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
Replies
-
This content has been removed.
-
As far as food addiction, again no. The concept being put around for possible future DSM's is eating addiction. There is nothing in the substance of food that is addictive, it is behavioral - closer to gambling addiction than cocaine.
+1.
Eating addiction, not food addiction. It's the behavior, not the substance. The substance that is known as food is not addictive. The behavior and the use of food as a coping mechanism can become problematic to one's life and functioning.
Is that semantics?? I say not.
Look at my lastest reply. Wasn't arguing that point but rather definitions.0 -
Semantics are almost always debatable. I work in a field where we argue about what the definition of "is" is.0
-
It needs to be pointed out that 2+2 = 5 for sufficiently large values of 2.0
-
missblondi2u wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »Another word that gets misused is binge. I see non ed people using it interchangeably with overeat. They say they binged but they mean they overate. As someone who is a recovering anorexic binge/purge subtype binge means something else. It typically is in the order of thousands of calories. I have known bulimics who would eat approximately 5000 calories in one sitting, get rid of it, eat 5000 more, get rid of it over and over. In my head a binge is also a total lack of control and stuffing food down quickly and without really tasting it. It doesn't mean that you overate during your Christmas dinner or cheat meal or whatever.
As someone with a history of binges, I cringe when I see "binge" used that way. I understand the events being described are usually upsetting to the posters who are writing, so I try to be mindful of their experience and not project my past on to them, but really -- seeing it used to describe eating an box of crackers or some pizza . . . no.
Ok, so I'm confused. I haven't read further to see if it's already been addressed, but the actual definition of binge is "a short period devoted to indulging in an activity to excess, especially drinking alcohol or eating." To me, this includes the occasional overindulgence.
I can see how people with an eating disorder may put another connotation to the term, but why is it not ok to use the dictionary definition of a word, and how the heck is someone supposed to know that connotation if they don't have that experience? To me, this is putting a particular person's feelings (in this case, feelings related to eating disorders) over facts (like what an actual word is defined).
I can understand your point of view.
To me, "binge" has a specific meaning, as a manifestation of BED. Do my feelings have priority over how the word is commonly used? Nope. But that doesn't mean I don't have feelings on the matter.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »missblondi2u wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »Another word that gets misused is binge. I see non ed people using it interchangeably with overeat. They say they binged but they mean they overate. As someone who is a recovering anorexic binge/purge subtype binge means something else. It typically is in the order of thousands of calories. I have known bulimics who would eat approximately 5000 calories in one sitting, get rid of it, eat 5000 more, get rid of it over and over. In my head a binge is also a total lack of control and stuffing food down quickly and without really tasting it. It doesn't mean that you overate during your Christmas dinner or cheat meal or whatever.
As someone with a history of binges, I cringe when I see "binge" used that way. I understand the events being described are usually upsetting to the posters who are writing, so I try to be mindful of their experience and not project my past on to them, but really -- seeing it used to describe eating an box of crackers or some pizza . . . no.
Ok, so I'm confused. I haven't read further to see if it's already been addressed, but the actual definition of binge is "a short period devoted to indulging in an activity to excess, especially drinking alcohol or eating." To me, this includes the occasional overindulgence.
I can see how people with an eating disorder may put another connotation to the term, but why is it not ok to use the dictionary definition of a word, and how the heck is someone supposed to know that connotation if they don't have that experience? To me, this is putting a particular person's feelings (in this case, feelings related to eating disorders) over facts (like what an actual word is defined).
I can understand your point of view.
To me, "binge" has a specific meaning, as a manifestation of BED. Do my feelings have priority over how the word is commonly used? Nope. But that doesn't mean I don't have feelings on the matter.
Fair enough. I just wanted to clarify that people using the term probably aren't trying to be insensitive. They just have a different, and no less valid, meaning of the word.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »missblondi2u wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »Another word that gets misused is binge. I see non ed people using it interchangeably with overeat. They say they binged but they mean they overate. As someone who is a recovering anorexic binge/purge subtype binge means something else. It typically is in the order of thousands of calories. I have known bulimics who would eat approximately 5000 calories in one sitting, get rid of it, eat 5000 more, get rid of it over and over. In my head a binge is also a total lack of control and stuffing food down quickly and without really tasting it. It doesn't mean that you overate during your Christmas dinner or cheat meal or whatever.
As someone with a history of binges, I cringe when I see "binge" used that way. I understand the events being described are usually upsetting to the posters who are writing, so I try to be mindful of their experience and not project my past on to them, but really -- seeing it used to describe eating an box of crackers or some pizza . . . no.
Ok, so I'm confused. I haven't read further to see if it's already been addressed, but the actual definition of binge is "a short period devoted to indulging in an activity to excess, especially drinking alcohol or eating." To me, this includes the occasional overindulgence.
I can see how people with an eating disorder may put another connotation to the term, but why is it not ok to use the dictionary definition of a word, and how the heck is someone supposed to know that connotation if they don't have that experience? To me, this is putting a particular person's feelings (in this case, feelings related to eating disorders) over facts (like what an actual word is defined).
I can understand your point of view.
To me, "binge" has a specific meaning, as a manifestation of BED. Do my feelings have priority over how the word is commonly used? Nope. But that doesn't mean I don't have feelings on the matter.
True, which is exactly why I don't open those threads. I've learned exactly what my reaction will be, and it won't be helpful to anyone.0 -
The American Society for Addictive Medicine's second definition is somewhat self contradicting. It gives food as an example, but says addiction requires reorienting the motivational hierarchies - well outside of air, you can't really move air up any higher on the hierarchy of motivation.I wanted to take a minute to touch on a particular semantic that was addressed by @missblondi2u . The meaning of words and what the actually means. Sorry if this seems like beating a dead horse, but I think it's highly important given the discussions at hand. To keep it as short as possible, I will concentrate on the word addiction.
Merriam-Webster defines addiction as:- the quality or state of being addicted <addiction to reading>
- compulsive need for and use of a habit-forming substance (as heroin, nicotine, or alcohol) characterized by tolerance and by well-defined physiological symptoms upon withdrawal; broadly : persistent compulsive use of a substance known by the user to be harmful
The American Society for Addictive Medicine defines addiction as:- Addiction is characterized by inability to consistently abstain, impairment in behavioral control, craving, diminished recognition of significant problems with one’s behaviors and interpersonal relationships, and a dysfunctional emotional response. Like other chronic diseases, addiction often involves cycles of relapse and remission. Without treatment or engagement in recovery activities, addiction is progressive and can result in disability or premature death.
- Addiction is a primary, chronic disease of brain reward, motivation, memory and related circuitry. Addiction affects neurotransmission and interactions within reward structures of the brain, including the nucleus accumbens, anterior cingulate cortex, basal forebrain and amygdala, such that motivational hierarchies are altered and addictive behaviors, which may or may not include alcohol and other drug use, supplant healthy, self-care related behaviors. Addiction also affects neurotransmission and interactions between cortical and hippocampal circuits and brain reward structures, such that the memory of previous exposures to rewards (such as food, sex, alcohol and other drugs) leads to a biological and behavioral response to external cues, in turn triggering craving and/or engagement in addictive behaviors.
And finally DSM V- Addiction (termed substance dependence by the American Psychiatric Association) is defined as a maladaptive pattern of substance use leading to clinically significant impairment or distress
As you can clearly see, there is NOT one specific definition and why this can be so confusing for many. And this was only 3 sources and DSM wasn't even on the first page of google when I searched for the definition. I had to add DSM to the search. So while many of you may have clear definitions in your head (which I get, some of your have degrees in psychology and work in the field), it doesn't mean everyone else does.
side note - not arguing for sugar addiction. Again, food addiction would be more likely but even then, I personally think its more of an eating disorder.
I'll also give my stock problem with trying to use a dictionary as proof - you can probably add 2+2 together, which according to the dictionary makes you a computer. I'd be asinine to try to cram a USB stick in you and get upset that you won't boot up WIndows 10 just because you're a computer. It requires context, and often when teasing out context, the threads get shut down, or we do get OP's that insist that they meet the DSM concept of substance dependence, and then the thread gets shut down.
As far as food addiction, again no. The concept being put around for possible future DSM's is eating addiction. There is nothing in the substance of food that is addictive, it is behavioral - closer to gambling addiction than cocaine.
I really like this explanation. Thanks Senecarr.0 -
The American Society for Addictive Medicine's second definition is somewhat self contradicting. It gives food as an example, but says addiction requires reorienting the motivational hierarchies - well outside of air, you can't really move air up any higher on the hierarchy of motivation.I wanted to take a minute to touch on a particular semantic that was addressed by @missblondi2u . The meaning of words and what the actually means. Sorry if this seems like beating a dead horse, but I think it's highly important given the discussions at hand. To keep it as short as possible, I will concentrate on the word addiction.
Merriam-Webster defines addiction as:- the quality or state of being addicted <addiction to reading>
- compulsive need for and use of a habit-forming substance (as heroin, nicotine, or alcohol) characterized by tolerance and by well-defined physiological symptoms upon withdrawal; broadly : persistent compulsive use of a substance known by the user to be harmful
The American Society for Addictive Medicine defines addiction as:- Addiction is characterized by inability to consistently abstain, impairment in behavioral control, craving, diminished recognition of significant problems with one’s behaviors and interpersonal relationships, and a dysfunctional emotional response. Like other chronic diseases, addiction often involves cycles of relapse and remission. Without treatment or engagement in recovery activities, addiction is progressive and can result in disability or premature death.
- Addiction is a primary, chronic disease of brain reward, motivation, memory and related circuitry. Addiction affects neurotransmission and interactions within reward structures of the brain, including the nucleus accumbens, anterior cingulate cortex, basal forebrain and amygdala, such that motivational hierarchies are altered and addictive behaviors, which may or may not include alcohol and other drug use, supplant healthy, self-care related behaviors. Addiction also affects neurotransmission and interactions between cortical and hippocampal circuits and brain reward structures, such that the memory of previous exposures to rewards (such as food, sex, alcohol and other drugs) leads to a biological and behavioral response to external cues, in turn triggering craving and/or engagement in addictive behaviors.
And finally DSM V- Addiction (termed substance dependence by the American Psychiatric Association) is defined as a maladaptive pattern of substance use leading to clinically significant impairment or distress
As you can clearly see, there is NOT one specific definition and why this can be so confusing for many. And this was only 3 sources and DSM wasn't even on the first page of google when I searched for the definition. I had to add DSM to the search. So while many of you may have clear definitions in your head (which I get, some of your have degrees in psychology and work in the field), it doesn't mean everyone else does.
side note - not arguing for sugar addiction. Again, food addiction would be more likely but even then, I personally think its more of an eating disorder.
I'll also give my stock problem with trying to use a dictionary as proof - you can probably add 2+2 together, which according to the dictionary makes you a computer. I'd be asinine to try to cram a USB stick in you and get upset that you won't boot up WIndows 10 just because you're a computer. It requires context, and often when teasing out context, the threads get shut down, or we do get OP's that insist that they meet the DSM concept of substance dependence, and then the thread gets shut down.
As far as food addiction, again no. The concept being put around for possible future DSM's is eating addiction. There is nothing in the substance of food that is addictive, it is behavioral - closer to gambling addiction than cocaine.
The main point was, that we argue for semantics and definitions but we can't find one set of definitions... we can easily apply this same concept, as already demonstrated, to binging.
And trust me, words have meaning, unfortunately those meanings vary a lot by organization.
While they were all worded differently, they did all say very similar things.
They all have a point saying it's a medical condition, which is characterized by substance abuse or disordered behaviour and psychological and physiological problems relating to it. One of them outright says therapy is needed, the third also says it's clinically significant (= treatment should be expected).
Merriam Webster also includes the hyperbole definition "addicted to x" where their example for x is reading. But that's not what people start threads about here. You don't see people asking how to kick their reading habit on book forums either.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »
The American Society for Addictive Medicine's second definition is somewhat self contradicting. It gives food as an example, but says addiction requires reorienting the motivational hierarchies - well outside of air, you can't really move air up any higher on the hierarchy of motivation.I wanted to take a minute to touch on a particular semantic that was addressed by @missblondi2u . The meaning of words and what the actually means. Sorry if this seems like beating a dead horse, but I think it's highly important given the discussions at hand. To keep it as short as possible, I will concentrate on the word addiction.
Merriam-Webster defines addiction as:- the quality or state of being addicted <addiction to reading>
- compulsive need for and use of a habit-forming substance (as heroin, nicotine, or alcohol) characterized by tolerance and by well-defined physiological symptoms upon withdrawal; broadly : persistent compulsive use of a substance known by the user to be harmful
The American Society for Addictive Medicine defines addiction as:- Addiction is characterized by inability to consistently abstain, impairment in behavioral control, craving, diminished recognition of significant problems with one’s behaviors and interpersonal relationships, and a dysfunctional emotional response. Like other chronic diseases, addiction often involves cycles of relapse and remission. Without treatment or engagement in recovery activities, addiction is progressive and can result in disability or premature death.
- Addiction is a primary, chronic disease of brain reward, motivation, memory and related circuitry. Addiction affects neurotransmission and interactions within reward structures of the brain, including the nucleus accumbens, anterior cingulate cortex, basal forebrain and amygdala, such that motivational hierarchies are altered and addictive behaviors, which may or may not include alcohol and other drug use, supplant healthy, self-care related behaviors. Addiction also affects neurotransmission and interactions between cortical and hippocampal circuits and brain reward structures, such that the memory of previous exposures to rewards (such as food, sex, alcohol and other drugs) leads to a biological and behavioral response to external cues, in turn triggering craving and/or engagement in addictive behaviors.
And finally DSM V- Addiction (termed substance dependence by the American Psychiatric Association) is defined as a maladaptive pattern of substance use leading to clinically significant impairment or distress
As you can clearly see, there is NOT one specific definition and why this can be so confusing for many. And this was only 3 sources and DSM wasn't even on the first page of google when I searched for the definition. I had to add DSM to the search. So while many of you may have clear definitions in your head (which I get, some of your have degrees in psychology and work in the field), it doesn't mean everyone else does.
side note - not arguing for sugar addiction. Again, food addiction would be more likely but even then, I personally think its more of an eating disorder.
I'll also give my stock problem with trying to use a dictionary as proof - you can probably add 2+2 together, which according to the dictionary makes you a computer. I'd be asinine to try to cram a USB stick in you and get upset that you won't boot up WIndows 10 just because you're a computer. It requires context, and often when teasing out context, the threads get shut down, or we do get OP's that insist that they meet the DSM concept of substance dependence, and then the thread gets shut down.
As far as food addiction, again no. The concept being put around for possible future DSM's is eating addiction. There is nothing in the substance of food that is addictive, it is behavioral - closer to gambling addiction than cocaine.
The main point was, that we argue for semantics and definitions but we can't find one set of definitions... we can easily apply this same concept, as already demonstrated, to binging.
And trust me, words have meaning, unfortunately those meanings vary a lot by organization.
While they were all worded differently, they did all say very similar things.
They all have a point saying it's a medical condition, which is characterized by substance abuse or disordered behaviour and psychological and physiological problems relating to it. One of them outright says therapy is needed, the third also says it's clinically significant (= treatment should be expected).
Merriam Webster also includes the hyperbole definition "addicted to x" where their example for x is reading. But that's not what people start threads about here. You don't see people asking how to kick their reading habit on book forums either.
My argument was simple. Words don't purely have one single mean like others would prefer. I only used addiction as an examplar to that. It could have easily been binge or any other words. So arguing that words have means, while true, is not really a good arguing so their mean can changed based on the source of that definition. And who is the source that one should believe or utilize. The fact is, while you or I might have a specific definition in our head, it doesn't mean everyone else on this forum has the same corresponding definition. And like said earlier, this doesn't even address the language barrier.. perfect example of that is the word "bonk". The mean is vastly different in the US, than it is in the UK. Just ask rabbit.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »
The American Society for Addictive Medicine's second definition is somewhat self contradicting. It gives food as an example, but says addiction requires reorienting the motivational hierarchies - well outside of air, you can't really move air up any higher on the hierarchy of motivation.I wanted to take a minute to touch on a particular semantic that was addressed by @missblondi2u . The meaning of words and what the actually means. Sorry if this seems like beating a dead horse, but I think it's highly important given the discussions at hand. To keep it as short as possible, I will concentrate on the word addiction.
Merriam-Webster defines addiction as:- the quality or state of being addicted <addiction to reading>
- compulsive need for and use of a habit-forming substance (as heroin, nicotine, or alcohol) characterized by tolerance and by well-defined physiological symptoms upon withdrawal; broadly : persistent compulsive use of a substance known by the user to be harmful
The American Society for Addictive Medicine defines addiction as:- Addiction is characterized by inability to consistently abstain, impairment in behavioral control, craving, diminished recognition of significant problems with one’s behaviors and interpersonal relationships, and a dysfunctional emotional response. Like other chronic diseases, addiction often involves cycles of relapse and remission. Without treatment or engagement in recovery activities, addiction is progressive and can result in disability or premature death.
- Addiction is a primary, chronic disease of brain reward, motivation, memory and related circuitry. Addiction affects neurotransmission and interactions within reward structures of the brain, including the nucleus accumbens, anterior cingulate cortex, basal forebrain and amygdala, such that motivational hierarchies are altered and addictive behaviors, which may or may not include alcohol and other drug use, supplant healthy, self-care related behaviors. Addiction also affects neurotransmission and interactions between cortical and hippocampal circuits and brain reward structures, such that the memory of previous exposures to rewards (such as food, sex, alcohol and other drugs) leads to a biological and behavioral response to external cues, in turn triggering craving and/or engagement in addictive behaviors.
And finally DSM V- Addiction (termed substance dependence by the American Psychiatric Association) is defined as a maladaptive pattern of substance use leading to clinically significant impairment or distress
As you can clearly see, there is NOT one specific definition and why this can be so confusing for many. And this was only 3 sources and DSM wasn't even on the first page of google when I searched for the definition. I had to add DSM to the search. So while many of you may have clear definitions in your head (which I get, some of your have degrees in psychology and work in the field), it doesn't mean everyone else does.
side note - not arguing for sugar addiction. Again, food addiction would be more likely but even then, I personally think its more of an eating disorder.
I'll also give my stock problem with trying to use a dictionary as proof - you can probably add 2+2 together, which according to the dictionary makes you a computer. I'd be asinine to try to cram a USB stick in you and get upset that you won't boot up WIndows 10 just because you're a computer. It requires context, and often when teasing out context, the threads get shut down, or we do get OP's that insist that they meet the DSM concept of substance dependence, and then the thread gets shut down.
As far as food addiction, again no. The concept being put around for possible future DSM's is eating addiction. There is nothing in the substance of food that is addictive, it is behavioral - closer to gambling addiction than cocaine.
The main point was, that we argue for semantics and definitions but we can't find one set of definitions... we can easily apply this same concept, as already demonstrated, to binging.
And trust me, words have meaning, unfortunately those meanings vary a lot by organization.
While they were all worded differently, they did all say very similar things.
They all have a point saying it's a medical condition, which is characterized by substance abuse or disordered behaviour and psychological and physiological problems relating to it. One of them outright says therapy is needed, the third also says it's clinically significant (= treatment should be expected).
Merriam Webster also includes the hyperbole definition "addicted to x" where their example for x is reading. But that's not what people start threads about here. You don't see people asking how to kick their reading habit on book forums either.
My argument was simple. Words don't purely have one single mean like others would prefer. I only used addiction as an examplar to that. It could have easily been binge or any other words. So arguing that words have means, while true, is not really a good arguing so their mean can changed based on the source of that definition. And who is the source that one should believe or utilize. The fact is, while you or I might have a specific definition in our head, it doesn't mean everyone else on this forum has the same corresponding definition. And like said earlier, this doesn't even address the language barrier.. perfect example of that is the word "bonk". The mean is vastly different in the US, than it is in the UK. Just ask rabbit.
The answer to your question is apparently MFP as those who believe in certain definitions of these many ambiguous words are being removed from the general discussion and relegated to this corner of the forums.0 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
The American Society for Addictive Medicine's second definition is somewhat self contradicting. It gives food as an example, but says addiction requires reorienting the motivational hierarchies - well outside of air, you can't really move air up any higher on the hierarchy of motivation.I wanted to take a minute to touch on a particular semantic that was addressed by @missblondi2u . The meaning of words and what the actually means. Sorry if this seems like beating a dead horse, but I think it's highly important given the discussions at hand. To keep it as short as possible, I will concentrate on the word addiction.
Merriam-Webster defines addiction as:- the quality or state of being addicted <addiction to reading>
- compulsive need for and use of a habit-forming substance (as heroin, nicotine, or alcohol) characterized by tolerance and by well-defined physiological symptoms upon withdrawal; broadly : persistent compulsive use of a substance known by the user to be harmful
The American Society for Addictive Medicine defines addiction as:- Addiction is characterized by inability to consistently abstain, impairment in behavioral control, craving, diminished recognition of significant problems with one’s behaviors and interpersonal relationships, and a dysfunctional emotional response. Like other chronic diseases, addiction often involves cycles of relapse and remission. Without treatment or engagement in recovery activities, addiction is progressive and can result in disability or premature death.
- Addiction is a primary, chronic disease of brain reward, motivation, memory and related circuitry. Addiction affects neurotransmission and interactions within reward structures of the brain, including the nucleus accumbens, anterior cingulate cortex, basal forebrain and amygdala, such that motivational hierarchies are altered and addictive behaviors, which may or may not include alcohol and other drug use, supplant healthy, self-care related behaviors. Addiction also affects neurotransmission and interactions between cortical and hippocampal circuits and brain reward structures, such that the memory of previous exposures to rewards (such as food, sex, alcohol and other drugs) leads to a biological and behavioral response to external cues, in turn triggering craving and/or engagement in addictive behaviors.
And finally DSM V- Addiction (termed substance dependence by the American Psychiatric Association) is defined as a maladaptive pattern of substance use leading to clinically significant impairment or distress
As you can clearly see, there is NOT one specific definition and why this can be so confusing for many. And this was only 3 sources and DSM wasn't even on the first page of google when I searched for the definition. I had to add DSM to the search. So while many of you may have clear definitions in your head (which I get, some of your have degrees in psychology and work in the field), it doesn't mean everyone else does.
side note - not arguing for sugar addiction. Again, food addiction would be more likely but even then, I personally think its more of an eating disorder.
I'll also give my stock problem with trying to use a dictionary as proof - you can probably add 2+2 together, which according to the dictionary makes you a computer. I'd be asinine to try to cram a USB stick in you and get upset that you won't boot up WIndows 10 just because you're a computer. It requires context, and often when teasing out context, the threads get shut down, or we do get OP's that insist that they meet the DSM concept of substance dependence, and then the thread gets shut down.
As far as food addiction, again no. The concept being put around for possible future DSM's is eating addiction. There is nothing in the substance of food that is addictive, it is behavioral - closer to gambling addiction than cocaine.
The main point was, that we argue for semantics and definitions but we can't find one set of definitions... we can easily apply this same concept, as already demonstrated, to binging.
And trust me, words have meaning, unfortunately those meanings vary a lot by organization.
While they were all worded differently, they did all say very similar things.
They all have a point saying it's a medical condition, which is characterized by substance abuse or disordered behaviour and psychological and physiological problems relating to it. One of them outright says therapy is needed, the third also says it's clinically significant (= treatment should be expected).
Merriam Webster also includes the hyperbole definition "addicted to x" where their example for x is reading. But that's not what people start threads about here. You don't see people asking how to kick their reading habit on book forums either.
My argument was simple. Words don't purely have one single mean like others would prefer. I only used addiction as an examplar to that. It could have easily been binge or any other words. So arguing that words have means, while true, is not really a good arguing so their mean can changed based on the source of that definition. And who is the source that one should believe or utilize. The fact is, while you or I might have a specific definition in our head, it doesn't mean everyone else on this forum has the same corresponding definition. And like said earlier, this doesn't even address the language barrier.. perfect example of that is the word "bonk". The mean is vastly different in the US, than it is in the UK. Just ask rabbit.
The answer to your question is apparently MFP as those who believe in certain definitions of these many ambiguous words are being removed from the general discussion and relegated to this corner of the forums.
0 -
That's because "bonk" is slang.
All the definitions of "addiction" you brought up though had the same gist. It's a medical condition characterized by substance abuse or disordered behavior and severe problems that probably need treatment as a result of it. I don't see how you can say that people have different definitions of it depending on the source if all your sources said pretty much the same thing.
None of those are applicable for when people come around claiming sugar is as addictive as cocaine or heroin but at the same time they say everything went better because they could just stop eating it from one day to the other no problem and also they're only addicted to sugar when it's in one of 2-3 different foods.
That is simply not what an addiction to a substance is by any definition.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »That's because "bonk" is slang.
All the definitions of "addiction" you brought up though had the same gist. It's a medical condition characterized by substance abuse or disordered behavior and severe problems that probably need treatment as a result of it. I don't see how you can say that people have different definitions of it depending on the source if all your sources said pretty much the same thing.
None of those are applicable for when people come around claiming sugar is as addictive as cocaine or heroin but at the same time they say everything went better because they could just stop eating it from one day to the other no problem and also they're only addicted to sugar when it's in one of 2-3 different foods.
That is simply not what an addiction to a substance is by any definition.
Would you prefer if we change the word to binge?
Seriously, not arguing sugar addiction... just semantics of words.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »That's because "bonk" is slang.
All the definitions of "addiction" you brought up though had the same gist. It's a medical condition characterized by substance abuse or disordered behavior and severe problems that probably need treatment as a result of it. I don't see how you can say that people have different definitions of it depending on the source if all your sources said pretty much the same thing.
None of those are applicable for when people come around claiming sugar is as addictive as cocaine or heroin but at the same time they say everything went better because they could just stop eating it from one day to the other no problem and also they're only addicted to sugar when it's in one of 2-3 different foods.
That is simply not what an addiction to a substance is by any definition.
Would you prefer if we change the word to binge?
Seriously, not arguing sugar addiction... just semantics of words.
If it's actual binging. That also has a definition. The symptoms are closer to what people are saying than to addiction at least.
But I'm unsure if there's binge eating that's limited to certain foods instead of "whatever is nearby".0 -
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »That's because "bonk" is slang.
All the definitions of "addiction" you brought up though had the same gist. It's a medical condition characterized by substance abuse or disordered behavior and severe problems that probably need treatment as a result of it. I don't see how you can say that people have different definitions of it depending on the source if all your sources said pretty much the same thing.
None of those are applicable for when people come around claiming sugar is as addictive as cocaine or heroin but at the same time they say everything went better because they could just stop eating it from one day to the other no problem and also they're only addicted to sugar when it's in one of 2-3 different foods.
That is simply not what an addiction to a substance is by any definition.
Would you prefer if we change the word to binge?
Seriously, not arguing sugar addiction... just semantics of words.
If it's actual binging. That also has a definition. The symptoms are closer to what people are saying than to addiction at least.
But I'm unsure if there's binge eating that's limited to certain foods instead of "whatever is nearby".
Based on the discussion above, I would surmise there are a multiple definitions of binge.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »That's because "bonk" is slang.
All the definitions of "addiction" you brought up though had the same gist. It's a medical condition characterized by substance abuse or disordered behavior and severe problems that probably need treatment as a result of it. I don't see how you can say that people have different definitions of it depending on the source if all your sources said pretty much the same thing.
None of those are applicable for when people come around claiming sugar is as addictive as cocaine or heroin but at the same time they say everything went better because they could just stop eating it from one day to the other no problem and also they're only addicted to sugar when it's in one of 2-3 different foods.
That is simply not what an addiction to a substance is by any definition.
Would you prefer if we change the word to binge?
Seriously, not arguing sugar addiction... just semantics of words.
If it's actual binging. That also has a definition. The symptoms are closer to what people are saying than to addiction at least.
But I'm unsure if there's binge eating that's limited to certain foods instead of "whatever is nearby".
I have never seen anyone with BED say they only binge on one item. It's why getting x out of the house isn't a valid solution.
Hell, I binged on Monday, and I had half a tub of ice cream in the house, but I told myself I want going to be "that fatty" so I aye the most random things in my pantry. And then I ate the ice cream anyways.
I've binged on cans of corn and chili; it's not a good that drives it, it's a compulsion.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »That's because "bonk" is slang.
All the definitions of "addiction" you brought up though had the same gist. It's a medical condition characterized by substance abuse or disordered behavior and severe problems that probably need treatment as a result of it. I don't see how you can say that people have different definitions of it depending on the source if all your sources said pretty much the same thing.
None of those are applicable for when people come around claiming sugar is as addictive as cocaine or heroin but at the same time they say everything went better because they could just stop eating it from one day to the other no problem and also they're only addicted to sugar when it's in one of 2-3 different foods.
That is simply not what an addiction to a substance is by any definition.
Would you prefer if we change the word to binge?
Seriously, not arguing sugar addiction... just semantics of words.
If it's actual binging. That also has a definition. The symptoms are closer to what people are saying than to addiction at least.
But I'm unsure if there's binge eating that's limited to certain foods instead of "whatever is nearby".
Based on the discussion above, I would surmise there are a multiple definitions of binge.
In any discussion with words with multiple definitions, the very first thing to do is for all sides to understand which specific definition of the word is being used. Unfortunately, since MFP seemingly abhors the sometimes messy process multiple sides need to go through to arrive at this agreement, it just doesn't work here.
(So here we are. In the basement of MFP arguing about how we think things should be...
...while genpop keeps abusing the English language.
) 0 -
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »That's because "bonk" is slang.
All the definitions of "addiction" you brought up though had the same gist. It's a medical condition characterized by substance abuse or disordered behavior and severe problems that probably need treatment as a result of it. I don't see how you can say that people have different definitions of it depending on the source if all your sources said pretty much the same thing.
None of those are applicable for when people come around claiming sugar is as addictive as cocaine or heroin but at the same time they say everything went better because they could just stop eating it from one day to the other no problem and also they're only addicted to sugar when it's in one of 2-3 different foods.
That is simply not what an addiction to a substance is by any definition.
Would you prefer if we change the word to binge?
Seriously, not arguing sugar addiction... just semantics of words.
If it's actual binging. That also has a definition. The symptoms are closer to what people are saying than to addiction at least.
But I'm unsure if there's binge eating that's limited to certain foods instead of "whatever is nearby".
I have never seen anyone with BED say they only binge on one item. It's why getting x out of the house isn't a valid solution.
Hell, I binged on Monday, and I had half a tub of ice cream in the house, but I told myself I want going to be "that fatty" so I aye the most random things in my pantry. And then I ate the ice cream anyways.
I've binged on cans of corn and chili; it's not a good that drives it, it's a compulsion.stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »That's because "bonk" is slang.
All the definitions of "addiction" you brought up though had the same gist. It's a medical condition characterized by substance abuse or disordered behavior and severe problems that probably need treatment as a result of it. I don't see how you can say that people have different definitions of it depending on the source if all your sources said pretty much the same thing.
None of those are applicable for when people come around claiming sugar is as addictive as cocaine or heroin but at the same time they say everything went better because they could just stop eating it from one day to the other no problem and also they're only addicted to sugar when it's in one of 2-3 different foods.
That is simply not what an addiction to a substance is by any definition.
Would you prefer if we change the word to binge?
Seriously, not arguing sugar addiction... just semantics of words.
If it's actual binging. That also has a definition. The symptoms are closer to what people are saying than to addiction at least.
But I'm unsure if there's binge eating that's limited to certain foods instead of "whatever is nearby".
I have never seen anyone with BED say they only binge on one item. It's why getting x out of the house isn't a valid solution.
Hell, I binged on Monday, and I had half a tub of ice cream in the house, but I told myself I want going to be "that fatty" so I aye the most random things in my pantry. And then I ate the ice cream anyways.
I've binged on cans of corn and chili; it's not a good that drives it, it's a compulsion.
Yep. Binging can manifest different ways but it has specific criteria or it isn't binging.
Now when people said "I totes binged last night" (meaning 2 cookies) or saying "I'm totes addicted to Cross fit" or "I went postal when I found out he was cheating" or "I am so OCD when it comes to cleaning the kitchen" they are usually slang when it comes to real actual diagnosiable disorders. I think there is real damage in that on a variety of fronts.
However I honestly don't think it applies much here in terms of arguing semantics. I think almost everyone who posts they are addicted to sugar believe it to be so. It is a misnomer and it is not arguing semantics to challenge that.
Especially when coupled with the lack of control claims that so often accompany the addiction statement.0 -
I'm by no means a psychology expert, but I'm thinking that what people describe as an addiction to sugar (or Snickers, etc.) is kinda close to how kleptomania is described...
"Kleptomania is a complex disorder characterized by repeated, failed attempts to stop stealing. It is often seen in patients who are chemically dependent or who have a coexisting mood, anxiety, or eating disorder. Other coexisting mental disorders may include major depression, panic attacks, social phobia , anorexia nervosa , bulimia nervosa , substance abuse, andobsessive-compulsive disorder . People with this disorder have an overwhelming urge to steal and get a thrill from doing so. The recurrent act of stealing may be restricted to specific objects and settings, but the affected person may or may not describe these special preferences. People with this disorder usually exhibit guilt after the theft.
the DSM-IV-TR, lists five diagnostic criteria for kleptomania:
• Repeated theft of objects that are unnecessary for either personal use or monetary value.• Increasing tension immediately before the theft.• Pleasure or relief upon committing the theft.• The theft is not motivated by anger or vengeance, and is not caused by a delusion or hallucination.• The behavior is not better accounted for by a conduct disorder , manic episode , or antisocial personality disorder."
To me, if you replace stealing with eating, these sound pretty similar. Now I get that kleptomania is controversial, not to mention rare, but perhaps people who say addiction might be explaining a compulsion.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
missblondi2u wrote: »I'm by no means a psychology expert, but I'm thinking that what people describe as an addiction to sugar (or Snickers, etc.) is kinda close to how kleptomania is described...
"Kleptomania is a complex disorder characterized by repeated, failed attempts to stop stealing. It is often seen in patients who are chemically dependent or who have a coexisting mood, anxiety, or eating disorder. Other coexisting mental disorders may include major depression, panic attacks, social phobia , anorexia nervosa , bulimia nervosa , substance abuse, andobsessive-compulsive disorder . People with this disorder have an overwhelming urge to steal and get a thrill from doing so. The recurrent act of stealing may be restricted to specific objects and settings, but the affected person may or may not describe these special preferences. People with this disorder usually exhibit guilt after the theft.
the DSM-IV-TR, lists five diagnostic criteria for kleptomania:
• Repeated theft of objects that are unnecessary for either personal use or monetary value.• Increasing tension immediately before the theft.• Pleasure or relief upon committing the theft.• The theft is not motivated by anger or vengeance, and is not caused by a delusion or hallucination.• The behavior is not better accounted for by a conduct disorder , manic episode , or antisocial personality disorder."
To me, if you replace stealing with eating, these sound pretty similar. Now I get that kleptomania is controversial, not to mention rare, but perhaps people who say addiction might be explaining a compulsion.
If only sugar addiction threads were so rare...0 -
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »That's because "bonk" is slang.
All the definitions of "addiction" you brought up though had the same gist. It's a medical condition characterized by substance abuse or disordered behavior and severe problems that probably need treatment as a result of it. I don't see how you can say that people have different definitions of it depending on the source if all your sources said pretty much the same thing.
None of those are applicable for when people come around claiming sugar is as addictive as cocaine or heroin but at the same time they say everything went better because they could just stop eating it from one day to the other no problem and also they're only addicted to sugar when it's in one of 2-3 different foods.
That is simply not what an addiction to a substance is by any definition.
Would you prefer if we change the word to binge?
Seriously, not arguing sugar addiction... just semantics of words.
If it's actual binging. That also has a definition. The symptoms are closer to what people are saying than to addiction at least.
But I'm unsure if there's binge eating that's limited to certain foods instead of "whatever is nearby".
I have never seen anyone with BED say they only binge on one item. It's why getting x out of the house isn't a valid solution.
Hell, I binged on Monday, and I had half a tub of ice cream in the house, but I told myself I want going to be "that fatty" so I aye the most random things in my pantry. And then I ate the ice cream anyways.
I've binged on cans of corn and chili; it's not a good that drives it, it's a compulsion.stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »That's because "bonk" is slang.
All the definitions of "addiction" you brought up though had the same gist. It's a medical condition characterized by substance abuse or disordered behavior and severe problems that probably need treatment as a result of it. I don't see how you can say that people have different definitions of it depending on the source if all your sources said pretty much the same thing.
None of those are applicable for when people come around claiming sugar is as addictive as cocaine or heroin but at the same time they say everything went better because they could just stop eating it from one day to the other no problem and also they're only addicted to sugar when it's in one of 2-3 different foods.
That is simply not what an addiction to a substance is by any definition.
Would you prefer if we change the word to binge?
Seriously, not arguing sugar addiction... just semantics of words.
If it's actual binging. That also has a definition. The symptoms are closer to what people are saying than to addiction at least.
But I'm unsure if there's binge eating that's limited to certain foods instead of "whatever is nearby".
I have never seen anyone with BED say they only binge on one item. It's why getting x out of the house isn't a valid solution.
Hell, I binged on Monday, and I had half a tub of ice cream in the house, but I told myself I want going to be "that fatty" so I aye the most random things in my pantry. And then I ate the ice cream anyways.
I've binged on cans of corn and chili; it's not a good that drives it, it's a compulsion.
Yep. Binging can manifest different ways but it has specific criteria or it isn't binging.
Now when people said "I totes binged last night" (meaning 2 cookies) or saying "I'm totes addicted to Cross fit" or "I went postal when I found out he was cheating" or "I am so OCD when it comes to cleaning the kitchen" they are usually slang when it comes to real actual diagnosiable disorders. I think there is real damage in that on a variety of fronts.
However I honestly don't think it applies much here in terms of arguing semantics. I think almost everyone who posts they are addicted to sugar believe it to be so. It is a misnomer and it is not arguing semantics to challenge that.
And what are those specific criteria? I couldn't find it readily available on the Internet.0 -
When someone says they have a sugar addiction, does it harm you? Does it set you back from achieving your own goals?0
-
This content has been removed.
-
When someone says they have a sugar addiction, does it harm you? Does it set you back from achieving your own goals?
The question is, does it harm them, does it keep them from achieving their goals?
I stopped opening those threads for the most part because they don't affect me at all. If I give advice to someone, they don't have to take it. But if you honestly think we should all just stop giving advice, they should just delete the forums entirely.0 -
missblondi2u wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »That's because "bonk" is slang.
All the definitions of "addiction" you brought up though had the same gist. It's a medical condition characterized by substance abuse or disordered behavior and severe problems that probably need treatment as a result of it. I don't see how you can say that people have different definitions of it depending on the source if all your sources said pretty much the same thing.
None of those are applicable for when people come around claiming sugar is as addictive as cocaine or heroin but at the same time they say everything went better because they could just stop eating it from one day to the other no problem and also they're only addicted to sugar when it's in one of 2-3 different foods.
That is simply not what an addiction to a substance is by any definition.
Would you prefer if we change the word to binge?
Seriously, not arguing sugar addiction... just semantics of words.
If it's actual binging. That also has a definition. The symptoms are closer to what people are saying than to addiction at least.
But I'm unsure if there's binge eating that's limited to certain foods instead of "whatever is nearby".
I have never seen anyone with BED say they only binge on one item. It's why getting x out of the house isn't a valid solution.
Hell, I binged on Monday, and I had half a tub of ice cream in the house, but I told myself I want going to be "that fatty" so I aye the most random things in my pantry. And then I ate the ice cream anyways.
I've binged on cans of corn and chili; it's not a good that drives it, it's a compulsion.stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »That's because "bonk" is slang.
All the definitions of "addiction" you brought up though had the same gist. It's a medical condition characterized by substance abuse or disordered behavior and severe problems that probably need treatment as a result of it. I don't see how you can say that people have different definitions of it depending on the source if all your sources said pretty much the same thing.
None of those are applicable for when people come around claiming sugar is as addictive as cocaine or heroin but at the same time they say everything went better because they could just stop eating it from one day to the other no problem and also they're only addicted to sugar when it's in one of 2-3 different foods.
That is simply not what an addiction to a substance is by any definition.
Would you prefer if we change the word to binge?
Seriously, not arguing sugar addiction... just semantics of words.
If it's actual binging. That also has a definition. The symptoms are closer to what people are saying than to addiction at least.
But I'm unsure if there's binge eating that's limited to certain foods instead of "whatever is nearby".
I have never seen anyone with BED say they only binge on one item. It's why getting x out of the house isn't a valid solution.
Hell, I binged on Monday, and I had half a tub of ice cream in the house, but I told myself I want going to be "that fatty" so I aye the most random things in my pantry. And then I ate the ice cream anyways.
I've binged on cans of corn and chili; it's not a good that drives it, it's a compulsion.
Yep. Binging can manifest different ways but it has specific criteria or it isn't binging.
Now when people said "I totes binged last night" (meaning 2 cookies) or saying "I'm totes addicted to Cross fit" or "I went postal when I found out he was cheating" or "I am so OCD when it comes to cleaning the kitchen" they are usually slang when it comes to real actual diagnosiable disorders. I think there is real damage in that on a variety of fronts.
However I honestly don't think it applies much here in terms of arguing semantics. I think almost everyone who posts they are addicted to sugar believe it to be so. It is a misnomer and it is not arguing semantics to challenge that.
And what are those specific criteria? I couldn't find it readily available on the Internet.
You couldn't? It's listed on wiki.
The following are DSM-5 criteria that must be present to make a diagnosis of binge eating disorder. Studies have confirmed the high predictive value of these criteria for diagnosing BED.[4]
"A. Recurrent episodes of binge eating. An episode of binge eating is characterized by both of the following:
Eating, in a discrete period of time (e.g., within any 2-hour period), an amount of food that is definitely larger than what most people would eat in a similar period of time under similar circumstances.
A sense of lack of control over eating during the episode (e.g., a feeling that one cannot stop eating or control what or how much one is eating).
B. The binge-eating episodes are associated with three (or more) of the following:
Eating much more rapidly than normal.
Eating until feeling uncomfortably full.
Eating large amounts of food when not feeling physically hungry.
Eating alone because of feeling embarrassed by how much one is eating.
Feeling disgusted with oneself, depressed, or very guilty afterward.
C. Marked distress regarding binge eating is present.
D. The binge eating occurs, on average, at least once a week for 3 months.
E. The binge eating is not associated with the recurrent use of inappropriate compensatory behavior as in bulimia nervosa and does not occur exclusively during the course of bulimia nervosa or anorexia nervosa."[5]
Binge eating is a core symptom of binge eating disorder; however, not everyone who binge eats has binge eating disorder.[6] An individual may occasionally binge eat without experiencing many of the negative physical, psychological, or social effects of binge eating disorder. This example may be considered an eating problem (or not), rather than a disorder.0 -
A common theme in the binge and addiction threads isFeeling disgusted with oneself, depressed, or very guilty afterward.
Whether the person is using the words binge or addiction correctly, most are feeling badly about whatever is going on.0 -
This content has been removed.
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K 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
- 422 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