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
-
Sorry I wasn't clear. I was pointing out that people who post the threads on addiction or binges are feeling badly. I think that should be considered when responding to them so you (not you specifically) don't contribute to making them feel worse.0
-
Sorry I wasn't clear. I was pointing out that people who post the threads on addiction or binges are feeling badly. I think that should be considered when responding to them so you (not you specifically) don't contribute to making them feel worse.
So feeling bad is an excuse for incorrect self diagnosis and insisting on help based upon that incorrect self diagnosis and not the actual issue?0 -
At a basic level this conversation seems to be what is more important if one had to choose: the quality of information a user is presented with on using the forum or the quality of the experience they receive.
The latter seems to have won.
The latter also has a number of downsides which are patently obvious but it is a policy seemingly adopted across many social media platforms.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »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.
But what you reference is the definition of binge eating disorder. Binge, by itself, has no such criteria.0 -
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).0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »Sorry I wasn't clear. I was pointing out that people who post the threads on addiction or binges are feeling badly. I think that should be considered when responding to them so you (not you specifically) don't contribute to making them feel worse.
So feeling bad is an excuse for incorrect self diagnosis and insisting on help based upon that incorrect self diagnosis and not the actual issue?
I didn't say that.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Sorry I wasn't clear. I was pointing out that people who post the threads on addiction or binges are feeling badly. I think that should be considered when responding to them so you (not you specifically) don't contribute to making them feel worse.
Hmm. Well I once believed I was a food addict and confronting that misinformation in the end made me a healthier, happier person. So because someone else might not be able to emotionally handle it, I should have been denied the challenge and confrontation that worked best for me???
I didn't say that. What works for you doesn't work for all.0 -
Sorry I wasn't clear. I was pointing out that people who post the threads on addiction or binges are feeling badly. I think that should be considered when responding to them so you (not you specifically) don't contribute to making them feel worse.
Many people with a broken arm are going to feel worse as the doctor twists and turns it into place to set it - a requirement for actually healing and fixing the problem.
I'm not saying it is necessary to make people feel worse in all instances about calling themselves addicted to sugar, but I don't think they're going to get better until - in one form or another - they are disabused of their false understanding, and unfortunately if their identity and ability to cope with their failings at losing weight is wrapped up in using addiction as a way to rationalize, it probably will involve some discomfort for them.
I believe there is a refrain about being cruel to be kind - which is in the right measure, which is why those people really need to stop blaming sugar and just use a food scale to measure out their sugar intake.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
I'm absolutely sure that Corporations hire scientists, chemists, food specialists to manipulate the processed foods to create Food Addictions , they use sugar, salt & fat.
Who could deny that?0 -
-
This content has been removed.
-
I'm absolutely sure that Corporations hire scientists, chemists, food specialists to manipulate the processed foods to create Food Addictions , they use sugar, salt & fat.
Who could deny that?
Lots of people. They hire people to create food people find palatable. They don't set out to create addictions. The foods do not contain any addictive substances (this is not cigarette companies putting nicotine in their product to get people hooked).0 -
This content has been removed.
-
I'm absolutely sure that Corporations hire scientists, chemists, food specialists to manipulate the processed foods to create Food Addictions , they use sugar, salt & fat.
Who could deny that?
So why not skip what doesn't work (you can't be addicted to sugar) and put actual addictive drugs in the food?
Now do corporations hire people to make food tastier and therefore increase the chances that you'll want to eat it again - possibly even eat more than is health for you? Of course. Welcome to unintended consequences of unquestioned profit motive.0 -
Sorry I wasn't clear. I was pointing out that people who post the threads on addiction or binges are feeling badly. I think that should be considered when responding to them so you (not you specifically) don't contribute to making them feel worse.
Hmm. Well I once believed I was a food addict and confronting that misinformation in the end made me a healthier, happier person. So because someone else might not be able to emotionally handle it, I should have been denied the challenge and confrontation that worked best for me???
I didn't say that. What works for you doesn't work for all.
That's essentially the crux of her argument of why your proposed instructions for how everyone is to behave are flawed.0 -
Sorry I wasn't clear. I was pointing out that people who post the threads on addiction or binges are feeling badly. I think that should be considered when responding to them so you (not you specifically) don't contribute to making them feel worse.
Many people with a broken arm are going to feel worse as the doctor twists and turns it into place to set it - a requirement for actually healing and fixing the problem.
I'm not saying it is necessary to make people feel worse in all instances about calling themselves addicted to sugar, but I don't think they're going to get better until - in one form or another - they are disabused of their false understanding, and unfortunately if their identity and ability to cope with their failings at losing weight is wrapped up in using addiction as a way to rationalize, it probably will involve some discomfort for them.
I believe there is a refrain about being cruel to be kind - which is in the right measure, which is why those people really need to stop blaming sugar and just use a food scale to measure out their sugar intake.
I don't think your example is applicable to a forum. When a doctor hurts to help you, you can be fairly sure they know what they are doing (aside from bad docs). A person consents to what the doctor needs to do. You (not specifically you) are not a doctor or psycholgist so it isn't up to you to hurt someone on an Internet forum to help them.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »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).
So there are several "wiggle" words here: A "discrete period of time" is subjective, even though they give an example. The terms "larger than what most people eat" is vague since they don't say how much larger it has to be (500 calories, 5000 calories?). Also the description of "under similar circumstances" is completely arbitrary. Are we talking similar height/weight stats, similar environmental stimuli, similar levels of hunger. So no, this definition give no absolute criteria to determine what rises to the binge level. That's my point.0 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »Sorry I wasn't clear. I was pointing out that people who post the threads on addiction or binges are feeling badly. I think that should be considered when responding to them so you (not you specifically) don't contribute to making them feel worse.
Hmm. Well I once believed I was a food addict and confronting that misinformation in the end made me a healthier, happier person. So because someone else might not be able to emotionally handle it, I should have been denied the challenge and confrontation that worked best for me???
I didn't say that. What works for you doesn't work for all.
That's essentially the crux of her argument of why your proposed instructions for how everyone is to behave are flawed.
I am not instructing anyone on how to behave.0 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »Sorry I wasn't clear. I was pointing out that people who post the threads on addiction or binges are feeling badly. I think that should be considered when responding to them so you (not you specifically) don't contribute to making them feel worse.
Hmm. Well I once believed I was a food addict and confronting that misinformation in the end made me a healthier, happier person. So because someone else might not be able to emotionally handle it, I should have been denied the challenge and confrontation that worked best for me???
I didn't say that. What works for you doesn't work for all.
That's essentially the crux of her argument of why your proposed instructions for how everyone is to behave are flawed.
I am not instructing anyone on how to behave.
But what we're saying is that semantics discussions should be allowed to an extent; instead we're segregated to a separate forum, and those arguments are actually removed from threads entirely to be split here. That's the whole point of this discussion. Sometimes realizing you aren't actually addicted can help people move on. It should be a valid statement.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
The facts lie in the conduct and behavior we see all around us, i see people who would love to leave behind all of the medications they are taking, i see IRL people who struggle terribly and never become an acceptable size or weight; the problem we have worldwide is the sugar, salt and fat placed in foods that cause/reinforce/create a dependance. These are not truly foods, they are chemicals packaged to resemble foods.
Is there any nutritional value in Sugar?0 -
Sorry I wasn't clear. I was pointing out that people who post the threads on addiction or binges are feeling badly. I think that should be considered when responding to them so you (not you specifically) don't contribute to making them feel worse.
Many people with a broken arm are going to feel worse as the doctor twists and turns it into place to set it - a requirement for actually healing and fixing the problem.
I'm not saying it is necessary to make people feel worse in all instances about calling themselves addicted to sugar, but I don't think they're going to get better until - in one form or another - they are disabused of their false understanding, and unfortunately if their identity and ability to cope with their failings at losing weight is wrapped up in using addiction as a way to rationalize, it probably will involve some discomfort for them.
I believe there is a refrain about being cruel to be kind - which is in the right measure, which is why those people really need to stop blaming sugar and just use a food scale to measure out their sugar intake.
I don't think your example is applicable to a forum. When a doctor hurts to help you, you can be fairly sure they know what they are doing (aside from bad docs). A person consents to what the doctor needs to do. You (not specifically you) are not a doctor or psycholgist so it isn't up to you to hurt someone on an Internet forum to help them.
If a person's ability to cope with their current life is wrapped in a false belief of them having addiction, no one is under any obligation to deny the truth and weight of current scientific understanding to them to protect that identity. For such people, honesty is going to cause a certain level of discomfort, but at some point they'll have to pick between getting better and self-deception. It isn't on me to feed their self deception just because they desire it.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
The facts lie in the conduct and behavior we see all around us, i see people who would love to leave behind all of the medications they are taking, i see IRL people who struggle terribly and never become an acceptable size or weight; the problem we have worldwide is the sugar, salt and fat placed in foods that cause/reinforce/create a dependance. These are not truly foods, they are chemicals packaged to resemble foods.
Is there any nutritional value in Sugar?
You mean besides it being a MACRONUTRIENT?
Your assertions are flat out wrong but your posts do help illustrate why so many of us see culling out posts calling out such flawed assertions is a mistake. Sugar, salt, and fat are not addictive substances no matter how much you try to give them credit for people's behavior ... and abdicate people from responsibility in the process.
0 -
missblondi2u wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »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).
So there are several "wiggle" words here: A "discrete period of time" is subjective, even though they give an example. The terms "larger than what most people eat" is vague since they don't say how much larger it has to be (500 calories, 5000 calories?). Also the description of "under similar circumstances" is completely arbitrary. Are we talking similar height/weight stats, similar environmental stimuli, similar levels of hunger. So no, this definition give no absolute criteria to determine what rises to the binge level. That's my point.
Because over specification would be foolish. It also ignores the prime point of psychological diagnosis and treatement - to help someone cope with their existence. Defining a specific calorie range has nothing to do with that. Think about it. Plenty of competitive food eaters would meet the defintion if it is based on worrying about the calories than the actual distress and emotional impairment it causes a person, but most competitive eaters are rather happy with the fact that they managed to consume inordinately large amounts of food in a sitting. The terms are "vague" because the terms matter in the context of how the person feels about it and how it is impacting that person's ability to live and function.
So, yeah, I've probably ate 2000 or 3000 in 5 minutes doing a hot dog eating contest, but it wasn't something that hindered my life. The person who eats 1000 calories of cookie dough in their room crying and feeling they can't stop what they're doing is having a binge. You're focusing on absolutely the wrong part of the diagnosis just because you think the terms need specific criteria when that isn't the important part of a psychological issue.0 -
The facts lie in the conduct and behavior we see all around us, i see people who would love to leave behind all of the medications they are taking, i see IRL people who struggle terribly and never become an acceptable size or weight; the problem we have worldwide is the sugar, salt and fat placed in foods that cause/reinforce/create a dependance. These are not truly foods, they are chemicals packaged to resemble foods.
Is there any nutritional value in Sugar?
I disagree
The failing is in the individual not taking responsibility and blaming everything else but themselves
Sometimes that individual needs to be shocked into understanding that's it down to them, sometimes coached, sometimes traditional therapies
The problem is believing the issue is extrinsic and you are a powerless victim
An old cliche that parents use with children is "and if your friends said to jump off a cliff...?"
The problem fat people have is choice and lack of desire to choose the harder path
Even with diagnosed illnesses ...caused by obesity ..people get mired in their victimhood or they choose to ignore that it is their actions that lead them there
Sugar has calories ...calories are energy ...eat too many calories and don't burn them off and the body will store that as fat ...the body would do the same to excess calories from protein, fats, and cauliflower
0 -
I'm not saying it isn't hard
But when did we ever come to the conclusion that life should just be a long easy ride? Who promised us that
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