Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Arguing Semantics - sugar addiction
Options
Replies
-
To begin with, I'm a bit dismayed that several of the people who have dismissed sugar addiction arguments as semantics are people who have knowledge or links to psychology. If you think semantics is unimportant and reason to dismiss something, I feel you're frankly doing a real poor job understanding psychology as one of the last big shifts in psychology was the development of cognitive therapy and the cognitive approach. In some ways, cognitive therapy is entirely about semantics - how you label the same behavior is important and matters. How you label it mentally, according to cognitive psychology, does change outcomes. Which I think, even without a cognitive psychology approach, many people on MFP are staunchly against letting people label themselves as sugar addicts - the practical experience and learning that achieving long term weight loss is about a relation with food, and how we view it, ourselves, and our connection to it. Labeling oneself an addict absolutely precludes the possibility of having a healthy relationship with a category of food.
What's more, I do, absolutely, 100% deny that it is a semantics argument when at least once per thread about sugar addiction someone says sugar addiction is real, and that the same areas of the brain light up in reaction to sugar that they do for heroin (which I doubly dislike as an example of compounded bad science because the drug comparison is cocaine - heroin acts on opoid receptors while food and cocaine both do work with dopamine and serotonin). There is almost irony in that some of these people who make that claim want to ride two horses going in opposite directions because they'll also be the ones to say it is an unhelpful semantics argument.
I absolutely wanna make out with this post, I love it so much.
I don't think it's an issue of semantics at all. I think what we call something and what we believe about it...absolutely is important. I also don't think sharing science and truth and knowledge is just an issue of semantics.
I'll go further. I once used to believe that food was addictive. I believed that I was a food addict. I would have argued tooth and nail with someone who told me that I was wrong and that food was not an addictive substance. I even continued to believe as I began working within the field of addiction.
However, it didn't change the fact that I was wrong. I had a dysfunctional relationship with food. It affected my life in a variety of ways. The kicker for me...is that when the idea of food addiction was challenged...and I was able to stop just arguing the point as a way of self preservation and denial, I was able to research and learn. I was able to see that it wasn't the substance that is addictive, but it is my thoughts and behaviors which are linked with food that are the issue. It was a behavioral and cognitive issue...not an addiction issue.
So, is that just semantics? For me, absolutely not. When I believed I was a food addict, I followed in the line of the addictive theories and treatments. I truly believed that I needed to have abstinence in relation to those trigger foods. I felt that I had no control when it came to eating those foods. When I was able to see it was a cognitive issue....the intervention was different. I was able to do some really specific cognitive behavioral interventions...and that I no longer had to live a life of abstinence when it came to those trigger foods. My life is fundamentally better because I am now more enlightened and educated when it comes to problem eating.
I am not a food addict because food addiction does not exist. It just doesn't meet the criteria. For me, that is not just flippantly discussed as semantics either. Education is power...not semantics, IMO.
Great posts!0 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »It drives me fricking coocoo when people pull the "food is addiction" line
Behavioural therapy for eating disorders <> therapy for drug / alcohol addiction
It ties in with the modern movement (eg last 2 decades) to victimisation and finding something external to blame. With an approach that asks people to "Disney-fy" the world rather than help.
These "it's not my fault", "it's out of my control", "it's a physical addiction" don't help people change
You know what I think helps people change, taking responsibility, committing, re-committing when you feck up and just stopping blaming society, big pharma, big food, your mother, your boyfriend, your dog and your genetics
Precisely.
But for as long as people aren't prepared to face the fact that it's their own gluttony that put them where they are, nothing will change for them because they're simply not ready for change.
I can say this as someone who tried to blame most of the above for the reason I found myself close to a hundred pounds overweight a year ago. Yes, there were (and still are) some mitigating medical factors involved but the biggest factor in my weight gain was my increasing inability to shut my freaking pie hole.
Was I physically addicted to excess food or sugar? Of course not. I just really, really, really, really liked them.
So it was time to put on my big girl panties (literally *and* figuratively!) and get the job done.
Yes, to both of you.
I do think there seems to be a stigma or perceived stigma to some (especially women) to having a big appetite or liking food which I also think is related to the "being bad" terminology and, especially, the numerous posts about people who never ate much or got fat because they ate too little or who now cannot eat 1200 (not feel satisfied at less so wonder if they should really eat more, not those who have medical issues, but those who say they simply cannot force themselves to eat that much).
I think because of this stigma it is (weird as it seems to me) easier to say "oh, it wasn't that I wanted to eat, but I was addicted."
I also do think another part of it is irresponsible diet gurus convincing people that their love for high cal foods (maybe cookies, maybe pizza) is somehow abnormal (as supposedly normal humans would crave only high nutrient foods, despite the fact that the main concern through human history has been getting enough calories) and thus should be fixed -- thus all the talk about rebooting and detox and the like.
All of this absolutely affects how we think about things, and how we think about things is absolutely important to one's ability to succeed. When I started thinking of weight loss as just a mathematical process (and yes, there is more to it, but the fundamental issue of CICO) it took it from a mysterious process that I didn't believe would work for me to something that seemed understandable and within my control. Similarly, thinking rationally about foods and what they contribute and don't, how many calories they have, etc., has really helped avoid all the "I messed up, might as well go off the diet for the next few days until I can give up whatever-it-is!" reactions that had interfered with success in the past.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »what is semantics exactly?
Semantics is the theory of the meaning of word parts, words, sentences or texts.
If someone says you're arguing semantics, they mean to tell you that you're just arguing about the word they're using, and not the thing itself.
+1 Good description of "semantics". Yes, semantics is the linguistic study of meaning.
and yes "arguing semantics" usually means arguing about what the words mean without actually discussing the issue.
The oft repeated example: mom says "is your homework done?" and the kid starts arguing about what "done" means, rather than answering the question.1 -
Bump
0 -
snowflake954 wrote: »I'm no expert--so bear with me, but I notice so many people coming on MFP and spouting all the catch phrases and terminology that they don't understand indepth. They get so butthurt when someone asks them to defend said phrases. The general public is being brainwashed into believing certain "truths". It takes awhile to understand weightloss and what really happens to our bodies. As more and more people-newbies- sign on, and more and more "old timers" leave, there're bound to be problems with education. I applaude you for taking on the terminology. It's basic to all our education.
I agree and really like the way you put this thought down.
Accusations of "arguing semantics" (IMO) in this case is an intellectually weak attempt by those who simply need to argue instead of facing the unpleasant truth that it's NOT the "sugar" (or insert whatever food they're addicted to) that's at fault for their overconsumption, but their own personal choices.
Now that's not to say there aren't people who truly have issues like BED or other compulsion control issues or an attempt to belittle their legitimate issues. But in these cases, MFP isn't going to solve their problems...they will require professional intervention.0 -
So in.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
To begin with, I'm a bit dismayed that several of the people who have dismissed sugar addiction arguments as semantics are people who have knowledge or links to psychology. If you think semantics is unimportant and reason to dismiss something, I feel you're frankly doing a real poor job understanding psychology as one of the last big shifts in psychology was the development of cognitive therapy and the cognitive approach. In some ways, cognitive therapy is entirely about semantics - how you label the same behavior is important and matters. How you label it mentally, according to cognitive psychology, does change outcomes. Which I think, even without a cognitive psychology approach, many people on MFP are staunchly against letting people label themselves as sugar addicts - the practical experience and learning that achieving long term weight loss is about a relation with food, and how we view it, ourselves, and our connection to it. Labeling oneself an addict absolutely precludes the possibility of having a healthy relationship with a category of food.
What's more, I do, absolutely, 100% deny that it is a semantics argument when at least once per thread about sugar addiction someone says sugar addiction is real, and that the same areas of the brain light up in reaction to sugar that they do for heroin (which I doubly dislike as an example of compounded bad science because the drug comparison is cocaine - heroin acts on opoid receptors while food and cocaine both do work with dopamine and serotonin). There is almost irony in that some of these people who make that claim want to ride two horses going in opposite directions because they'll also be the ones to say it is an unhelpful semantics argument.
I absolutely wanna make out with this post, I love it so much.
I don't think it's an issue of semantics at all. I think what we call something and what we believe about it...absolutely is important. I also don't think sharing science and truth and knowledge is just an issue of semantics.
I'll go further. I once used to believe that food was addictive. I believed that I was a food addict. I would have argued tooth and nail with someone who told me that I was wrong and that food was not an addictive substance. I even continued to believe as I began working within the field of addiction.
However, it didn't change the fact that I was wrong. I had a dysfunctional relationship with food. It affected my life in a variety of ways. The kicker for me...is that when the idea of food addiction was challenged...and I was able to stop just arguing the point as a way of self preservation and denial, I was able to research and learn. I was able to see that it wasn't the substance that is addictive, but it is my thoughts and behaviors which are linked with food that are the issue. It was a behavioral and cognitive issue...not an addiction issue.
So, is that just semantics? For me, absolutely not. When I believed I was a food addict, I followed in the line of the addictive theories and treatments. I truly believed that I needed to have abstinence in relation to those trigger foods. I felt that I had no control when it came to eating those foods. When I was able to see it was a cognitive issue....the intervention was different. I was able to do some really specific cognitive behavioral interventions...and that I no longer had to live a life of abstinence when it came to those trigger foods. My life is fundamentally better because I am now more enlightened and educated when it comes to problem eating.
I am not a food addict because food addiction does not exist. It just doesn't meet the criteria. For me, that is not just flippantly discussed as semantics either. Education is power...not semantics, IMO.
I love what's happening in these posts. Words have power. They have the power to change how we think. They have the power to make us laugh, make us cry, and even make us fall in love. I would bet there's even a dopamine response to certain words -- one could argue we're addicted to words.
If someone wants to argue that this is just a semantics debate that doesn't matter, then I would posit that they're arguing just to argue. If it doesn't matter if someone calls it sugar addiction then it also doesn't matter if some suggests it's not an addiction. No one goes around in such circles as the sugar addiction debates here if it doesn't matter.0 -
The introduction to the Nutrition Debate subforum is frightening if one believes in presenting fact to counter those who mangle the language in order to excuse their actions. The reference to the guidelines is that thinly veiled threat of impending warnings for countering the common claim of "sugar addiction". Feelings and beliefs now trump logic and science.
When words have no meaning they lose their value.0 -
It is really interesting to me that this thread in particular seems to only contain agreement so far that semantics do matter and the definition of addiction and how it is applied here in these forums is important to continue to keep alive even in the general forums. This section is for debate, so where are the people who say semantics don't matter and discussion of word meaning and application are unhelpful?
I mentioned in the Forum Feedback thread that one of my concerns is that the new section will just turn into a failed experiment of "see we told you it wouldn't work" when people either still try to discuss alternative view points in main forums and potentially get warned or everything redirected over here fizzles out when there isn't actual active debate...0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »It is really interesting to me that this thread in particular seems to only contain agreement so far that semantics do matter and the definition of addiction and how it is applied here in these forums is important to continue to keep alive even in the general forums. This section is for debate, so where are the people who say semantics don't matter and discussion of word meaning and application are unhelpful?
I mentioned in the Forum Feedback thread that one of my concerns is that the new section will just turn into a failed experiment of "see we told you it wouldn't work" when people either still try to discuss alternative view points in main forums and potentially get warned or everything redirected over here fizzles out when there isn't actual active debate...
That does appear to be nature of the design of this particular add-on...alongside being a dumping ground for opinions and facts not "on message" of course
0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »The introduction to the Nutrition Debate subforum is frightening if one believes in presenting fact to counter those who mangle the language in order to excuse their actions. The reference to the guidelines is that thinly veiled threat of impending warnings for countering the common claim of "sugar addiction". Feelings and beliefs now trump logic and science.
When words have no meaning they lose their value.
This can't be said loudly enough. How can you have meaningful communication when people are encouraged to have their own definitions, especially when it comes to clinical terminology like addiction?
@senecarr - Great post, man. Perhaps a link to your other (also great) post about the biochemical sequencing in drug use versus food intake. Doesn't that thread show how it's not a semantic argument to confront the term addiction when it comes to sugar?0 -
Oh Man, what a find! Paraphrasing a great quote "I absolutely wanna make out with this thread, I love it so much."
A polite intelligent discussion. The thought of taking personal responsibility. I'm coocoo for these Coco Puffs.
I don't drink alcohol anymore. I believe if I started I couldn't stop and would quickly ruin the wonderful life I now enjoy. I do not want to even entertain that this thinking is wrong. My definition works for me.
So, I'm another believer that semantics are important and powerful. The idea of changing my thoughts, definitions and characterization of food is a highly desirable alternative to something mysterious and out of my control. There are no "bad" foods. Nothing I have to give up forever. I can have (some of) it all and still live a happy and sane life. This can work for me.
I'm gonna be stalking this forum for some friends.
Were we talking about sugar addiction? Without the bother of research, I agree, refined sugar has similar actions in the brain as refined cocaine and leads to a pleasure-seeking habit. It works for sex! If it feels good (brain chemicals in action), do it. Sometimes without regard for safety or sanity. Certainly in the political arena when it comes to sex. At what point does the brain convert something as highly pleasurable to something I must have to survive. Do I have control over those thoughts / chemical reactions? Is it addiction or just a habit?
0 -
We really, really need a like button!1
-
WinoGelato wrote: »It is really interesting to me that this thread in particular seems to only contain agreement so far that semantics do matter and the definition of addiction and how it is applied here in these forums is important to continue to keep alive even in the general forums. This section is for debate, so where are the people who say semantics don't matter and discussion of word meaning and application are unhelpful?
I mentioned in the Forum Feedback thread that one of my concerns is that the new section will just turn into a failed experiment of "see we told you it wouldn't work" when people either still try to discuss alternative view points in main forums and potentially get warned or everything redirected over here fizzles out when there isn't actual active debate...
There is alot of agreement on this thread because the people posting are mostly veterans that have experience and knowledge about dieting. Most of the posting numbers are high. It's also possible that the naysayers will stay away on purpose. They don't want threads like this to succeed. I enjoy reading the science--it's not my forte, since I'm in the arts, but I love to learn and hope there are enough of us out there to keep these types of threads running. Keep on keepin' on.0 -
Looking back at the thread that led to the split off of the "Sugar Addiction" thread, I noticed something interesting. "Some of us actually are addicted to chocolate and sugar! Thats why i made this post to help and support!" ... a quote by the OP that remains while any countering of that position was culled out. That quote, and the other claims of "addiction" that remain in the original thread show it isn't about "semantics" ... it is MFP taking a clear position where logic lost to feels.0
-
brianpperkins wrote: »Looking back at the thread that led to the split off of the "Sugar Addiction" thread, I noticed something interesting. "Some of us actually are addicted to chocolate and sugar! Thats why i made this post to help and support!" ... a quote by the OP that remains while any countering of that position was culled out. That quote, and the other claims of "addiction" that remain in the original thread show it isn't about "semantics" ... it is MFP taking a clear position where logic lost to feels.
I'm really hoping that with time, the OP's will come to realize where the useful information is. We have to make this the area where they come to for the truth. Once the newbies have been around enough to know that the people posting here have been around the longest, things may change--perhaps for the better. This may be the go to area. Could happen. I'm optimistic.0 -
Great thread. Thanks @senecarr!
Words are so important and I am always dismayed when (on MFP and elsewhere) their power is discounted and people take an "oh, whatever" approach and use words to suit their own purpose, with little regard for their actual meaning.WinoGelato wrote: »This section is for debate, so where are the people who say semantics don't matter and discussion of word meaning and application are unhelpful?
I'm wondering about this as well!
0 -
Having spent part of my life in a military communications field, I find that semantics in the use of any language outside of military type restrictions will always exist. Even beyond the basic communication differences, we find that often small groups of people are the ones that create those definitions, be it in the dictionary or the DSM. Some will place more weight on one over the other, regardless of what if any opposition exists to the defined meaning. Being that psychology was introduced into the discussion, I'd even suggest that a term often used in psychology, semantic memory, might describe how any definition that is defined by a person or group of people is always subject to a host of influences such as personal experience, cultural, society views, accepted, religious, etc.
As such, I consider the thread one that attempts to get into the semantics over semantics. That in itself could go on forever, when in reality the individual context of the words expressed could be the same, yet result in people in disagreement over the words.
Likewise regarding the differences between CBT and cognitive distortions. The use of labels might impact outcomes, but the use of labels between individuals differs due to semantics, and what is a harmful label for one might be a useful label for another.
In military communications, often certain terms or individual words are given absolute and singular definitions, never to be used in any other context. The reasons for doing this vary, but the outcome is that they are not open for debate. In common use of language many words have a number of definitions, and as such can be easily taken as having different meanings by different people. And that includes the groups of people that define and select the definitions people use.
So due to coming from a background that at times defines things as absolute (which could also be considered a cognitive distortion!) yet has to exist in the world of communication not being nearly as absolute, I find that for the most part semantics are just as individual as the subject matter they are discussing. So rather than get wrapped up in them, I simply attempt to better understand the context of each person. 0 -
robertw486 wrote: »Having spent part of my life in a military communications field, I find that semantics in the use of any language outside of military type restrictions will always exist. Even beyond the basic communication differences, we find that often small groups of people are the ones that create those definitions, be it in the dictionary or the DSM. Some will place more weight on one over the other, regardless of what if any opposition exists to the defined meaning. Being that psychology was introduced into the discussion, I'd even suggest that a term often used in psychology, semantic memory, might describe how any definition that is defined by a person or group of people is always subject to a host of influences such as personal experience, cultural, society views, accepted, religious, etc.
As such, I consider the thread one that attempts to get into the semantics over semantics. That in itself could go on forever, when in reality the individual context of the words expressed could be the same, yet result in people in disagreement over the words.
Likewise regarding the differences between CBT and cognitive distortions. The use of labels might impact outcomes, but the use of labels between individuals differs due to semantics, and what is a harmful label for one might be a useful label for another.
In military communications, often certain terms or individual words are given absolute and singular definitions, never to be used in any other context. The reasons for doing this vary, but the outcome is that they are not open for debate. In common use of language many words have a number of definitions, and as such can be easily taken as having different meanings by different people. And that includes the groups of people that define and select the definitions people use.
So due to coming from a background that at times defines things as absolute (which could also be considered a cognitive distortion!) yet has to exist in the world of communication not being nearly as absolute, I find that for the most part semantics are just as individual as the subject matter they are discussing. So rather than get wrapped up in them, I simply attempt to better understand the context of each person.
All words have meanings ... some only one, some contextual. The issue lies when people use words with narrow definitions in a way that fails to meet any of those meanings. The staff took it upon themselves to split off posts that counter those using words outside of their meaning while allowing the misuse to continue. Based on what was allowed to remain in the main forums and what was moved, I cannot see any altruistic intent.0 -
se·man·tics
səˈman(t)iks/
noun
the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. There are a number of branches and subbranches of semantics, including formal semantics, which studies the logical aspects of meaning, such as sense, reference, implication, and logical form, lexical semantics, which studies word meanings and word relations, and conceptual semantics, which studies the cognitive structure of meaning.
I'm pretty smart based on my IQ, but I had to look this up to make certain I was reading this thread correctly.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 911 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions