. How you fight sugar addiction? Is this anything to do with that that I don't eat much meat?
Eat 1g of protein for every pound of your lean body mass (LBM), to feed your muscle. So if your LBM is 115, eat 115g or so of protein.
You can break the sugar addiction by filling up on all that you should be eating: veggies, protein, healthy fats.
After a few days, your body will adjust, although you may still have a mental habit.
Weigh your food and log it...and stick with it.
That's a lot of protein...no research has proved that that much is required even by elite athletes, although subject to no medical conditions it certainly isn't going to harm you any ...the range I often see is 0.64-0.8g per lb bodyweight (minimum targets of course)
Eating addiction is a mental habit, there's no physical addiction to break ..I think that's the point we have been trying to make
I think you're saying about the same thing...the #'s you used refer to total body weight; Lovee's refer to only Lean Mass.
Someone at 150 lbs and 20% BF who eats 1 gram per pound of lean mass would have a goal of 120 grams
Same person who uses 0.8g per pound of total weight would also have a goal of 120 grams.
Though, as stated, I agree on the comments regarding "addiction."
Quite right ...apologies I misread that as per lb bodyweight ...blame brain addled by pub lunch
... 0 -
juggernaut1974 wrote: »Lovee_Dove7 wrote: »Hey, I am constantly loosing my fight against sugar. Choclote, dried fruits, sweets, cookies. Endless list that can't stop thinking about. How you fight sugar addiction? Is this anything to do with that that I don't eat much meat?
Eat 1g of protein for every pound of your lean body mass (LBM), to feed your muscle. So if your LBM is 115, eat 115g or so of protein.
You can break the sugar addiction by filling up on all that you should be eating: veggies, protein, healthy fats.
After a few days, your body will adjust, although you may still have a mental habit.
Weigh your food and log it...and stick with it.
That's a lot of protein...no research has proved that that much is required even by elite athletes, although subject to no medical conditions it certainly isn't going to harm you any ...the range I often see is 0.64-0.8g per lb bodyweight (minimum targets of course)
Eating addiction is a mental habit, there's no physical addiction to break ..I think that's the point we have been trying to make
I think you're saying about the same thing...the #'s you used refer to total body weight; Lovee's refer to only Lean Mass.
Someone at 150 lbs and 20% BF who eats 1 gram per pound of lean mass would have a goal of 120 grams
Same person who uses 0.8g per pound of total weight would also have a goal of 120 grams.
Though, as stated, I agree on the comments regarding "addiction."
Quite right ...apologies I misread that as per lb bodyweight ...blame brain addled by pub lunch ...
Hopefully it was a 2 pint minimum pub lunch! 0 -
Lovee_Dove7 wrote: »Hey, I am constantly loosing my fight against sugar. Choclote, dried fruits, sweets, cookies. Endless list that can't stop thinking about. How you fight sugar addiction? Is this anything to do with that that I don't eat much meat?
Eat 1g of protein for every pound of your lean body mass (LBM), to feed your muscle. So if your LBM is 115, eat 115g or so of protein.
You can break the sugar addiction by filling up on all that you should be eating: veggies, protein, healthy fats.
After a few days, your body will adjust, although you may still have a mental habit.
Weigh your food and log it...and stick with it.
That's a lot of protein...no research has proved that that much is required even by elite athletes, although subject to no medical conditions it certainly isn't going to harm you any ...the range I often see is 0.64-0.8g per lb bodyweight (minimum targets of course)
Eating addiction is a mental habit, there's no physical addiction to break ..I think that's the point we have been trying to make
EDIT: sorry I misread that and didn't see the LBM for some reason...letting this stand for thread to make sense though
I'm glad that much protein doesn't hurt anything, because I find that much to be about right for me, appetite wise.
I don't agree about it being all mental. I have a different kind of appetite and struggle with food when I eat sugar. I hope that changes but until it does, I'll leave it out of my weight-loss plan.0 -
Love this!!!blankiefinder wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »When you use the language of addiction you lose control and provide yourself with built in excuses
That is why terminology is important
Eating addiction is a behavioural issue where cognitive therapies can help
Food addiction however is a very much disputed term as food is not physically addictive
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763414002140Certain foods have rewarding and reinforcing properties; for example, high sugar-high fat combinations are rewarding for rodents and humans alike. From an evolutionary perspective, these rewarding properties increase motivation to seek out and obtain an adequate and nutritionally diverse energy supply. In our modern obesogenic environment, characterized by ready availability of highly palatable and energy-dense food, it seems that these rewarding properties of particular foods might overwhelm both cognitive restraint and homeostatic mechanisms, and lead to weight gain.
Whether or not its "addictive" in the strictest chemical sense if someone wants to control their intake and is repeatedly unsuccessful whether it is cane sugar, skittles,popcorn, bacon lard, or whiskey then that person may have a 'problem' with said food.
Video Games are not chemically addictive. If somebody was flunking class,ignoring social functions and obligations, and getting fired from work from playing too many video games and their friends tell them to only play after test days or to make sure all their studying was done first or to just IIFYT (If it fits your time). If they still find themselves playing too many video games over and over and doing poorly in school, I hope they tell them to ditch the XBox (PS4 is better anyways) at least for the time because they relate to the VG in an unhealthy way and are not in control of it.
Sometimes cutting back and moderation in all things works great for people adn thats awesome. But sometimes a person can benefit from eliminating those foods and setting up their environment with foods they don't have control issues with. Maybe some day that person is able to reintroduce said food (and thats great) and maybe they'll always need to keep at arms length .
I know you are primarily responding to claim of physical chemical addiction "just like cocaine" so I hope you know I'm not meaning to attack you if thats how it comes off its just frustrating to see the "LOL, who can't eat sugar in moderation you weak little person"
While I agree with everything you've said here, I think perhaps you've missed the point rabbit was making.
Actual physical addiction issues aside, many of us find the terminology we use in our own minds and descriptions to be powerful. If your video game flunkie is wanting to make changes, which thought is more empowering?
1. "I can't help myself, I'm ADDICTED to video games!"
2. "I REALLY LIKE video games, and have difficulty controlling my behavior with regards to them!"
It's a subtle difference, but to me, statement 1 puts all the power in the hands (metaphorically of course) of the video games. It's the fault of the video games; we are powerless over them. Statement 2 acknowledges that it's ME that's the issue, that I have the power to control my behavior (I'm just not choosing to do so presently).
I think we'd all agree there's a significant mental issue that we all in our own way have to overcome with regard to whatever our own personal "video games" are. And that it doesn't help by shifting the blame or power to the substance over our own personal behavior and choices.
ETA: In no way do I think that this and this alone will completely solve the problem; but I do believe that a person who thinks more like statement #2 has a better chance of overcoming his/her issues - regardless of the method (that's not what's at debate here) - than person #1.
I absolutely agree that the internal message we tell ourselves greatly affects the outcome. If you believe that you are in control, you are. If you believe you are the victim of an addiction, and that it controls you, then it has the control.
I can safely say that I alone am responsible for whether I gain, maintain, or lose weight. I decide what I eat, my food doesn't decide for me. 0 -
juggernaut1974 wrote: »When you use the language of addiction you lose control and provide yourself with built in excuses
That is why terminology is important
Eating addiction is a behavioural issue where cognitive therapies can help
Food addiction however is a very much disputed term as food is not physically addictive
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763414002140Certain foods have rewarding and reinforcing properties; for example, high sugar-high fat combinations are rewarding for rodents and humans alike. From an evolutionary perspective, these rewarding properties increase motivation to seek out and obtain an adequate and nutritionally diverse energy supply. In our modern obesogenic environment, characterized by ready availability of highly palatable and energy-dense food, it seems that these rewarding properties of particular foods might overwhelm both cognitive restraint and homeostatic mechanisms, and lead to weight gain.
Whether or not its "addictive" in the strictest chemical sense if someone wants to control their intake and is repeatedly unsuccessful whether it is cane sugar, skittles,popcorn, bacon lard, or whiskey then that person may have a 'problem' with said food.
Video Games are not chemically addictive. If somebody was flunking class,ignoring social functions and obligations, and getting fired from work from playing too many video games and their friends tell them to only play after test days or to make sure all their studying was done first or to just IIFYT (If it fits your time). If they still find themselves playing too many video games over and over and doing poorly in school, I hope they tell them to ditch the XBox (PS4 is better anyways) at least for the time because they relate to the VG in an unhealthy way and are not in control of it.
Sometimes cutting back and moderation in all things works great for people adn thats awesome. But sometimes a person can benefit from eliminating those foods and setting up their environment with foods they don't have control issues with. Maybe some day that person is able to reintroduce said food (and thats great) and maybe they'll always need to keep at arms length .
I know you are primarily responding to claim of physical chemical addiction "just like cocaine" so I hope you know I'm not meaning to attack you if thats how it comes off its just frustrating to see the "LOL, who can't eat sugar in moderation you weak little person"
While I agree with everything you've said here, I think perhaps you've missed the point rabbit was making.
Actual physical addiction issues aside, many of us find the terminology we use in our own minds and descriptions to be powerful. If your video game flunkie is wanting to make changes, which thought is more empowering?
1. "I can't help myself, I'm ADDICTED to video games!"
2. "I REALLY LIKE video games, and have difficulty controlling my behavior with regards to them!"
It's a subtle difference, but to me, statement 1 puts all the power in the hands (metaphorically of course) of the video games. It's the fault of the video games; we are powerless over them. Statement 2 acknowledges that it's ME that's the issue, that I have the power to control my behavior (I'm just not choosing to do so presently).
I think we'd all agree there's a significant mental issue that we all in our own way have to overcome with regard to whatever our own personal "video games" are. And that it doesn't help by shifting the blame or power to the substance over our own personal behavior and choices.
ETA: In no way do I think that this and this alone will completely solve the problem; but I do believe that a person who thinks more like statement #2 has a better chance of overcoming his/her issues - regardless of the method (that's not what's at debate here) - than person #1.
I don't know if I believe that 100%. One of the tenets of most 12 step programs is admitting you are powerless over the substance you are controlled by. You may not agree with that but its proven effective for substances that ARE chemically addictive so I fail to see how it would be ineffective for controlling non addictive substances.
Number 1 can either be a defeatist attitude justifying their lack of change or a eureka moment of self realization leading to great change.
Number 2 can either be just the mindset change they needed or the thought pattern that keeps them stuck where they are. (I just need to try harder and that will change everything!)Addiction is a state characterized by compulsive engagement in rewarding stimuli, despite adverse consequences.[7] It can be thought of as a disease or biological process leading to such behaviors.[1][8] The two properties that characterize all addictive stimuli are that they are reinforcing (i.e., they increase the likelihood that a person will seek repeated exposure to them) and intrinsically rewarding (i.e., something perceived as being positive or desirable).0 -
Hey, I am constantly loosing my fight against sugar. Choclote, dried fruits, sweets, cookies. Endless list that can't stop thinking about. How you fight sugar addiction? Is this anything to do with that that I don't eat much meat?
Everything you mentioned there is carbs, maybe you're addicted to carbs perhaps.
You can technically be addicted to anything.0 -
When you use the language of addiction you lose control and provide yourself with built in excuses
That is why terminology is important
Eating addiction is a behavioural issue where cognitive therapies can help
Food addiction however is a very much disputed term as food is not physically addictive
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763414002140Certain foods have rewarding and reinforcing properties; for example, high sugar-high fat combinations are rewarding for rodents and humans alike. From an evolutionary perspective, these rewarding properties increase motivation to seek out and obtain an adequate and nutritionally diverse energy supply. In our modern obesogenic environment, characterized by ready availability of highly palatable and energy-dense food, it seems that these rewarding properties of particular foods might overwhelm both cognitive restraint and homeostatic mechanisms, and lead to weight gain.
Whether or not its "addictive" in the strictest chemical sense if someone wants to control their intake and is repeatedly unsuccessful whether it is cane sugar, skittles,popcorn, bacon lard, or whiskey then that person may have a 'problem' with said food.
Video Games are not chemically addictive. If somebody was flunking class,ignoring social functions and obligations, and getting fired from work from playing too many video games and their friends tell them to only play after test days or to make sure all their studying was done first or to just IIFYT (If it fits your time). If they still find themselves playing too many video games over and over and doing poorly in school, I hope they tell them to ditch the XBox (PS4 is better anyways) at least for the time because they relate to the VG in an unhealthy way and are not in control of it.
Sometimes cutting back and moderation in all things works great for people adn thats awesome. But sometimes a person can benefit from eliminating those foods and setting up their environment with foods they don't have control issues with. Maybe some day that person is able to reintroduce said food (and thats great) and maybe they'll always need to keep at arms length .
I know you are primarily responding to claim of physical chemical addiction "just like cocaine" so I hope you know I'm not meaning to attack you if thats how it comes off its just frustrating to see the "LOL, who can't eat sugar in moderation you weak little person"
Oh I like you more and more0 -
roblloyd89 wrote: »Hey, I am constantly loosing my fight against sugar. Choclote, dried fruits, sweets, cookies. Endless list that can't stop thinking about. How you fight sugar addiction? Is this anything to do with that that I don't eat much meat?
Everything you mentioned there is carbs, maybe you're addicted to carbs perhaps.
Oh, yes, lots of people just can't control themselves with carrots.0 -
When you use the language of addiction you lose control and provide yourself with built in excuses
That is why terminology is important
Eating addiction is a behavioural issue where cognitive therapies can help
Food addiction however is a very much disputed term as food is not physically addictive
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763414002140Certain foods have rewarding and reinforcing properties; for example, high sugar-high fat combinations are rewarding for rodents and humans alike. From an evolutionary perspective, these rewarding properties increase motivation to seek out and obtain an adequate and nutritionally diverse energy supply. In our modern obesogenic environment, characterized by ready availability of highly palatable and energy-dense food, it seems that these rewarding properties of particular foods might overwhelm both cognitive restraint and homeostatic mechanisms, and lead to weight gain.
Whether or not its "addictive" in the strictest chemical sense if someone wants to control their intake and is repeatedly unsuccessful whether it is cane sugar, skittles,popcorn, bacon lard, or whiskey then that person may have a 'problem' with said food.
Video Games are not chemically addictive. If somebody was flunking class,ignoring social functions and obligations, and getting fired from work from playing too many video games and their friends tell them to only play after test days or to make sure all their studying was done first or to just IIFYT (If it fits your time). If they still find themselves playing too many video games over and over and doing poorly in school, I hope they tell them to ditch the XBox (PS4 is better anyways) at least for the time because they relate to the VG in an unhealthy way and are not in control of it.
Sometimes cutting back and moderation in all things works great for people adn thats awesome. But sometimes a person can benefit from eliminating those foods and setting up their environment with foods they don't have control issues with. Maybe some day that person is able to reintroduce said food (and thats great) and maybe they'll always need to keep at arms length .
I know you are primarily responding to claim of physical chemical addiction "just like cocaine" so I hope you know I'm not meaning to attack you if thats how it comes off its just frustrating to see the "LOL, who can't eat sugar in moderation you weak little person"
Well said.0 -
roblloyd89 wrote: »Hey, I am constantly loosing my fight against sugar. Choclote, dried fruits, sweets, cookies. Endless list that can't stop thinking about. How you fight sugar addiction? Is this anything to do with that that I don't eat much meat?
Everything you mentioned there is carbs, maybe you're addicted to carbs perhaps.
You can technically be addicted to anything.
No...technically you can't.
"Addicted" is a word with a specific meaning.0 -
juggernaut1974 wrote: »When you use the language of addiction you lose control and provide yourself with built in excuses
That is why terminology is important
Eating addiction is a behavioural issue where cognitive therapies can help
Food addiction however is a very much disputed term as food is not physically addictive
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763414002140Certain foods have rewarding and reinforcing properties; for example, high sugar-high fat combinations are rewarding for rodents and humans alike. From an evolutionary perspective, these rewarding properties increase motivation to seek out and obtain an adequate and nutritionally diverse energy supply. In our modern obesogenic environment, characterized by ready availability of highly palatable and energy-dense food, it seems that these rewarding properties of particular foods might overwhelm both cognitive restraint and homeostatic mechanisms, and lead to weight gain.
Whether or not its "addictive" in the strictest chemical sense if someone wants to control their intake and is repeatedly unsuccessful whether it is cane sugar, skittles,popcorn, bacon lard, or whiskey then that person may have a 'problem' with said food.
Video Games are not chemically addictive. If somebody was flunking class,ignoring social functions and obligations, and getting fired from work from playing too many video games and their friends tell them to only play after test days or to make sure all their studying was done first or to just IIFYT (If it fits your time). If they still find themselves playing too many video games over and over and doing poorly in school, I hope they tell them to ditch the XBox (PS4 is better anyways) at least for the time because they relate to the VG in an unhealthy way and are not in control of it.
Sometimes cutting back and moderation in all things works great for people adn thats awesome. But sometimes a person can benefit from eliminating those foods and setting up their environment with foods they don't have control issues with. Maybe some day that person is able to reintroduce said food (and thats great) and maybe they'll always need to keep at arms length .
I know you are primarily responding to claim of physical chemical addiction "just like cocaine" so I hope you know I'm not meaning to attack you if thats how it comes off its just frustrating to see the "LOL, who can't eat sugar in moderation you weak little person"
While I agree with everything you've said here, I think perhaps you've missed the point rabbit was making.
Actual physical addiction issues aside, many of us find the terminology we use in our own minds and descriptions to be powerful. If your video game flunkie is wanting to make changes, which thought is more empowering?
1. "I can't help myself, I'm ADDICTED to video games!"
2. "I REALLY LIKE video games, and have difficulty controlling my behavior with regards to them!"
It's a subtle difference, but to me, statement 1 puts all the power in the hands (metaphorically of course) of the video games. It's the fault of the video games; we are powerless over them. Statement 2 acknowledges that it's ME that's the issue, that I have the power to control my behavior (I'm just not choosing to do so presently).
I think we'd all agree there's a significant mental issue that we all in our own way have to overcome with regard to whatever our own personal "video games" are. And that it doesn't help by shifting the blame or power to the substance over our own personal behavior and choices.
ETA: In no way do I think that this and this alone will completely solve the problem; but I do believe that a person who thinks more like statement #2 has a better chance of overcoming his/her issues - regardless of the method (that's not what's at debate here) - than person #1.
I don't know if I believe that 100%. One of the tenets of most 12 step programs is admitting you are powerless over the substance you are controlled by. You may not agree with that but its proven effective for substances that ARE chemically addictive so I fail to see how it would be ineffective for controlling non addictive substances.
Number 1 can either be a defeatist attitude justifying their lack of change or a eureka moment of self realization leading to great change.
Number 2 can either be just the mindset change they needed or the thought pattern that keeps them stuck where they are. (I just need to try harder and that will change everything!)Addiction is a state characterized by compulsive engagement in rewarding stimuli, despite adverse consequences.[7] It can be thought of as a disease or biological process leading to such behaviors.[1][8] The two properties that characterize all addictive stimuli are that they are reinforcing (i.e., they increase the likelihood that a person will seek repeated exposure to them) and intrinsically rewarding (i.e., something perceived as being positive or desirable).
Again...I agree, and specifically added my edit to try to emphasize that I'm not saying it's my thoughts are true 100% of the time and totally effective...
But in my experience, and in the experiences that have been shared with me by others both on this board and elsewhere, a common theme is often - in your own way - empowering yourself to make better choices. What those choices specifically are vary widely...but you have to give yourself permission to make those choices first. Otherwise you're putting the cart well in front of the horse.
Conversely - those who take a 'victim' mentality or try to shift the blame, very often struggle with making better choices. I believe that - even if merely subconsciously - using terms like "I'm addicted to...." can be a deterrant or way to avoid making those better choices.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »roblloyd89 wrote: »Hey, I am constantly loosing my fight against sugar. Choclote, dried fruits, sweets, cookies. Endless list that can't stop thinking about. How you fight sugar addiction? Is this anything to do with that that I don't eat much meat?
Everything you mentioned there is carbs, maybe you're addicted to carbs perhaps.
Oh, yes, lots of people just can't control themselves with carrots.
Bugs Bunny...for example0 -
Whether or not its "addictive" in the strictest chemical sense if someone wants to control their intake and is repeatedly unsuccessful whether it is cane sugar, skittles,popcorn, bacon lard, or whiskey then that person may have a 'problem' with said food.
Agree (although it's generally not the food, but the habits built up around the food, for whatever reason, usually taste preference). But the more important question is then what. For most people understanding the circumstances in which they feel out of control around food or are likely to overeat is an important part of addressing the problem. Simply saying "oh, I'm addicted" often distracts from the specifics that are helpful to focus on.Sometimes cutting back and moderation in all things works great for people adn thats awesome. But sometimes a person can benefit from eliminating those foods and setting up their environment with foods they don't have control issues with. Maybe some day that person is able to reintroduce said food (and thats great) and maybe they'll always need to keep at arms length.
I agree with this too, but frequently people don't have complete control over their environments. They impulse buy at the grocery store or order things they later think better of at a restaurant or -- like me -- have traditionally overeaten in a place other than home (back when I was gaining weight I'd almost never have so-called "junk" at home, but at various times I'd eat lots of it at work, where it was available). So I think there's something to be said for learning how to deal with it beyond "out of sight, out of mind," since that's not realistic for many. This doesn't mean that one must eat foods in moderation -- that's my preferred approach for things I really like (things I don't care about aren't worth the calories), but I believe there are a variety of approaches.
I also do think most or all people could eat foods they really loved in moderation if they wanted to, but I understand that it might be more difficult than not eating them for some, so not worth the trouble. What I think is a shame is that the addiction model is really popular right now, so a lot of people who overeat certain foods (often sweets, but also numerous other snack foods) assume it must be a choice between continuing to feel out of control and eating them to excess or never eating them again. They think the latter approach seems too hard so it discourages them, or it discourages them after they try quitting and fail spectacularly a few times. That's why I think sharing other specific strategies can be really helpful, such as the one I shared above, and the various things that other people have done.0 -
juggernaut1974 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »When you use the language of addiction you lose control and provide yourself with built in excuses
That is why terminology is important
Eating addiction is a behavioural issue where cognitive therapies can help
Food addiction however is a very much disputed term as food is not physically addictive
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763414002140Certain foods have rewarding and reinforcing properties; for example, high sugar-high fat combinations are rewarding for rodents and humans alike. From an evolutionary perspective, these rewarding properties increase motivation to seek out and obtain an adequate and nutritionally diverse energy supply. In our modern obesogenic environment, characterized by ready availability of highly palatable and energy-dense food, it seems that these rewarding properties of particular foods might overwhelm both cognitive restraint and homeostatic mechanisms, and lead to weight gain.
Whether or not its "addictive" in the strictest chemical sense if someone wants to control their intake and is repeatedly unsuccessful whether it is cane sugar, skittles,popcorn, bacon lard, or whiskey then that person may have a 'problem' with said food.
Video Games are not chemically addictive. If somebody was flunking class,ignoring social functions and obligations, and getting fired from work from playing too many video games and their friends tell them to only play after test days or to make sure all their studying was done first or to just IIFYT (If it fits your time). If they still find themselves playing too many video games over and over and doing poorly in school, I hope they tell them to ditch the XBox (PS4 is better anyways) at least for the time because they relate to the VG in an unhealthy way and are not in control of it.
Sometimes cutting back and moderation in all things works great for people adn thats awesome. But sometimes a person can benefit from eliminating those foods and setting up their environment with foods they don't have control issues with. Maybe some day that person is able to reintroduce said food (and thats great) and maybe they'll always need to keep at arms length .
I know you are primarily responding to claim of physical chemical addiction "just like cocaine" so I hope you know I'm not meaning to attack you if thats how it comes off its just frustrating to see the "LOL, who can't eat sugar in moderation you weak little person"
While I agree with everything you've said here, I think perhaps you've missed the point rabbit was making.
Actual physical addiction issues aside, many of us find the terminology we use in our own minds and descriptions to be powerful. If your video game flunkie is wanting to make changes, which thought is more empowering?
1. "I can't help myself, I'm ADDICTED to video games!"
2. "I REALLY LIKE video games, and have difficulty controlling my behavior with regards to them!"
It's a subtle difference, but to me, statement 1 puts all the power in the hands (metaphorically of course) of the video games. It's the fault of the video games; we are powerless over them. Statement 2 acknowledges that it's ME that's the issue, that I have the power to control my behavior (I'm just not choosing to do so presently).
I think we'd all agree there's a significant mental issue that we all in our own way have to overcome with regard to whatever our own personal "video games" are. And that it doesn't help by shifting the blame or power to the substance over our own personal behavior and choices.
ETA: In no way do I think that this and this alone will completely solve the problem; but I do believe that a person who thinks more like statement #2 has a better chance of overcoming his/her issues - regardless of the method (that's not what's at debate here) - than person #1.
I don't know if I believe that 100%. One of the tenets of most 12 step programs is admitting you are powerless over the substance you are controlled by. You may not agree with that but its proven effective for substances that ARE chemically addictive so I fail to see how it would be ineffective for controlling non addictive substances.
Number 1 can either be a defeatist attitude justifying their lack of change or a eureka moment of self realization leading to great change.
Number 2 can either be just the mindset change they needed or the thought pattern that keeps them stuck where they are. (I just need to try harder and that will change everything!)Addiction is a state characterized by compulsive engagement in rewarding stimuli, despite adverse consequences.[7] It can be thought of as a disease or biological process leading to such behaviors.[1][8] The two properties that characterize all addictive stimuli are that they are reinforcing (i.e., they increase the likelihood that a person will seek repeated exposure to them) and intrinsically rewarding (i.e., something perceived as being positive or desirable).
Again...I agree, and specifically added my edit to try to emphasize that I'm not saying it's my thoughts are true 100% of the time and totally effective...
But in my experience, and in the experiences that have been shared with me by others both on this board and elsewhere, a common theme is often - in your own way - empowering yourself to make better choices. What those choices specifically are vary widely...but you have to give yourself permission to make those choices first. Otherwise you're putting the cart well in front of the horse.
I appreciated the ETA i just still disagreed with the assumption that number 2 would be more likely to succeed than number 1.
My only comment is that on this site is when people choose abstinance as their form of control and empowerment it is typically not met with support but with derision and arguements about the word "addiction"0 -
So interesting that people hold themselves out to be experts on addiction when they have no training or background in it. I suggest going to the NIH website and reading about addiction -- you might learn something, particularly the research on the neurophysiology of addiction. But the bottom line for me is I don't care what people call it -- I do better eating within my macros if I don't eat foods w/ added sugars and high sugar fruits, etc. Easier to stay on my macro plan and I feel better. I think a good way to approach it is what is suggested in alcoholics anonymous for alcohol -- try to control your alcohol intake for 30 days. If you can, great. If you can't maybe you should consider giving up alcohol.....letting go of it. Now just substitute "added sugars" (or whatever). Some people on this thread do fine and can control the volume of added sugar foods that they eat. Great -- so go for it. I have huge amounts of willpower -- I lift weights and run, work, have a difficult job, etc. but it is simply easier for me and I feel better if I don't eat foods w/ added sugars.0
-
My only comment is that on this site is when people choose abstinance as their form of control and empowerment it is typically not met with support but with derision and arguements about the word "addiction"
I see a lot of 'abstinence' proponents say that, but I just don't see it all that frequently.
I see a lot of people countering the frequent claim that 'abstinence' is the required or preferred method, which is not the same as deriding abstinence as a choice on its merits.
I would say the same if someone claimed that moderation (or any single alternative) was the only or preferred method.0 -
So interesting that people hold themselves out to be experts on addiction when they have no training or background in it. I suggest going to the NIH website and reading about addiction -- you might learn something, particularly the research on the neurophysiology of addiction. But the bottom line for me is I don't care what people call it -- I do better eating within my macros if I don't eat foods w/ added sugars and high sugar fruits, etc. Easier to stay on my macro plan and I feel better. I think a good way to approach it is what is suggested in alcoholics anonymous for alcohol -- try to control your alcohol intake for 30 days. If you can, great. If you can't maybe you should consider giving up alcohol.....letting go of it. Now just substitute "added sugars" (or whatever). Some people on this thread do fine and can control the volume of added sugar foods that they eat. Great -- so go for it. I have huge amounts of willpower -- I lift weights and run, work, have a difficult job, etc. but it is simply easier for me and I feel better if I don't eat foods w/ added sugars.
Oh yeah!!!!!!!!0 -
juggernaut1974 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »When you use the language of addiction you lose control and provide yourself with built in excuses
That is why terminology is important
Eating addiction is a behavioural issue where cognitive therapies can help
Food addiction however is a very much disputed term as food is not physically addictive
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763414002140Certain foods have rewarding and reinforcing properties; for example, high sugar-high fat combinations are rewarding for rodents and humans alike. From an evolutionary perspective, these rewarding properties increase motivation to seek out and obtain an adequate and nutritionally diverse energy supply. In our modern obesogenic environment, characterized by ready availability of highly palatable and energy-dense food, it seems that these rewarding properties of particular foods might overwhelm both cognitive restraint and homeostatic mechanisms, and lead to weight gain.
Whether or not its "addictive" in the strictest chemical sense if someone wants to control their intake and is repeatedly unsuccessful whether it is cane sugar, skittles,popcorn, bacon lard, or whiskey then that person may have a 'problem' with said food.
Video Games are not chemically addictive. If somebody was flunking class,ignoring social functions and obligations, and getting fired from work from playing too many video games and their friends tell them to only play after test days or to make sure all their studying was done first or to just IIFYT (If it fits your time). If they still find themselves playing too many video games over and over and doing poorly in school, I hope they tell them to ditch the XBox (PS4 is better anyways) at least for the time because they relate to the VG in an unhealthy way and are not in control of it.
Sometimes cutting back and moderation in all things works great for people adn thats awesome. But sometimes a person can benefit from eliminating those foods and setting up their environment with foods they don't have control issues with. Maybe some day that person is able to reintroduce said food (and thats great) and maybe they'll always need to keep at arms length .
I know you are primarily responding to claim of physical chemical addiction "just like cocaine" so I hope you know I'm not meaning to attack you if thats how it comes off its just frustrating to see the "LOL, who can't eat sugar in moderation you weak little person"
While I agree with everything you've said here, I think perhaps you've missed the point rabbit was making.
Actual physical addiction issues aside, many of us find the terminology we use in our own minds and descriptions to be powerful. If your video game flunkie is wanting to make changes, which thought is more empowering?
1. "I can't help myself, I'm ADDICTED to video games!"
2. "I REALLY LIKE video games, and have difficulty controlling my behavior with regards to them!"
It's a subtle difference, but to me, statement 1 puts all the power in the hands (metaphorically of course) of the video games. It's the fault of the video games; we are powerless over them. Statement 2 acknowledges that it's ME that's the issue, that I have the power to control my behavior (I'm just not choosing to do so presently).
I think we'd all agree there's a significant mental issue that we all in our own way have to overcome with regard to whatever our own personal "video games" are. And that it doesn't help by shifting the blame or power to the substance over our own personal behavior and choices.
ETA: In no way do I think that this and this alone will completely solve the problem; but I do believe that a person who thinks more like statement #2 has a better chance of overcoming his/her issues - regardless of the method (that's not what's at debate here) - than person #1.
I don't know if I believe that 100%. One of the tenets of most 12 step programs is admitting you are powerless over the substance you are controlled by. You may not agree with that but its proven effective for substances that ARE chemically addictive so I fail to see how it would be ineffective for controlling non addictive substances.
Number 1 can either be a defeatist attitude justifying their lack of change or a eureka moment of self realization leading to great change.
Number 2 can either be just the mindset change they needed or the thought pattern that keeps them stuck where they are. (I just need to try harder and that will change everything!)Addiction is a state characterized by compulsive engagement in rewarding stimuli, despite adverse consequences.[7] It can be thought of as a disease or biological process leading to such behaviors.[1][8] The two properties that characterize all addictive stimuli are that they are reinforcing (i.e., they increase the likelihood that a person will seek repeated exposure to them) and intrinsically rewarding (i.e., something perceived as being positive or desirable).
Again...I agree, and specifically added my edit to try to emphasize that I'm not saying it's my thoughts are true 100% of the time and totally effective...
But in my experience, and in the experiences that have been shared with me by others both on this board and elsewhere, a common theme is often - in your own way - empowering yourself to make better choices. What those choices specifically are vary widely...but you have to give yourself permission to make those choices first. Otherwise you're putting the cart well in front of the horse.
I appreciated the ETA i just still disagreed with the assumption that number 2 would be more likely to succeed than number 1.
My only comment is that on this site is when people choose abstinance as their form of control and empowerment it is typically not met with support but with derision and arguements about the word "addiction"
No, I fundamentally disagree with that
When people choose abstinence that implies that they have the full information to hand in order to make a choice
The issue we see on here, over and over, is the fundamental belief that this HAS to be done...that carbs have to be cut or sugar eliminated or any other belief created by mass media, celebs and sell-outs to make a buck or a name for themselves
That's the only reason people like me come on these thread in the vain hope that people who just BELIEVE that's the only way realise there is choice
They can choose to be in control, moderation, calorie control, or elimination ..choice comes from knowledge
And I agree with @blankiefinderblankiefinder wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »When you use the language of addiction you lose control and provide yourself with built in excuses
That is why terminology is important
Eating addiction is a behavioural issue where cognitive therapies can help
Food addiction however is a very much disputed term as food is not physically addictive
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763414002140Certain foods have rewarding and reinforcing properties; for example, high sugar-high fat combinations are rewarding for rodents and humans alike. From an evolutionary perspective, these rewarding properties increase motivation to seek out and obtain an adequate and nutritionally diverse energy supply. In our modern obesogenic environment, characterized by ready availability of highly palatable and energy-dense food, it seems that these rewarding properties of particular foods might overwhelm both cognitive restraint and homeostatic mechanisms, and lead to weight gain.
Whether or not its "addictive" in the strictest chemical sense if someone wants to control their intake and is repeatedly unsuccessful whether it is cane sugar, skittles,popcorn, bacon lard, or whiskey then that person may have a 'problem' with said food.
Video Games are not chemically addictive. If somebody was flunking class,ignoring social functions and obligations, and getting fired from work from playing too many video games and their friends tell them to only play after test days or to make sure all their studying was done first or to just IIFYT (If it fits your time). If they still find themselves playing too many video games over and over and doing poorly in school, I hope they tell them to ditch the XBox (PS4 is better anyways) at least for the time because they relate to the VG in an unhealthy way and are not in control of it.
Sometimes cutting back and moderation in all things works great for people adn thats awesome. But sometimes a person can benefit from eliminating those foods and setting up their environment with foods they don't have control issues with. Maybe some day that person is able to reintroduce said food (and thats great) and maybe they'll always need to keep at arms length .
I know you are primarily responding to claim of physical chemical addiction "just like cocaine" so I hope you know I'm not meaning to attack you if thats how it comes off its just frustrating to see the "LOL, who can't eat sugar in moderation you weak little person"
While I agree with everything you've said here, I think perhaps you've missed the point rabbit was making.
Actual physical addiction issues aside, many of us find the terminology we use in our own minds and descriptions to be powerful. If your video game flunkie is wanting to make changes, which thought is more empowering?
1. "I can't help myself, I'm ADDICTED to video games!"
2. "I REALLY LIKE video games, and have difficulty controlling my behavior with regards to them!"
It's a subtle difference, but to me, statement 1 puts all the power in the hands (metaphorically of course) of the video games. It's the fault of the video games; we are powerless over them. Statement 2 acknowledges that it's ME that's the issue, that I have the power to control my behavior (I'm just not choosing to do so presently).
I think we'd all agree there's a significant mental issue that we all in our own way have to overcome with regard to whatever our own personal "video games" are. And that it doesn't help by shifting the blame or power to the substance over our own personal behavior and choices.
ETA: In no way do I think that this and this alone will completely solve the problem; but I do believe that a person who thinks more like statement #2 has a better chance of overcoming his/her issues - regardless of the method (that's not what's at debate here) - than person #1.
I absolutely agree that the internal message we tell ourselves greatly affects the outcome. If you believe that you are in control, you are. If you believe you are the victim of an addiction, and that it controls you, then it has the control.
I can safely say that I alone am responsible for whether I gain, maintain, or lose weight. I decide what I eat, my food doesn't decide for me.
0 -
juggernaut1974 wrote: »
My only comment is that on this site is when people choose abstinance as their form of control and empowerment it is typically not met with support but with derision and arguements about the word "addiction"
I see a lot of 'abstinence' proponents say that, but I just don't see it all that frequently.
I see a lot of people countering the frequent claim that 'abstinence' is the required or preferred method, which is not the same as deriding abstinence as a choice on its merits.
I would say the same if someone claimed that moderation (or any single alternative) was the only or preferred method.
"Isn't cocaine white? I'm confused..."
"I eat chocolate and sweets everyday. Didn't hinder my weight loss and it doesn't hinder my maintenance. Don't fight it, make it work for you. Watch your portion of them, yes, but no need to completely eliminate anything."
"I fight my sugar addiction the same way I fight unicorns."
"i eat whatever i want and have lost 75+ pounds.
i have chocolate pretty much on a daily basis"
"So brown sugar and honey is ok
Got it"
"Hello with that. I'd rather die young than give up my sweet sweet coffee. And the best part is that I won't anyway because there isn't actually anything wrong with sugar:)"
All in response to this thread.0 -
juggernaut1974 wrote: »
My only comment is that on this site is when people choose abstinance as their form of control and empowerment it is typically not met with support but with derision and arguements about the word "addiction"
I see a lot of 'abstinence' proponents say that, but I just don't see it all that frequently.
I see a lot of people countering the frequent claim that 'abstinence' is the required or preferred method, which is not the same as deriding abstinence as a choice on its merits.
I would say the same if someone claimed that moderation (or any single alternative) was the only or preferred method.
"Isn't cocaine white? I'm confused..."
"I eat chocolate and sweets everyday. Didn't hinder my weight loss and it doesn't hinder my maintenance. Don't fight it, make it work for you. Watch your portion of them, yes, but no need to completely eliminate anything."
"I fight my sugar addiction the same way I fight unicorns."
"i eat whatever i want and have lost 75+ pounds.
i have chocolate pretty much on a daily basis"
"So brown sugar and honey is ok
Got it"
"Hello with that. I'd rather die young than give up my sweet sweet coffee. And the best part is that I won't anyway because there isn't actually anything wrong with sugar:)"
All in response to this thread.
All pointing out another path0 -
-
juggernaut1974 wrote: »
My only comment is that on this site is when people choose abstinance as their form of control and empowerment it is typically not met with support but with derision and arguements about the word "addiction"
I see a lot of 'abstinence' proponents say that, but I just don't see it all that frequently.
I see a lot of people countering the frequent claim that 'abstinence' is the required or preferred method, which is not the same as deriding abstinence as a choice on its merits.
I would say the same if someone claimed that moderation (or any single alternative) was the only or preferred method.
"Isn't cocaine white? I'm confused..."
"I eat chocolate and sweets everyday. Didn't hinder my weight loss and it doesn't hinder my maintenance. Don't fight it, make it work for you. Watch your portion of them, yes, but no need to completely eliminate anything."
"I fight my sugar addiction the same way I fight unicorns."
"i eat whatever i want and have lost 75+ pounds.
i have chocolate pretty much on a daily basis"
"So brown sugar and honey is ok
Got it"
"Hello with that. I'd rather die young than give up my sweet sweet coffee. And the best part is that I won't anyway because there isn't actually anything wrong with sugar:)"
All in response to this thread.
Just want to clarify that the first quote here, "Isn't Cocaine White? I'm Confused" was mine and it was in response to the OP's original thread title - White Cocaine. It was tongue in cheek, but as I mentioned in my second post to the OP, I don't believe sugar as a substance is addictive, or bad, but I recognize that some people have difficulty moderating it and offered some suggestions about increasing protein/fats if she feels hungry, and the concept of temporary elimination in order to later decide if one can reintroduce it.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions