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
Options
Replies
-
As has been stated already, the idea behind eating addiction seems to have merit for some posters and would be considered in the same vein as gambling or sex addiction.
The debate is whether or not you can be physically addicted to any one food item, with the science out there so far pointing to no.
Technical, the OP only spoke about addiction. Most inferred it was physical addiction. And while there has been mention of behavioral and chemical addiction, we haven't addressed those that much. So the question comes down, is there a different type of addiction related to food?
I was responding directly to:
However, you and I are discussing this on a forum that is intended to argue addiction, so while we have trouble with controlling these types of food we must accept that many posters on here would classify that as a fault in character or preference of tastes or food items rather than anything that is an addiction because one cannot be addicted to food.
As I said, some posters seem to think that there are some merits towards the idea of eating addiction. Both of the posters in this particular quote-thread were implying that sugar is physically addictive, and this post seemed to imply that we were being dismissive.
So, I stand by what I said. Some posters, including myself, seem to agree that the idea of eating addiction has merit, but the science is currently pointing to "no" as far as it being physically addictive.
0 -
BecomingBane wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »As has been stated already, the idea behind eating addiction seems to have merit for some posters and would be considered in the same vein as gambling or sex addiction.
The debate is whether or not you can be physically addicted to any one food item, with the science out there so far pointing to no.
Technical, the OP only spoke about addiction. Most inferred it was physical addiction. And while there has been mention of behavioral and chemical addiction, we haven't addressed those that much. So the question comes down, is there a different type of addiction related to food?
The problem is that much of the argument in that thread was driven by someone other than the OP jumping in and asserting that sugar is just like heroin (or something similar). I am happy to let the OP use colorful language or "addiction" casually, although I might note that I don't think it's really an addiction, of course, and IMO there are more helpful ways of thinking of it before giving my advice/what I did.
This is the point I was trying to make. It's usually NOT the OP who ends up sparking the inevitable debate but other well-meaning posters who jump in, and frequently citing only 'dem feelz' and ignoring the previously posted science to the contrary.
The quandry, then - how do we, with truly good intentions, continue to correct the subsequent misinformation posted (when often, these subsequent posters continue to debate against the science and info provided), yet not lose sight of the poor OP's questions(s), AND (perhaps most importantly) not get 'in trouble' and labelled 'troublemakers' for derailing the thread? As it stands, it seems an impossible task to do all of these.
I think this is one of the most insightful questions that has been asked here. How do we strike that balance when the more vocal opposition seems to be shouting down evidence based answers in favor of their anecdotal situations?
And who never get called on it. That's my biggest problem with all of this. It is decidedly unbalanced.0 -
BecomingBane wrote: »How do we strike that balance when the more vocal opposition seems to be shouting down evidence based answers in favor of their anecdotal situations?
Why should it be the duty of one set of posters to strike a balance when another set of posters are not doing so? That is not equality of treatment but rather one group holding a privileged status.
If there is a groups of posters vocally seeking to elevate faith based claims above evidence based claims then the other group should be allowed to tell them openly they are talking nonsense.
Some of you people are way too nice...
0 -
BecomingBane wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »As has been stated already, the idea behind eating addiction seems to have merit for some posters and would be considered in the same vein as gambling or sex addiction.
The debate is whether or not you can be physically addicted to any one food item, with the science out there so far pointing to no.
Technical, the OP only spoke about addiction. Most inferred it was physical addiction. And while there has been mention of behavioral and chemical addiction, we haven't addressed those that much. So the question comes down, is there a different type of addiction related to food?
The problem is that much of the argument in that thread was driven by someone other than the OP jumping in and asserting that sugar is just like heroin (or something similar). I am happy to let the OP use colorful language or "addiction" casually, although I might note that I don't think it's really an addiction, of course, and IMO there are more helpful ways of thinking of it before giving my advice/what I did.
This is the point I was trying to make. It's usually NOT the OP who ends up sparking the inevitable debate but other well-meaning posters who jump in, and frequently citing only 'dem feelz' and ignoring the previously posted science to the contrary.
The quandry, then - how do we, with truly good intentions, continue to correct the subsequent misinformation posted (when often, these subsequent posters continue to debate against the science and info provided), yet not lose sight of the poor OP's questions(s), AND (perhaps most importantly) not get 'in trouble' and labelled 'troublemakers' for derailing the thread? As it stands, it seems an impossible task to do all of these.
I think this is one of the most insightful questions that has been asked here. How do we strike that balance when the more vocal opposition seems to be shouting down evidence based answers in favor of their anecdotal situations?
And who never get called on it. That's my biggest problem with all of this. It is decidedly unbalanced.
I have it on good authority that all moderator actions are unbiased and fair. Don't question otherwise.0 -
BecomingBane wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »As has been stated already, the idea behind eating addiction seems to have merit for some posters and would be considered in the same vein as gambling or sex addiction.
The debate is whether or not you can be physically addicted to any one food item, with the science out there so far pointing to no.
Technical, the OP only spoke about addiction. Most inferred it was physical addiction. And while there has been mention of behavioral and chemical addiction, we haven't addressed those that much. So the question comes down, is there a different type of addiction related to food?
The problem is that much of the argument in that thread was driven by someone other than the OP jumping in and asserting that sugar is just like heroin (or something similar). I am happy to let the OP use colorful language or "addiction" casually, although I might note that I don't think it's really an addiction, of course, and IMO there are more helpful ways of thinking of it before giving my advice/what I did.
This is the point I was trying to make. It's usually NOT the OP who ends up sparking the inevitable debate but other well-meaning posters who jump in, and frequently citing only 'dem feelz' and ignoring the previously posted science to the contrary.
The quandry, then - how do we, with truly good intentions, continue to correct the subsequent misinformation posted (when often, these subsequent posters continue to debate against the science and info provided), yet not lose sight of the poor OP's questions(s), AND (perhaps most importantly) not get 'in trouble' and labelled 'troublemakers' for derailing the thread? As it stands, it seems an impossible task to do all of these.
I think this is one of the most insightful questions that has been asked here. How do we strike that balance when the more vocal opposition seems to be shouting down evidence based answers in favor of their anecdotal situations?
Thank you for the compliment - it's a question I think many of us are currently struggling with.
For a perfect example - look to the "Sugar Addiction" thread just a couple posts down on this forum.
Granted - there's no OP in this case, but look at the most recent set of posts from a poster who demands that "Fed Up" and the massively flawed rat studies it cites be accepted as proof of sugar addiction. Had this post still remained in one of the non-debate forums, the thread would now be completely derailed, and the OP's question lost. Yet, it's important that that type of post not be left to stand uncorrected.0 -
BecomingBane wrote: »How do we strike that balance when the more vocal opposition seems to be shouting down evidence based answers in favor of their anecdotal situations?
Why should it be the duty of one set of posters to strike a balance when another set of posters are not doing so? That is not equality of treatment but rather one group holding a privileged status.
If there is a groups of posters vocally seeking to elevate faith based claims above evidence based claims then the other group should be allowed to tell them openly they are talking nonsense.
Some of you people are way too nice...BecomingBane wrote: »How do we strike that balance when the more vocal opposition seems to be shouting down evidence based answers in favor of their anecdotal situations?
Why should it be the duty of one set of posters to strike a balance when another set of posters are not doing so? That is not equality of treatment but rather one group holding a privileged status.
If there is a groups of posters vocally seeking to elevate faith based claims above evidence based claims then the other group should be allowed to tell them openly they are talking nonsense.
Some of you people are way too nice...
but how has that worked so far? when someone at the time really believes they are addicted at that time they truly believe they are addicted. to me this is no different from someone who believes they are logging accurately and doing everything they can to lose weight and cant see why they are not.0 -
Therealobi1 wrote: »BecomingBane wrote: »How do we strike that balance when the more vocal opposition seems to be shouting down evidence based answers in favor of their anecdotal situations?
Why should it be the duty of one set of posters to strike a balance when another set of posters are not doing so? That is not equality of treatment but rather one group holding a privileged status.
If there is a groups of posters vocally seeking to elevate faith based claims above evidence based claims then the other group should be allowed to tell them openly they are talking nonsense.
Some of you people are way too nice...BecomingBane wrote: »How do we strike that balance when the more vocal opposition seems to be shouting down evidence based answers in favor of their anecdotal situations?
Why should it be the duty of one set of posters to strike a balance when another set of posters are not doing so? That is not equality of treatment but rather one group holding a privileged status.
If there is a groups of posters vocally seeking to elevate faith based claims above evidence based claims then the other group should be allowed to tell them openly they are talking nonsense.
Some of you people are way too nice...
but how has that worked so far? when someone at the time really believes they are addicted at that time they truly believe they are addicted. to me this is no different from someone who believes they are logging accurately and doing everything they can to lose weight and cant see why they are not.
And then the only duty on the person seeking to counter the erroneous belief should be to convey accurate information in a manner they see fit but which does not slide into hate speech or so forth.
I have been participating in these forums for many years (this is not my first account) and the approach of infantilising posters, even new posters, and an excessive concern for feelings above evidence has more costs than benefits on a global level. There is not less misinformation and flawed beliefs these days, there is more.0 -
Therealobi1 wrote: »BecomingBane wrote: »How do we strike that balance when the more vocal opposition seems to be shouting down evidence based answers in favor of their anecdotal situations?
Why should it be the duty of one set of posters to strike a balance when another set of posters are not doing so? That is not equality of treatment but rather one group holding a privileged status.
If there is a groups of posters vocally seeking to elevate faith based claims above evidence based claims then the other group should be allowed to tell them openly they are talking nonsense.
Some of you people are way too nice...BecomingBane wrote: »How do we strike that balance when the more vocal opposition seems to be shouting down evidence based answers in favor of their anecdotal situations?
Why should it be the duty of one set of posters to strike a balance when another set of posters are not doing so? That is not equality of treatment but rather one group holding a privileged status.
If there is a groups of posters vocally seeking to elevate faith based claims above evidence based claims then the other group should be allowed to tell them openly they are talking nonsense.
Some of you people are way too nice...
but how has that worked so far? when someone at the time really believes they are addicted at that time they truly believe they are addicted. to me this is no different from someone who believes they are logging accurately and doing everything they can to lose weight and cant see why they are not.
And then the only duty one the person seeking to counter the erroneous belief should be to convey accurate information in a manner they see fit but which does not slide into hate speech or so forth.
I have been participating in these forums for many years (this is not my first account) and the approach of infantilising posters, even new posters, and an excessive concern for feelings above evidence has more costs than benefits on a global level. There is not less misinformation and flawed beliefs these days, there is more.
One needs only to peruse the "Recent Topics" list to see the evidence of this.0 -
Therealobi1 wrote: »BecomingBane wrote: »How do we strike that balance when the more vocal opposition seems to be shouting down evidence based answers in favor of their anecdotal situations?
Why should it be the duty of one set of posters to strike a balance when another set of posters are not doing so? That is not equality of treatment but rather one group holding a privileged status.
If there is a groups of posters vocally seeking to elevate faith based claims above evidence based claims then the other group should be allowed to tell them openly they are talking nonsense.
Some of you people are way too nice...BecomingBane wrote: »How do we strike that balance when the more vocal opposition seems to be shouting down evidence based answers in favor of their anecdotal situations?
Why should it be the duty of one set of posters to strike a balance when another set of posters are not doing so? That is not equality of treatment but rather one group holding a privileged status.
If there is a groups of posters vocally seeking to elevate faith based claims above evidence based claims then the other group should be allowed to tell them openly they are talking nonsense.
Some of you people are way too nice...
but how has that worked so far? when someone at the time really believes they are addicted at that time they truly believe they are addicted. to me this is no different from someone who believes they are logging accurately and doing everything they can to lose weight and cant see why they are not.
Well touchy feely support hasn't worked
It will continual to fail and reinforce failure
And there will continue to be "board legislation" against the kind of help that finally made me successful after decades of failure ....straightforward in your face you're wrong on that ....so I continue to put on my twisted, convoluted hat on and try to effect change anyway, despite the required modus operandi rather than because of it ..but I do it less and less...cos semantic twisting hurts my head
0 -
"your body becomes addicted to the sugar and doesn't recognize the other stuff as food" ... a post allowed to stand.
MFP is clearly taking a position that countering fallacy based positions is not acceptable while endorsing them is.
0 -
Therealobi1 wrote: »BecomingBane wrote: »How do we strike that balance when the more vocal opposition seems to be shouting down evidence based answers in favor of their anecdotal situations?
Why should it be the duty of one set of posters to strike a balance when another set of posters are not doing so? That is not equality of treatment but rather one group holding a privileged status.
If there is a groups of posters vocally seeking to elevate faith based claims above evidence based claims then the other group should be allowed to tell them openly they are talking nonsense.
Some of you people are way too nice...BecomingBane wrote: »How do we strike that balance when the more vocal opposition seems to be shouting down evidence based answers in favor of their anecdotal situations?
Why should it be the duty of one set of posters to strike a balance when another set of posters are not doing so? That is not equality of treatment but rather one group holding a privileged status.
If there is a groups of posters vocally seeking to elevate faith based claims above evidence based claims then the other group should be allowed to tell them openly they are talking nonsense.
Some of you people are way too nice...
but how has that worked so far? when someone at the time really believes they are addicted at that time they truly believe they are addicted. to me this is no different from someone who believes they are logging accurately and doing everything they can to lose weight and cant see why they are not.
Well touchy feely support hasn't worked
It will continual to fail and reinforce failure
And there will continue to be "board legislation" against the kind of help that finally made me successful after decades of failure ....straightforward in your face you're wrong on that ....so I continue to put on my twisted, convoluted hat on and try to effect change anyway, despite the required modus operandi rather than because of it ..but I do it less and less...cos semantic twisting hurts my head
not really talking about touchy feely cos that just isnt mfp
its more just laying the facts which is usually done, and not the comments that make the Op feel like a moron.
i dont believe in sugar addiction its just selective overeating, and with most things in time alot of these Ops will see thats all it is and to take control
0 -
It almost feels like they are trying to run off the long term, better educated in fitness and nutrition people from this forum. If the boards continue to be all woo filled and we are not allowed to say anything I don't know how much longer I'll be around0
-
brianpperkins wrote: »"your body becomes addicted to the sugar and doesn't recognize the other stuff as food" ... a post allowed to stand.
MFP is clearly taking a position that countering fallacy based positions is not acceptable while endorsing them is.
is it the countering thats the issue or the way its countered?0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »"your body becomes addicted to the sugar and doesn't recognize the other stuff as food" ... a post allowed to stand.
MFP is clearly taking a position that countering fallacy based positions is not acceptable while endorsing them is.
That comment really bothered me and some people in that thread reinforced that belief.0 -
singingflutelady wrote: »It almost feels like they are trying to run off the long term, better educated in fitness and nutrition people from this forum. If the boards continue to be all woo filled and we are not allowed to say anything I don't know how much longer I'll be around
You would not be alone in this.0 -
Therealobi1 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »"your body becomes addicted to the sugar and doesn't recognize the other stuff as food" ... a post allowed to stand.
MFP is clearly taking a position that countering fallacy based positions is not acceptable while endorsing them is.
is it the countering thats the issue or the way its countered?
Based on the posts culled from the main forum, it is countering the issue.
0 -
Therealobi1 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »"your body becomes addicted to the sugar and doesn't recognize the other stuff as food" ... a post allowed to stand.
MFP is clearly taking a position that countering fallacy based positions is not acceptable while endorsing them is.
is it the countering thats the issue or the way its countered?
Well, allow me to answer your question with a question:
How many posts supporting the concept of sugar addiction got moved over here?0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »When someone makes a post saying they are addicted to sugar they are looking for strategies to stop feeling that way IMO. I don't think they are looking for people to say that because they are addicted they have an excuse to overeat.
It doesn't matter what the science says when you have white knuckles for hours from not eating something that puts you over your calorie goal. The science doesn't matter when you have already eaten hundreds or thousands of calories over your goal.
I know the "feelz" are mocked here but in my experience will power and discipline come to me mentally. Those two things do not happen well unless my "feelz" are in the right place.
cosigned.
I'm finding it wildly offensive that people keep suggesting that rejecting (based on all the evidence and logic) that people overeat Snickers because they are "addicted to sugar" means that we are not being helpful or ignoring the "feelz." To the contrary, I think my posts in the relevant threads encourage people to think about what's going on when they struggle and have trouble with specific foods or overeating at particular times or places, and I can relate to the feelz. Presumably most of us who have been overweight can.
Again, I'd put the helpfulness of my posts, and shelley's and winogelato's and many many others above the average person who jumps in those threads to affirm the idea that sugar is super addictive and the problem is, simply, sugar, and doesn't actually provide any help (or says the way to go is to quit all sugar, including fruit and higher sugar veg like carrots, or, similarly, to go keto or give up "processed" foods (plenty of which don't even contain sugar, sigh)).
I find it wildly offensive that the whole thing keeps get repeatedly called a semantics argument, and that even if it was conceded that it is semantics, the connotation that semantics means it can be dismissed as not germane. Then again, that's kind of why I started this thread.
Sure wish people would stop coming in my thread and being so negative.
0 -
I know the "feelz" are mocked here
Are they? I think most posters here are actively sensitive towards the feelings of others and don't disregard them generally (although there are obviously isolated incidents where the boundary gets over stepped.)
What gets challenged or mocked is the idea that a belief rooted in faith somehow makes that belief valid despite evidence to the contrary, or worse, it is superior and should be accepted above an evidence based position. Those positions should be challenged.
There is no monopoly on compassion by people who have a "softer" approach over those that are more direct in manner.
^This.
One of my mantras is I'll validate all feelings, but I won't validate all facts.0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »Therealobi1 wrote: »BecomingBane wrote: »How do we strike that balance when the more vocal opposition seems to be shouting down evidence based answers in favor of their anecdotal situations?
Why should it be the duty of one set of posters to strike a balance when another set of posters are not doing so? That is not equality of treatment but rather one group holding a privileged status.
If there is a groups of posters vocally seeking to elevate faith based claims above evidence based claims then the other group should be allowed to tell them openly they are talking nonsense.
Some of you people are way too nice...BecomingBane wrote: »How do we strike that balance when the more vocal opposition seems to be shouting down evidence based answers in favor of their anecdotal situations?
Why should it be the duty of one set of posters to strike a balance when another set of posters are not doing so? That is not equality of treatment but rather one group holding a privileged status.
If there is a groups of posters vocally seeking to elevate faith based claims above evidence based claims then the other group should be allowed to tell them openly they are talking nonsense.
Some of you people are way too nice...
but how has that worked so far? when someone at the time really believes they are addicted at that time they truly believe they are addicted. to me this is no different from someone who believes they are logging accurately and doing everything they can to lose weight and cant see why they are not.
And then the only duty one the person seeking to counter the erroneous belief should be to convey accurate information in a manner they see fit but which does not slide into hate speech or so forth.
I have been participating in these forums for many years (this is not my first account) and the approach of infantilising posters, even new posters, and an excessive concern for feelings above evidence has more costs than benefits on a global level. There is not less misinformation and flawed beliefs these days, there is more.
One needs only to peruse the "Recent Topics" list to see the evidence of this.
I would argue that's a direct result of the...
...very thing we are forbidden to question or even discuss.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 999 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions