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
-
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?
And yet this thread is filled with people that have lost weight and eaten fat, sugar, salt, processed, packaged, homogenized, specialized, commodified, rarified, exemplified and defied, demonized and despised, foods and still survived!
And yes. Sugar is a carbohydrate which makes it a macro nutrition, which by definition means it has nutritional value.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
see i agree with this, but it takes us all different times to get to that stage. one or two posts wont always work when its taken some of us years to make the change.
also sometimes i think when you are in a different stage to others it is hard to remember being like the OP. Posters just want the OP to hurry up and wake up right now but its not always going to be like. that i see gets some people frustrated around here. Hopefully setting up an account here means that people wanted to better themselves in some form.
I remember that post that one of the mods started that asked something like if you were shocked by your GP re a terminal illness will that make you start losing weight immediately. it was something along that lines. lots of people said that may not immediately change if i remember. And then on the other hand some will use the wake up call from the GP and get cracking.
Are they all mired in victimhood? some honestly think its the food not them, some scared, some dont know where to start, some to lazy to start? but it looks like we are bunching them all in the same pot.
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.
I think we're talking about different things here. If you read my earlier posts, all I was saying is that a person can use the word "binge" in a way that does not mean an actual binge disorder. And the reason that is acceptable is because there is a difference between the medical term binge eating disorder and the dictionary definition of a binge. And I don't think you can expect that everyone on here is intending the medical term when they use the word. It has different connotations for different people. That is my point.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.
Feeling out of control and that you are bad because you are drawn to bad foods is an important part of why people feel badly. Helping them see how to regain control (rather than agreeing "yes, you are simply an addict, sucks for you!") and encouraging them to see that black and white thinking where food is bad or good is probably related to their out of control feelings is, I think, helpful.
In fact, one reason I find the encouragement of people to see specific foods as bad and addictive to be pernicious and worth fighting is that I think this kind of illogical thinking about food usually makes the problem worse. I've seen women in my life (and been prone to it some myself) identify foods as bad, swear off eating it, and then eat it, see themselves as bad (because only a bad and disgusting person would want that bad and disgusting food, let alone eat it in that piggish, disgusting way -- this is the messed up mind thinking here). The resulting depression and self-disgust just leads to feeling hopeless and deciding you might as well give up and eat more.
I think one very helpful thing is to think as logically as possible about foods. They aren't addictive. They aren't bad or good. They contain a certain number of calories and package of nutrients and sure you can make better or worse choices about your diet but no individual choice is that big a deal and eating a less than healthful diet doesn't make you a bad person. It is something you can work to improve and learn from your mistakes (without worrying about being perfect).
And there's really no quick fix.
But yes, beyond this I dislike words being used incorrectly and overeating cookies being compared to a heroin addiction.0 -
Therealobi1 wrote: »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
see i agree with this, but it takes us all different times to get to that stage. one or two posts wont always work when its taken some of us years to make the change.
also sometimes i think when you are in a different stage to others it is hard to remember being like the OP. Posters just want the OP to hurry up and wake up right now but its not always going to be like. that i see gets some people frustrated around here. Hopefully setting up an account here means that people wanted to better themselves in some form.
I remember that post that one of the mods started that asked something like if you were shocked by your GP re a terminal illness will that make you start losing weight immediately. it was something along that lines. lots of people said that may not immediately change if i remember. And then on the other hand some will use the wake up call from the GP and get cracking.
Are they all mired in victimhood? some honestly think its the food not them, some scared, some dont know where to start, some to lazy to start? but it looks like we are bunching them all in the same pot.
You're right
It took me 30 years until I was ready
What didn't help along the way?
- feeling like I couldn't do anything about it, it was inevitable
- People telling me I wasn't fat and looked great
- Falling for the latest fix, superfoods, fad
- Feeling middle-aged
- Losing weight through macro restriction and crashing and burning
- Serious health conditions
What helped?
- being ready, watching my fit father get frail and thinking wow that happened quick
- Taking control
- Disposable income for a trainer
- Clever people talking up science objectively
- The removal of social niceties and excused from my own head ...yes you are fat, yes you are lazy ...do something or don't ...nobody else cares and it effects nobody else
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.
Also, lots of people are probably feeling badly and many people posting before they even read the forums at all may be the sorts of people who just get off on attention. (I've started one thread not in a group since I've been here, so I tend to think people who jump into a new forum and start a thread right away are extremely unlikely to be that thin-skinned in reality, much as they might enjoy calling those trying to help them names.)
Since you don't know what's going on in anyone else's life or if they are really hurting, it is probably nice to give everyone the benefit of the doubt and try to be kind to everyone, even those of us who find the use of the term "addiction" wrong-headed. Indeed, why I, and some others, who react to comments like "sugar addiction is just like heroin addiction" or "sugar is the worst addiction, far worse than a drug!" so negatively (and I do have a strongly negative reaction although I generally respond nicely to OPs, as I think they are struggling and I can relate to the struggles), is because we have seen the results of other addictions and find the comparison in really bad taste and quite callous.0 -
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?
I've cooked Christmas dinner (among many other meals) using sugar, salt, and fat. Am I a pusher?
Again, anyone who thinks highly processed foods are harder to resist than well-made homemade foods has apparently never been exposed to good cooking. The deal with highly processed foods is that they have managed to improve how tasty they are over the years (yes, using sugar, fat, and salt -- items that are in a huge number of other foods), and they are cheap and easily available, and for whatever reason many people no longer use any judgment in terms of deciding how much they should eat (i.e., snacking constantly) or reading nutrition and calorie information.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.
No one is trying to hurt anyone. If being told "no, having an issue with overeating cookies is not the same thing as an addiction" is hurtful in your opinion, then you should probably limit your internet discussions to forums where everyone is already in agreement.
That people increasingly think they should be protected from opposing ideas is SO depressing and related to what's wrong with the world today.0 -
lemurcat12 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.
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.
No one is trying to hurt anyone. If being told "no, having an issue with overeating cookies is not the same thing as an addiction" is hurtful in your opinion, then you should probably limit your internet discussions to forums where everyone is already in agreement.
That people increasingly think they should be protected from opposing ideas is SO depressing and related to what's wrong with the world today.
Victims. Victims everywhere :huh:0 -
lemurcat12 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.
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.
No one is trying to hurt anyone. If being told "no, having an issue with overeating cookies is not the same thing as an addiction" is hurtful in your opinion, then you should probably limit your internet discussions to forums where everyone is already in agreement.
That people increasingly think they should be protected from opposing ideas is SO depressing and related to what's wrong with the world today.
Church.
Many decades from now, historians will identify this as the single greatest factor in the inevitable decline (and possibly extinction) of humanity.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
That people increasingly think they should be protected from opposing ideas is SO depressing and related to what's wrong with the world today.
Yup.
And this is part of the problem with disproportionately focusing on subjective feelings when trying to give high quality advice. To some people even asking questions of their position is seen as "bullying" or "being mean". Trying to contort yourself into various novel positions so that the delivery is well received can compromise the quality and usefulness of the advice.
Sometimes the exact thing people really need is to be challenged on the basis of their beliefs.
Debates and the free exchange of ideas change the world.0 -
Bumping this up. Was well worth reading. Thank you all for stepping out, it's very frustrating (to the point that I avoid most topics in the forums) to read and re-read the same things over and over again. Stop being a 'victim' and take control of your life. Educate yourself and do something about it.0
-
missblondi2u wrote: »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.
I never thought anyone was *trying* to be insensitive.0 -
missblondi2u wrote: »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.
I think we're talking about different things here. If you read my earlier posts, all I was saying is that a person can use the word "binge" in a way that does not mean an actual binge disorder. And the reason that is acceptable is because there is a difference between the medical term binge eating disorder and the dictionary definition of a binge. And I don't think you can expect that everyone on here is intending the medical term when they use the word. It has different connotations for different people. That is my point.
And I think the comments that maybe prompted this tangent about the clinical vs casual definition of the word "binge" is that it is difficult for those who have either suffered from Binge Eating Disorder, or who is sensitive to the fact that there is a very clear distinction between a binge episode in the clinical sense of the word vs "ZOMG I binged last night I had 10 OREOS" to try to find a way to establish that differentiation without seeming like they are diminishing the feelings of the person in the second example. Trying to get at the specific connotation the person means when they use the word, especially in the binge example I think, is a sensitive and precarious discussion and one that I certainly could use improvement at. Most of the time I don't even try, because I haven't figured out how to establish that difference sensitively, to both groups of people.0 -
TheLittleRedHairedGirl wrote: »Bumping this up. Was well worth reading. Thank you all for stepping out, it's very frustrating (to the point that I avoid most topics in the forums) to read and re-read the same things over and over again. Stop being a 'victim' and take control of your life. Educate yourself and do something about it.
Thank you for chiming in - it is great to hear from people who haven't posted a lot that these discussions really are helpful. I think a lot of the participants do feel we just go in circles most of the time. That's exactly why we had such high hopes for this new section of the forums.
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.
Discrete period of time just means it starts at some point and is over at another.
It says "definitely" larger so a large enough difference to not just be explained by being extra hungry. A p-value of <0.05 if it were a study, so to say.
And similar circumstances would be a person of equal build, with the same sort of daily routines. Someone doing IF is not going to have similar meals to someone eating 5 meals a day. A 5 foot sedentary girl isn't going to have similar meals as a 6 foot athlete.
It's not really all that vague.0 -
missblondi2u wrote: »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.
I think we're talking about different things here. If you read my earlier posts, all I was saying is that a person can use the word "binge" in a way that does not mean an actual binge disorder. And the reason that is acceptable is because there is a difference between the medical term binge eating disorder and the dictionary definition of a binge. And I don't think you can expect that everyone on here is intending the medical term when they use the word. It has different connotations for different people. That is my point.
No, you were saying there's a lot of wiggle room and vagueness in Steven's quote the definition of binge from binge eating diagnosis.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »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.
Discrete period of time just means it starts at some point and is over at another.
It says "definitely" larger so a large enough difference to not just be explained by being extra hungry. A p-value of <0.05 if it were a study, so to say.
And similar circumstances would be a person of equal build, with the same sort of daily routines. Someone doing IF is not going to have similar meals to someone eating 5 meals a day. A 5 foot sedentary girl isn't going to have similar meals as a 6 foot athlete.
It's not really all that vague.
So a discrete period of time could be an hour, a day, or a year? And again, what is "large enough"? The phrase "not explained by being extra hungry" is your addition, and not in the definition you cited. Plus, there was no reference to p-value in the definition, and can you really expect everyone posting to even know what a p-value is? See, none of this is clear, which is why you cannot legitimately say that a person shouldn't use the term binge to mean a simple overeating episode. It fits the dictionary definition of binge, and appears to even fit the medical definition you cited. All I am saying is that this seems like a word police instance, where some people have a certain connotation (binge=binge eating disorder) whereas others have another, no less valid, meaning.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »missblondi2u wrote: »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.
I never thought anyone was *trying* to be insensitive.
Maybe I misinterpreted, but what I read were several people who said they cringed every time someone used the word binge in a way that didn't fit the medical definition of a binge eating disorder because of their personal experience or feelings about eating disorders (you know, the touchy-feely stuff you guys hate so much). I was trying to make the point that people should consider that the word has different, perfectly acceptable meanings and maybe should try not to take it so personally when people use the word in a different way.0 -
missblondi2u wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »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.
Discrete period of time just means it starts at some point and is over at another.
It says "definitely" larger so a large enough difference to not just be explained by being extra hungry. A p-value of <0.05 if it were a study, so to say.
And similar circumstances would be a person of equal build, with the same sort of daily routines. Someone doing IF is not going to have similar meals to someone eating 5 meals a day. A 5 foot sedentary girl isn't going to have similar meals as a 6 foot athlete.
It's not really all that vague.
So a discrete period of time could be an hour, a day, or a year? And again, what is "large enough"? The phrase "not explained by being extra hungry" is your addition, and not in the definition you cited. Plus, there was no reference to p-value in the definition, and can you really expect everyone posting to even know what a p-value is? See, none of this is clear, which is why you cannot legitimately say that a person shouldn't use the term binge to mean a simple overeating episode. It fits the dictionary definition of binge, and appears to even fit the medical definition you cited. All I am saying is that this seems like a word police instance, where some people have a certain connotation (binge=binge eating disorder) whereas others have another, no less valid, meaning.
Well said. This was the point I was getting at.0 -
missblondi2u wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »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.
Discrete period of time just means it starts at some point and is over at another.
It says "definitely" larger so a large enough difference to not just be explained by being extra hungry. A p-value of <0.05 if it were a study, so to say.
And similar circumstances would be a person of equal build, with the same sort of daily routines. Someone doing IF is not going to have similar meals to someone eating 5 meals a day. A 5 foot sedentary girl isn't going to have similar meals as a 6 foot athlete.
It's not really all that vague.
So a discrete period of time could be an hour, a day, or a year? And again, what is "large enough"? The phrase "not explained by being extra hungry" is your addition, and not in the definition you cited. Plus, there was no reference to p-value in the definition, and can you really expect everyone posting to even know what a p-value is? See, none of this is clear, which is why you cannot legitimately say that a person shouldn't use the term binge to mean a simple overeating episode. It fits the dictionary definition of binge, and appears to even fit the medical definition you cited. All I am saying is that this seems like a word police instance, where some people have a certain connotation (binge=binge eating disorder) whereas others have another, no less valid, meaning.
So they can have feels because they coined a term to mean something it's not, but I can't have feels because them doing so makes me feel like the are belittling my actual issues?
Ok.0 -
missblondi2u wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »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.
Discrete period of time just means it starts at some point and is over at another.
It says "definitely" larger so a large enough difference to not just be explained by being extra hungry. A p-value of <0.05 if it were a study, so to say.
And similar circumstances would be a person of equal build, with the same sort of daily routines. Someone doing IF is not going to have similar meals to someone eating 5 meals a day. A 5 foot sedentary girl isn't going to have similar meals as a 6 foot athlete.
It's not really all that vague.
So a discrete period of time could be an hour, a day, or a year? And again, what is "large enough"? The phrase "not explained by being extra hungry" is your addition, and not in the definition you cited. Plus, there was no reference to p-value in the definition, and can you really expect everyone posting to even know what a p-value is? See, none of this is clear, which is why you cannot legitimately say that a person shouldn't use the term binge to mean a simple overeating episode. It fits the dictionary definition of binge, and appears to even fit the medical definition you cited. All I am saying is that this seems like a word police instance, where some people have a certain connotation (binge=binge eating disorder) whereas others have another, no less valid, meaning.
Well said. This was the point I was getting at.
Which is also the exact point those diametrically opposed to the MFP position on use of "food addiction" are getting at0 -
missblondi2u wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »missblondi2u wrote: »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.
I never thought anyone was *trying* to be insensitive.
Maybe I misinterpreted, but what I read were several people who said they cringed every time someone used the word binge in a way that didn't fit the medical definition of a binge eating disorder because of their personal experience or feelings about eating disorders (you know, the touchy-feely stuff you guys hate so much). I was trying to make the point that people should consider that the word has different, perfectly acceptable meanings and maybe should try not to take it so personally when people use the word in a different way.
Many of us qualified it by saying that it was because it makes it harder to give advice, not because it was "wrong." I also cringe when I see people use the word irony wrong, but the dictionary says they're right. If someone asked if a situation was ironic, would you answer based on the original meaning of the word, the new one, or try to include both? That's the problem many of us are coming across when we try to give advice.0 -
I don't think someone starts binging on January 1st and only stops eating everything in their path December 31st.
And large enough, as said. Without a doubt recognizable as a lot more than would be normal eating patterns in that person's situation. The p-value addition was from me for you to make it clear what I mean with big enough to not be just randomly from extra hunger.
To put it in example numbers, your maintenance calories are 2000, your average meal has 600 calories but suddenly you eat 2000 extra just after lunch because you can't stop. Stuff like that. Without a doubt, definitely larger than you should or would normally eat. But as Senecarr said, it depends on context, someone in a eating contest will obviously eat much more than he would normally eat.
And yeah, I have a bit of a problem with people throwing around words that are actual medical conditions to describe them eating a few cookies too many. Especially when everything they say is like they actually think they have that medical condition because of it, as has been evidenced aplenty already.0 -
missblondi2u wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »missblondi2u wrote: »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.
I never thought anyone was *trying* to be insensitive.
Maybe I misinterpreted, but what I read were several people who said they cringed every time someone used the word binge in a way that didn't fit the medical definition of a binge eating disorder because of their personal experience or feelings about eating disorders (you know, the touchy-feely stuff you guys hate so much). I was trying to make the point that people should consider that the word has different, perfectly acceptable meanings and maybe should try not to take it so personally when people use the word in a different way.
Misperception. A desire for truth over comforting lies and evidence based reasoning doesn't mean you're against feeling.
Someone wants to post "dieting is hard, sometimes I feel so out of control with it," my response is sure, it is, I'm sorry you're having a hard time and perhaps tell them to consider x,y,z for their particular situation. Someone posts "I'm a sugar addict, I'm out of control," and my response is no, you're not an addict, a healthy relationship with food is hard, so denying you can be in control is only making that out of control feeling worse, consider x,y,z to help.0 -
missblondi2u wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »missblondi2u wrote: »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.
I never thought anyone was *trying* to be insensitive.
Maybe I misinterpreted, but what I read were several people who said they cringed every time someone used the word binge in a way that didn't fit the medical definition of a binge eating disorder because of their personal experience or feelings about eating disorders (you know, the touchy-feely stuff you guys hate so much). I was trying to make the point that people should consider that the word has different, perfectly acceptable meanings and maybe should try not to take it so personally when people use the word in a different way.
You did misinterpret. I don't cringe because I think anyone is trying to be insensitive. I can be concerned about the implications of a certain word being used without thinking that anyone is being deliberate about it.
And I'm not sure what you mean by "you guys" and your assumptions about what I hate. I'm an individual, let's talk to each other as individuals if we're doing to discuss this. What did I ever say to give you the impression that I hate touchy-feeling stuff? Previous posts of mine? Something I said in this thread?0 -
missblondi2u wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »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.
Discrete period of time just means it starts at some point and is over at another.
It says "definitely" larger so a large enough difference to not just be explained by being extra hungry. A p-value of <0.05 if it were a study, so to say.
And similar circumstances would be a person of equal build, with the same sort of daily routines. Someone doing IF is not going to have similar meals to someone eating 5 meals a day. A 5 foot sedentary girl isn't going to have similar meals as a 6 foot athlete.
It's not really all that vague.
So a discrete period of time could be an hour, a day, or a year? And again, what is "large enough"? The phrase "not explained by being extra hungry" is your addition, and not in the definition you cited. Plus, there was no reference to p-value in the definition, and can you really expect everyone posting to even know what a p-value is? See, none of this is clear, which is why you cannot legitimately say that a person shouldn't use the term binge to mean a simple overeating episode. It fits the dictionary definition of binge, and appears to even fit the medical definition you cited. All I am saying is that this seems like a word police instance, where some people have a certain connotation (binge=binge eating disorder) whereas others have another, no less valid, meaning.
So they can have feels because they coined a term to mean something it's not, but I can't have feels because them doing so makes me feel like the are belittling my actual issues?
Ok.
I did not say people couldn't have feelz. I was making a connection to the fact that a lot of people here are mad that they are being shunted to this section because they are saying things that people don't like because of feelz. To me at least, I saw a connection. We can either get upset about how people use words, or we can accept that different people use words differently.0 -
missblondi2u wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »missblondi2u wrote: »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.
I never thought anyone was *trying* to be insensitive.
Maybe I misinterpreted, but what I read were several people who said they cringed every time someone used the word binge in a way that didn't fit the medical definition of a binge eating disorder because of their personal experience or feelings about eating disorders (you know, the touchy-feely stuff you guys hate so much). I was trying to make the point that people should consider that the word has different, perfectly acceptable meanings and maybe should try not to take it so personally when people use the word in a different way.
I think it comes down to the setting in which the terms are being used. If I'm in a bar with a bunch of people whose fitness/diet routines I know nothing about, I probably wouldn't have any issue if my buddy told me how binged on huge cheesesteak the night before. Here, on a site with so many people in ED recovery, I do try to be sensitive of how "binge" is used.
Personally, I've used the term in the past to describe any episode of overeating. After lurking MFP, I learned that some of my overeating absolutely falls into the binging category and how to tell the difference between those times and the times I just ate a little too much for dessert. I should not be consuming 4500 calories between work and home on a random Wednesday night. Similarly, I shouldn't be exceeding my calorie goal by 300 calories because I had 2 extra scoops of ice cream. To me, now, I would only describe one of those things as a binge.0 -
I hear you. And I understand. People have binge eating disorders. Different people have different triggers. Some people binge eat sunflower seeds (for real, I know someone). And some suger, salt, etc. It makes sense that certain tasting food could trigger a person's binge response. And over eating is a real thing that can destroy people's lives in multiple ways. So, I hear you. And people should do whatever is healthiest for themselves and their recovery which is psychological, as well as physical. I know it's difficult to be struggling with something and for people to be the opposite of validating and instead dismissing. There is no need for that. I know it's difficult. But, ultimately with these issues (whatever they may be) we just need to know what is true and keep healing. Not everyone on the internet is going to understand. I have never had binge eating, but I can still understand. I didn't always understand. But, I do now. ETA: Sorry I didn't read the thread. I don't agree if someone says everyone reacts to something as an addiction. But, I do know people that have struggled with binge eating disorder. I was often put off by the drug comparison. But, I understand now how serious binge eating disorder is. I don't see anything productive in me arguing against another person's struggles. Life is hard enough. They are getting their own help. I am not their psychologist.0
-
stevencloser wrote: »I don't think someone starts binging on January 1st and only stops eating everything in their path December 31st.
And large enough, as said. Without a doubt recognizable as a lot more than would be normal eating patterns in that person's situation. The p-value addition was from me for you to make it clear what I mean with big enough to not be just randomly from extra hunger.
To put it in example numbers, your maintenance calories are 2000, your average meal has 600 calories but suddenly you eat 2000 extra just after lunch because you can't stop. Stuff like that. Without a doubt, definitely larger than you should or would normally eat. But as Senecarr said, it depends on context, someone in a eating contest will obviously eat much more than he would normally eat.
And yeah, I have a bit of a problem with people throwing around words that are actual medical conditions to describe them eating a few cookies too many. Especially when everything they say is like they actually think they have that medical condition because of it, as has been evidenced aplenty already.
And I just don't think that saying you binged is throwing around a medical condition. If you said "I ate 10 oreos, I must have a binge eating disorder" I agree that a distinction should be made.
The whole point of this thread, I thought, was that words and definitions are important. And my point was that words, like binge, can have different meanings to different people.
But you guys are right, this has become a bit of a tangent (although still, I think, within the overall topic of semantics).0
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