Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Arguing Semantics - sugar addiction
senecarr
Posts: 5,377 Member
in Debate Club
To begin with, I'm a bit dismayed that several of the people who have dismissed sugar addiction arguments as semantics are people who have knowledge or links to psychology. If you think semantics is unimportant and reason to dismiss something, I feel you're frankly doing a real poor job understanding psychology as one of the last big shifts in psychology was the development of cognitive therapy and the cognitive approach. In some ways, cognitive therapy is entirely about semantics - how you label the same behavior is important and matters. How you label it mentally, according to cognitive psychology, does change outcomes. Which I think, even without a cognitive psychology approach, many people on MFP are staunchly against letting people label themselves as sugar addicts - the practical experience and learning that achieving long term weight loss is about a relation with food, and how we view it, ourselves, and our connection to it. Labeling oneself an addict absolutely precludes the possibility of having a healthy relationship with a category of food.
What's more, I do, absolutely, 100% deny that it is a semantics argument when at least once per thread about sugar addiction someone says sugar addiction is real, and that the same areas of the brain light up in reaction to sugar that they do for heroin (which I doubly dislike as an example of compounded bad science because the drug comparison is cocaine - heroin acts on opoid receptors while food and cocaine both do work with dopamine and serotonin). There is almost irony in that some of these people who make that claim want to ride two horses going in opposite directions because they'll also be the ones to say it is an unhelpful semantics argument.
What's more, I do, absolutely, 100% deny that it is a semantics argument when at least once per thread about sugar addiction someone says sugar addiction is real, and that the same areas of the brain light up in reaction to sugar that they do for heroin (which I doubly dislike as an example of compounded bad science because the drug comparison is cocaine - heroin acts on opoid receptors while food and cocaine both do work with dopamine and serotonin). There is almost irony in that some of these people who make that claim want to ride two horses going in opposite directions because they'll also be the ones to say it is an unhelpful semantics argument.
0
Replies
-
This content has been removed.
-
I love this @senecarr0
-
But, gosh guys... how can you be so mean?
0 -
In.0
-
jofjltncb6 wrote: »In.BecomingBane wrote: »But, gosh guys... how can you be so mean?
I'm thinking two people might have noticed patterns to MFP.
Despite all odds, I'm hoping and because it is in the debate area even believing this won't become a dumpster fire.0 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »In.
+10 -
senecarr
0 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »In.BecomingBane wrote: »But, gosh guys... how can you be so mean?
I'm thinking two people might have noticed patterns to MFP.
Despite all odds, I'm hoping and because it is in the debate area even believing this won't become a dumpster fire.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to belittle your thread. I think this post is well though out, insightful and true. I have since had three discussions regarding it, one of which was a friend who is also a CBT therapist.
I think there is value in what you say and what you think. I also think that because all of those things being true, this thread will rapidly fall down the boards which will lessen the likelihood of it's being seen and actually discussed.
My comment was meant jokingly, sure, but all intents were merely to bump the thread.0 -
cosigning and in …..0
-
-
@senecarr another great thread !!0
-
Be keeping it alive!0
-
BecomingBane wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »In.BecomingBane wrote: »But, gosh guys... how can you be so mean?
I'm thinking two people might have noticed patterns to MFP.
Despite all odds, I'm hoping and because it is in the debate area even believing this won't become a dumpster fire.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to belittle your thread. I think this post is well though out, insightful and true. I have since had three discussions regarding it, one of which was a friend who is also a CBT therapist.
I think there is value in what you say and what you think. I also think that because all of those things being true, this thread will rapidly fall down the boards which will lessen the likelihood of it's being seen and actually discussed.
My comment was meant jokingly, sure, but all intents were merely to bump the thread.
0 -
what is semantics exactly?0
-
-
queenliz99 wrote: »what is semantics exactly?
Semantics is the theory of the meaning of word parts, words, sentences or texts.
If someone says you're arguing semantics, they mean to tell you that you're just arguing about the word they're using, and not the thing itself.0 -
It drives me fricking coocoo when people pull the "food is addiction" line
Behavioural therapy for eating disorders <> therapy for drug / alcohol addiction
It ties in with the modern movement (eg last 2 decades) to victimisation and finding something external to blame. With an approach that asks people to "Disney-fy" the world rather than help.
These "it's not my fault", "it's out of my control", "it's a physical addiction" don't help people change
You know what I think helps people change, taking responsibility, committing, re-committing when you feck up and just stopping blaming society, big pharma, big food, your mother, your boyfriend, your dog and your genetics
0 -
I don't even bother clicking on those threads any more since they usually end up being a 10 page peeing contest with people equating heroin and sugar or whatever food or activity they won't assume responsiblilty for overdoing.
I'd imagine this thread is due to the following image, notice the highlighted part which in effect means "(insert evil food here) addicts" should be mollycoddled in this particular forum but if they want the truth they can look elsewhere. It also mentions simply refrain from posting which I already have decided on after this post as well as unfollowing this forum but I wonder how many people are going to miss out on helpful information simply because a lot of MFP posters won't walk on eggshells to tell an "addict" what they want hear, using the terminology they want used.
And what do have on the home page of this forum, two threads below this topic? Sugar addiction with 69 replies.
0 -
It drives me fricking coocoo when people pull the "food is addiction" line
Behavioural therapy for eating disorders <> therapy for drug / alcohol addiction
It ties in with the modern movement (eg last 2 decades) to victimisation and finding something external to blame. With an approach that asks people to "Disney-fy" the world rather than help.
These "it's not my fault", "it's out of my control", "it's a physical addiction" don't help people change
You know what I think helps people change, taking responsibility, committing, re-committing when you feck up and just stopping blaming society, big pharma, big food, your mother, your boyfriend, your dog and your genetics
Precisely.
But for as long as people aren't prepared to face the fact that it's their own gluttony that put them where they are, nothing will change for them because they're simply not ready for change.
I can say this as someone who tried to blame most of the above for the reason I found myself close to a hundred pounds overweight a year ago. Yes, there were (and still are) some mitigating medical factors involved but the biggest factor in my weight gain was my increasing inability to shut my freaking pie hole.
Was I physically addicted to excess food or sugar? Of course not. I just really, really, really, really liked them.
So it was time to put on my big girl panties (literally *and* figuratively!) and get the job done.
0 -
I'm no expert--so bear with me, but I notice so many people coming on MFP and spouting all the catch phrases and terminology that they don't understand indepth. They get so butthurt when someone asks them to defend said phrases. The general public is being brainwashed into believing certain "truths". It takes awhile to understand weightloss and what really happens to our bodies. As more and more people-newbies- sign on, and more and more "old timers" leave, there're bound to be problems with education. I applaude you for taking on the terminology. It's basic to all our education.0
-
To begin with, I'm a bit dismayed that several of the people who have dismissed sugar addiction arguments as semantics are people who have knowledge or links to psychology. If you think semantics is unimportant and reason to dismiss something, I feel you're frankly doing a real poor job understanding psychology as one of the last big shifts in psychology was the development of cognitive therapy and the cognitive approach. In some ways, cognitive therapy is entirely about semantics - how you label the same behavior is important and matters. How you label it mentally, according to cognitive psychology, does change outcomes. Which I think, even without a cognitive psychology approach, many people on MFP are staunchly against letting people label themselves as sugar addicts - the practical experience and learning that achieving long term weight loss is about a relation with food, and how we view it, ourselves, and our connection to it. Labeling oneself an addict absolutely precludes the possibility of having a healthy relationship with a category of food.
What's more, I do, absolutely, 100% deny that it is a semantics argument when at least once per thread about sugar addiction someone says sugar addiction is real, and that the same areas of the brain light up in reaction to sugar that they do for heroin (which I doubly dislike as an example of compounded bad science because the drug comparison is cocaine - heroin acts on opoid receptors while food and cocaine both do work with dopamine and serotonin). There is almost irony in that some of these people who make that claim want to ride two horses going in opposite directions because they'll also be the ones to say it is an unhelpful semantics argument.
I absolutely wanna make out with this post, I love it so much.
I don't think it's an issue of semantics at all. I think what we call something and what we believe about it...absolutely is important. I also don't think sharing science and truth and knowledge is just an issue of semantics.
I'll go further. I once used to believe that food was addictive. I believed that I was a food addict. I would have argued tooth and nail with someone who told me that I was wrong and that food was not an addictive substance. I even continued to believe as I began working within the field of addiction.
However, it didn't change the fact that I was wrong. I had a dysfunctional relationship with food. It affected my life in a variety of ways. The kicker for me...is that when the idea of food addiction was challenged...and I was able to stop just arguing the point as a way of self preservation and denial, I was able to research and learn. I was able to see that it wasn't the substance that is addictive, but it is my thoughts and behaviors which are linked with food that are the issue. It was a behavioral and cognitive issue...not an addiction issue.
So, is that just semantics? For me, absolutely not. When I believed I was a food addict, I followed in the line of the addictive theories and treatments. I truly believed that I needed to have abstinence in relation to those trigger foods. I felt that I had no control when it came to eating those foods. When I was able to see it was a cognitive issue....the intervention was different. I was able to do some really specific cognitive behavioral interventions...and that I no longer had to live a life of abstinence when it came to those trigger foods. My life is fundamentally better because I am now more enlightened and educated when it comes to problem eating.
I am not a food addict because food addiction does not exist. It just doesn't meet the criteria. For me, that is not just flippantly discussed as semantics either. Education is power...not semantics, IMO.
Great posts!0 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »It drives me fricking coocoo when people pull the "food is addiction" line
Behavioural therapy for eating disorders <> therapy for drug / alcohol addiction
It ties in with the modern movement (eg last 2 decades) to victimisation and finding something external to blame. With an approach that asks people to "Disney-fy" the world rather than help.
These "it's not my fault", "it's out of my control", "it's a physical addiction" don't help people change
You know what I think helps people change, taking responsibility, committing, re-committing when you feck up and just stopping blaming society, big pharma, big food, your mother, your boyfriend, your dog and your genetics
Precisely.
But for as long as people aren't prepared to face the fact that it's their own gluttony that put them where they are, nothing will change for them because they're simply not ready for change.
I can say this as someone who tried to blame most of the above for the reason I found myself close to a hundred pounds overweight a year ago. Yes, there were (and still are) some mitigating medical factors involved but the biggest factor in my weight gain was my increasing inability to shut my freaking pie hole.
Was I physically addicted to excess food or sugar? Of course not. I just really, really, really, really liked them.
So it was time to put on my big girl panties (literally *and* figuratively!) and get the job done.
Yes, to both of you.
I do think there seems to be a stigma or perceived stigma to some (especially women) to having a big appetite or liking food which I also think is related to the "being bad" terminology and, especially, the numerous posts about people who never ate much or got fat because they ate too little or who now cannot eat 1200 (not feel satisfied at less so wonder if they should really eat more, not those who have medical issues, but those who say they simply cannot force themselves to eat that much).
I think because of this stigma it is (weird as it seems to me) easier to say "oh, it wasn't that I wanted to eat, but I was addicted."
I also do think another part of it is irresponsible diet gurus convincing people that their love for high cal foods (maybe cookies, maybe pizza) is somehow abnormal (as supposedly normal humans would crave only high nutrient foods, despite the fact that the main concern through human history has been getting enough calories) and thus should be fixed -- thus all the talk about rebooting and detox and the like.
All of this absolutely affects how we think about things, and how we think about things is absolutely important to one's ability to succeed. When I started thinking of weight loss as just a mathematical process (and yes, there is more to it, but the fundamental issue of CICO) it took it from a mysterious process that I didn't believe would work for me to something that seemed understandable and within my control. Similarly, thinking rationally about foods and what they contribute and don't, how many calories they have, etc., has really helped avoid all the "I messed up, might as well go off the diet for the next few days until I can give up whatever-it-is!" reactions that had interfered with success in the past.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »what is semantics exactly?
Semantics is the theory of the meaning of word parts, words, sentences or texts.
If someone says you're arguing semantics, they mean to tell you that you're just arguing about the word they're using, and not the thing itself.
+1 Good description of "semantics". Yes, semantics is the linguistic study of meaning.
and yes "arguing semantics" usually means arguing about what the words mean without actually discussing the issue.
The oft repeated example: mom says "is your homework done?" and the kid starts arguing about what "done" means, rather than answering the question.1 -
Bump
0 -
snowflake954 wrote: »I'm no expert--so bear with me, but I notice so many people coming on MFP and spouting all the catch phrases and terminology that they don't understand indepth. They get so butthurt when someone asks them to defend said phrases. The general public is being brainwashed into believing certain "truths". It takes awhile to understand weightloss and what really happens to our bodies. As more and more people-newbies- sign on, and more and more "old timers" leave, there're bound to be problems with education. I applaude you for taking on the terminology. It's basic to all our education.
I agree and really like the way you put this thought down.
Accusations of "arguing semantics" (IMO) in this case is an intellectually weak attempt by those who simply need to argue instead of facing the unpleasant truth that it's NOT the "sugar" (or insert whatever food they're addicted to) that's at fault for their overconsumption, but their own personal choices.
Now that's not to say there aren't people who truly have issues like BED or other compulsion control issues or an attempt to belittle their legitimate issues. But in these cases, MFP isn't going to solve their problems...they will require professional intervention.0 -
So in.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
To begin with, I'm a bit dismayed that several of the people who have dismissed sugar addiction arguments as semantics are people who have knowledge or links to psychology. If you think semantics is unimportant and reason to dismiss something, I feel you're frankly doing a real poor job understanding psychology as one of the last big shifts in psychology was the development of cognitive therapy and the cognitive approach. In some ways, cognitive therapy is entirely about semantics - how you label the same behavior is important and matters. How you label it mentally, according to cognitive psychology, does change outcomes. Which I think, even without a cognitive psychology approach, many people on MFP are staunchly against letting people label themselves as sugar addicts - the practical experience and learning that achieving long term weight loss is about a relation with food, and how we view it, ourselves, and our connection to it. Labeling oneself an addict absolutely precludes the possibility of having a healthy relationship with a category of food.
What's more, I do, absolutely, 100% deny that it is a semantics argument when at least once per thread about sugar addiction someone says sugar addiction is real, and that the same areas of the brain light up in reaction to sugar that they do for heroin (which I doubly dislike as an example of compounded bad science because the drug comparison is cocaine - heroin acts on opoid receptors while food and cocaine both do work with dopamine and serotonin). There is almost irony in that some of these people who make that claim want to ride two horses going in opposite directions because they'll also be the ones to say it is an unhelpful semantics argument.
I absolutely wanna make out with this post, I love it so much.
I don't think it's an issue of semantics at all. I think what we call something and what we believe about it...absolutely is important. I also don't think sharing science and truth and knowledge is just an issue of semantics.
I'll go further. I once used to believe that food was addictive. I believed that I was a food addict. I would have argued tooth and nail with someone who told me that I was wrong and that food was not an addictive substance. I even continued to believe as I began working within the field of addiction.
However, it didn't change the fact that I was wrong. I had a dysfunctional relationship with food. It affected my life in a variety of ways. The kicker for me...is that when the idea of food addiction was challenged...and I was able to stop just arguing the point as a way of self preservation and denial, I was able to research and learn. I was able to see that it wasn't the substance that is addictive, but it is my thoughts and behaviors which are linked with food that are the issue. It was a behavioral and cognitive issue...not an addiction issue.
So, is that just semantics? For me, absolutely not. When I believed I was a food addict, I followed in the line of the addictive theories and treatments. I truly believed that I needed to have abstinence in relation to those trigger foods. I felt that I had no control when it came to eating those foods. When I was able to see it was a cognitive issue....the intervention was different. I was able to do some really specific cognitive behavioral interventions...and that I no longer had to live a life of abstinence when it came to those trigger foods. My life is fundamentally better because I am now more enlightened and educated when it comes to problem eating.
I am not a food addict because food addiction does not exist. It just doesn't meet the criteria. For me, that is not just flippantly discussed as semantics either. Education is power...not semantics, IMO.
I love what's happening in these posts. Words have power. They have the power to change how we think. They have the power to make us laugh, make us cry, and even make us fall in love. I would bet there's even a dopamine response to certain words -- one could argue we're addicted to words.
If someone wants to argue that this is just a semantics debate that doesn't matter, then I would posit that they're arguing just to argue. If it doesn't matter if someone calls it sugar addiction then it also doesn't matter if some suggests it's not an addiction. No one goes around in such circles as the sugar addiction debates here if it doesn't matter.0 -
The introduction to the Nutrition Debate subforum is frightening if one believes in presenting fact to counter those who mangle the language in order to excuse their actions. The reference to the guidelines is that thinly veiled threat of impending warnings for countering the common claim of "sugar addiction". Feelings and beliefs now trump logic and science.
When words have no meaning they lose their value.0 -
It is really interesting to me that this thread in particular seems to only contain agreement so far that semantics do matter and the definition of addiction and how it is applied here in these forums is important to continue to keep alive even in the general forums. This section is for debate, so where are the people who say semantics don't matter and discussion of word meaning and application are unhelpful?
I mentioned in the Forum Feedback thread that one of my concerns is that the new section will just turn into a failed experiment of "see we told you it wouldn't work" when people either still try to discuss alternative view points in main forums and potentially get warned or everything redirected over here fizzles out when there isn't actual active debate...0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »It is really interesting to me that this thread in particular seems to only contain agreement so far that semantics do matter and the definition of addiction and how it is applied here in these forums is important to continue to keep alive even in the general forums. This section is for debate, so where are the people who say semantics don't matter and discussion of word meaning and application are unhelpful?
I mentioned in the Forum Feedback thread that one of my concerns is that the new section will just turn into a failed experiment of "see we told you it wouldn't work" when people either still try to discuss alternative view points in main forums and potentially get warned or everything redirected over here fizzles out when there isn't actual active debate...
That does appear to be nature of the design of this particular add-on...alongside being a dumping ground for opinions and facts not "on message" of course
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions