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
-
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 -
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.
Qft0 -
Fist bump. Since there's no like button.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 agree with your assessment of that action
Unsurprised as there is a lot of history ...previously deleted, now shunted0 -
This content has been removed.
-
booksandchocolate12 wrote: »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!
Noting the people posting here (and having been around for nearly 4 years), many of them have spent time in "jail" which leads me to wonder if this isn't a place to herd the Usual Suspects for police note-taking of who/whom to look for when there's "trouble".
OT, I generally know what people mean when they claim to be addicted to sugar, but I feel I have to ask or worm out what the OP actually means. It's typically not sugar in and of itself, but a hyper-palatable food or social eating or being bored af.1 -
OT, I generally know what people mean when they claim to be addicted to sugar, but I feel I have to ask or worm out what the OP actually means. It's typically not sugar in and of itself, but a hyper-palatable food or social eating or being bored af.
And it is still not an addiction, just the desire to place the blame on anything except their own actions.
I know most people in this thread already know that but it bears repeating over and over since telling fairy tales to "addicts" will not help them. Maybe some will read this thread and actually learn some truth.
0 -
Is the idea here to have someplace to be able to link the 'addicts' to when this comes up over-and-over ad nauseum on the main forums? As a place where those actually interested in *doing* something over and above just complaining about how much of a victim they are can actually come to get real info instead of just dem feelz? Or will linking get those doing it warnings?
It's all so unclear. Right now, this area feels more like a trap than an improvement. Like a place to corral all the real and useful information so that it's out-of-the-way.
I would welcome some clarification on this from the mod team.0 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »Right now, this area feels more like a trap than an improvement. Like a place to corral all the real and useful information so that it's out-of-the-way.
I would welcome some clarification on this from the mod team.
Agreed. I don't really see the point of a "debate" section if only like-minded people are posting in it.0 -
As someone who is relatively new here (and hasn't seen sugar addiction debated to death yet) this has been a really interesting read. Both in life and online, I totally agree that words have meaning and we can't simply ascribe different meanings to them out of convenience, or worse, to avoid culpability.
That said, I keep wondering while reading along here how folks would feel if the the word "addiction" were being used to positive ends rather than as an excuse. This comes close to what I mean:
I love chocolate. Last week I went a bit overboard, so this week I am purposely avoiding it. If history is any guide, by next week, my cravings will diminish and I won't be constantly wondering where my next "chocolate fix" is.Mavrick_RN wrote: »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.
I don't describe my chocolate-love as an "addiction" but what if I did? What if instead of the above, I wrote "I am addicted to chocolate so I am avoiding it this week." I've gotten to the same place by taking a different route. Does the "words have meaning" argument carry the same weight here?
For what it's worth, I'm not asking rhetorically - I'm interested in the response.
1 -
Triplestep wrote: »As someone who is relatively new here (and hasn't seen sugar addiction debated to death yet) this has been a really interesting read. Both in life and online, I totally agree that words have meaning and we can't simply ascribe different meanings to them out of convenience, or worse, to avoid culpability.
That said, I keep wondering while reading along here how folks would feel if the the word "addiction" were being used to positive ends rather than as an excuse. This comes close to what I mean:
I love chocolate. Last week I went a bit overboard, so this week I am purposely avoiding it. If history is any guide, by next week, my cravings will diminish and I won't be constantly wondering where my next "chocolate fix" is.Mavrick_RN wrote: »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.
I don't describe my chocolate-love as an "addiction" but what if I did? What if instead of the above, I wrote "I am addicted to chocolate so I am avoiding it this week." I've gotten to the same place by taking a different route. Does the "words have meaning" argument carry the same weight here?
For what it's worth, I'm not asking rhetorically - I'm interested in the response.
I believe it does carry over and that it would not only be a misuse of the term, but also doesn't actually address your issue. You're not "addicted to chocolate so [you are] avoiding it this week." Beyond the fact that if it was an actual addiction, the avoidance wouldn't be for this week, it would be for life, it's much more accurate to describe it this way: you failed to moderate a perfectly acceptable and yummy (but calorie-dense) food last week, so you're not eating any this week to make up for it. You've learned [insert lesson here] and will be more careful in the future. Blaming it on addiction often prevents that last part from happening.0 -
Triplestep wrote: »As someone who is relatively new here (and hasn't seen sugar addiction debated to death yet) this has been a really interesting read. Both in life and online, I totally agree that words have meaning and we can't simply ascribe different meanings to them out of convenience, or worse, to avoid culpability.
That said, I keep wondering while reading along here how folks would feel if the the word "addiction" were being used to positive ends rather than as an excuse. This comes close to what I mean:
I love chocolate. Last week I went a bit overboard, so this week I am purposely avoiding it. If history is any guide, by next week, my cravings will diminish and I won't be constantly wondering where my next "chocolate fix" is.Mavrick_RN wrote: »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.
I don't describe my chocolate-love as an "addiction" but what if I did? What if instead of the above, I wrote "I am addicted to chocolate so I am avoiding it this week." I've gotten to the same place by taking a different route. Does the "words have meaning" argument carry the same weight here?
People use "addiction" sort of lightly ("I'm addicted to shoes", "I love pizza so much I'm like addicted to it!"). I don't think those usages raise the issues we've been talking about, vs. "chocolate addiction is real, it's just like being addicted to cocaine!" or "I cannot help eating chocolate, I'm an addict."
I think the latter usages are problems. To compare with the alcohol example, no one claims that dropping beer for a couple of weeks will break the addiction (cure alcoholism). I wish. I happen to find taking a break from trigger foods or foods I get into the habit of overeating for a while quite helpful, but if I thought of it as an addiction I think the thought would be there that once I took a bite again, whoosh, it's over -- it's almost like you give yourself an excuse not to exercise control. It plays into the all or nothing thinking that makes many dieters struggle (once you are imperfect or "bad", well, you are off the diet and need to start over, so might as well make the best of it and eat everything that you will quit again for good tomorrow.
Anyway, just my thought.0 -
robertw486 wrote: »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.
I can't find any label that gives the tendency to deny one's own agency or appears used to deny one's agency anything but harmful towards making personal changes.0 -
The claims of addiction on MFP usually focus on sugar, usually in tasty treats like chocolate or cookies, while ignoring other sources. Compare that ignoring other sources of sugar, the claimed addiction, to the behaviors of those truly addicted to substances ... taking backwash filled drinks at bars or consuming mouthwash to get alcohol, lighting discarded cigarette filters to get nicotine, stealing prescriptions to get more Oxy, etc. The fact that those claiming sugar addictions have little willpower around certain foods containing sugar and that there isn't an addiction becomes readily apparent.
Noting that now gets your posts pulled from the main forum.0 -
Triplestep wrote: »As someone who is relatively new here (and hasn't seen sugar addiction debated to death yet) this has been a really interesting read. Both in life and online, I totally agree that words have meaning and we can't simply ascribe different meanings to them out of convenience, or worse, to avoid culpability.
That said, I keep wondering while reading along here how folks would feel if the the word "addiction" were being used to positive ends rather than as an excuse. This comes close to what I mean:
I love chocolate. Last week I went a bit overboard, so this week I am purposely avoiding it. If history is any guide, by next week, my cravings will diminish and I won't be constantly wondering where my next "chocolate fix" is.Mavrick_RN wrote: »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.
I don't describe my chocolate-love as an "addiction" but what if I did? What if instead of the above, I wrote "I am addicted to chocolate so I am avoiding it this week." I've gotten to the same place by taking a different route. Does the "words have meaning" argument carry the same weight here?
For what it's worth, I'm not asking rhetorically - I'm interested in the response.
My observation is that while a person might improve their relationship with food by eliminating a food, I don't think anyone who's permanently eliminated a food from their diet (barring medical or ethical reasons) is able to have the healthiest relationship with food.0 -
OK ... so I've been reading along with this thread about arguing the meaning of the wording sugar 'addiction' ... and while I agree that it's not a good idea to use words loosely, I can relate to a time when it FELT LIKE I might have an addiction to certain substances.
I can remember asking my doctor about it because this is what happened in regards to 2 specific substances ...
1 ... nicotine from cigarettes
2 ... Snickers candy bars
In the first case, I had been a cigarette user for over 25 years with varying daily quantities from very casual to 1-1/2 packs a day to trying to quit the habit. I was in my 10th year of trying to stop smoking and was extremely frustrated by the ever increasing compulsion to smoke that grew daily the longer I abstained from it. Every time I quit I'd do very well for a couple of weeks, and then it would start to get harder and harder. As it happened, I had a check-up appointment with my doctor about 4 months into the last attempt and I told him about my constant mental obbsession and desire for a cigarette ... How I felt like I was going insane from my perceived 'need' for one. He decided that it wasn't a mouth habit that was holding me hostage, but an addiction to nicotine. The solution he provided was to go back to having some nicotine, but not in the form of a cigarette, and at the lowest dose I could manage. ... He put me on nicotine containing chewing gum. That was in 1990, and it only took one prescription to wean me off it to the point that it wasn't on my mind all the time (I made that one prescription last 6 months instad of 1 by cutting the tablets into quarters and eventually only using a quarter of a piece in several days.) It took another several months before I didn't try to get second hand smoke into my lungs as a means of getting some and, it was another 3 or 4 years before I no longer felt like a smoke during specific times ... like when under a lot of stress, or after a really good sex or out with friends in the bars or after a festive meal.
In the second case, after I gave up the cigarette habit, I got into the new habit of buying a snack out of the vending machine in the afternoon. Sometimes my choice was a Snickers candy bar. Other times it was nuts, either M&M Peanuts or Planters Salted Peanuts. Pretty soon I noticed a pattern. If I had a Snickers bar, I would crave another bar the next day at snack time, but that didn't happen with the other choices. Then, if I went ahead and chose to have the Snickers bar, I would desire one later on in the day as well, so sometimes I bought 2 of them to be able to satisfy that urge later on. To this day, if I have a Snickers bar I will still crave to have a second one later on, and sometimes I start to crave other sweets as well and end up eating 6 candy bars instead of 1.
Now ... were both addictions of some sort, or not?
My doctor used the term nicotine addiction in the one case, in the other he told me to just stop buying Snickers candy bars since I seemed to have a low tolerance for controlling cravings when I had some. .... But, isn't an addiction to something also described as having a low or no tolerance for controlling the craving?
I can site a third example of low tolerance for abstaining from a cravings ... carb dense foods. Yes, I know that sugar is a carb. I also know that Snicker's candy bars are loaded with both sugar and fat (chocolate, nougat, caramel, nuts) ... yet I can eat a greasy hamburger or slice of meat and cheese pizza and not crave another, but if I eat french bread, or a chocolate chip cookie ... watch out! I will, later on ... in about 60 - 90 minutes, be feeling the strong desire to have something like ... a lot of fruit, more bread or cookies, noodles, ... and get no satisfaction of the desire to continue eating more even though I am not hungry. Needless to say, even though I am full to the point of feeling like I'll be sick to my stomach. ... Is that gorging steming from my lack of will or from some sort of chemical reaction inside my brain from specific foods?
So ... to end this long story ... Call it semantics, but if it feels like I cannot control it, then it feels like an addiction. My solution? ... abstinance.0 -
OK ... so I've been reading along with this thread about arguing the meaning of the wording sugar 'addiction' ... and while I agree that it's not a good idea to use words loosely, I can relate to a time when it FELT LIKE I might have an addiction to certain substances.
I can remember asking my doctor about it because this is what happened in regards to 2 specific substances ...
1 ... nicotine from cigarettes
2 ... Snickers candy bars
In the first case, I had been a cigarette user for over 25 years with varying daily quantities from very casual to 1-1/2 packs a day to trying to quit the habit. I was in my 10th year of trying to stop smoking and was extremely frustrated by the ever increasing compulsion to smoke that grew daily the longer I abstained from it. Every time I quit I'd do very well for a couple of weeks, and then it would start to get harder and harder. As it happened, I had a check-up appointment with my doctor about 4 months into the last attempt and I told him about my constant mental obbsession and desire for a cigarette ... How I felt like I was going insane from my perceived 'need' for one. He decided that it wasn't a mouth habit that was holding me hostage, but an addiction to nicotine. The solution he provided was to go back to having some nicotine, but not in the form of a cigarette, and at the lowest dose I could manage. ... He put me on nicotine containing chewing gum. That was in 1990, and it only took one prescription to wean me off it to the point that it wasn't on my mind all the time (I made that one prescription last 6 months instad of 1 by cutting the tablets into quarters and eventually only using a quarter of a piece in several days.) It took another several months before I didn't try to get second hand smoke into my lungs as a means of getting some and, it was another 3 or 4 years before I no longer felt like a smoke during specific times ... like when under a lot of stress, or after a really good sex or out with friends in the bars or after a festive meal.
In the second case, after I gave up the cigarette habit, I got into the new habit of buying a snack out of the vending machine in the afternoon. Sometimes my choice was a Snickers candy bar. Other times it was nuts, either M&M Peanuts or Planters Salted Peanuts. Pretty soon I noticed a pattern. If I had a Snickers bar, I would crave another bar the next day at snack time, but that didn't happen with the other choices. Then, if I went ahead and chose to have the Snickers bar, I would desire one later on in the day as well, so sometimes I bought 2 of them to be able to satisfy that urge later on. To this day, if I have a Snickers bar I will still crave to have a second one later on, and sometimes I start to crave other sweets as well and end up eating 6 candy bars instead of 1.
Now ... were both addictions of some sort, or not?
My doctor used the term nicotine addiction in the one case, in the other he told me to just stop buying Snickers candy bars since I seemed to have a low tolerance for controlling cravings when I had some. .... But, isn't an addiction to something also described as having a low or no tolerance for controlling the craving?
I can site a third example of low tolerance for abstaining from a cravings ... carb dense foods. Yes, I know that sugar is a carb. I also know that Snicker's candy bars are loaded with both sugar and fat (chocolate, nougat, caramel, nuts) ... yet I can eat a greasy hamburger or slice of meat and cheese pizza and not crave another, but if I eat french bread, or a chocolate chip cookie ... watch out! I will, later on ... in about 60 - 90 minutes, be feeling the strong desire to have something like ... a lot of fruit, more bread or cookies, noodles, ... and get no satisfaction of the desire to continue eating more even though I am not hungry. Needless to say, even though I am full to the point of feeling like I'll be sick to my stomach. ... Is that gorging steming from my lack of will or from some sort of chemical reaction inside my brain from specific foods?
So ... to end this long story ... Call it semantics, but if it feels like I cannot control it, then it feels like an addiction. My solution? ... abstinance.
Notice the very specific candy you claimed addiction to ... a brand made from common ingredients. So you liked the flavor and have little willpower ... that does not mean you had an addition to anything in a Snickers. If you were truly addicted to a chemical in any of the foods you mention, you would seek that chemical from any source ... not just the ones you happen to like the flavor of.0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »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?
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10218216/sugar-and-carb-addiction-addiction/p1
I've actually been thinking about that write up with some more information I've read recently about neurotransmitters, depression, and memory. Some hypothesis postulate that all pleasure is about generating memory and creating repeated patterns. In this sense, food is of course going to light up a storm of neurotransmitters, that's the point - animals that remember where the food is tend to have longer lives than those that don't, I'd say. It ties in quite well with explaining what dopamine does - dopamine goes up around eating, sex, cocaine, and getting stabbed in the gut (wait, something different on that last one). So dopamine seems to be about raising anticipation both bad and good, and in light of increasing memory and learning, it makes a lot of sense - you might not want to remember that time an elephant gored you, but it is kind of important to your survival to remember it.0 -
OK ... so I've been reading along with this thread about arguing the meaning of the wording sugar 'addiction' ... and while I agree that it's not a good idea to use words loosely, I can relate to a time when it FELT LIKE I might have an addiction to certain substances.
I can remember asking my doctor about it because this is what happened in regards to 2 specific substances ...
1 ... nicotine from cigarettes
2 ... Snickers candy bars
In the first case, I had been a cigarette user for over 25 years with varying daily quantities from very casual to 1-1/2 packs a day to trying to quit the habit. I was in my 10th year of trying to stop smoking and was extremely frustrated by the ever increasing compulsion to smoke that grew daily the longer I abstained from it. Every time I quit I'd do very well for a couple of weeks, and then it would start to get harder and harder. As it happened, I had a check-up appointment with my doctor about 4 months into the last attempt and I told him about my constant mental obbsession and desire for a cigarette ... How I felt like I was going insane from my perceived 'need' for one. He decided that it wasn't a mouth habit that was holding me hostage, but an addiction to nicotine. The solution he provided was to go back to having some nicotine, but not in the form of a cigarette, and at the lowest dose I could manage. ... He put me on nicotine containing chewing gum. That was in 1990, and it only took one prescription to wean me off it to the point that it wasn't on my mind all the time (I made that one prescription last 6 months instad of 1 by cutting the tablets into quarters and eventually only using a quarter of a piece in several days.) It took another several months before I didn't try to get second hand smoke into my lungs as a means of getting some and, it was another 3 or 4 years before I no longer felt like a smoke during specific times ... like when under a lot of stress, or after a really good sex or out with friends in the bars or after a festive meal.
In the second case, after I gave up the cigarette habit, I got into the new habit of buying a snack out of the vending machine in the afternoon. Sometimes my choice was a Snickers candy bar. Other times it was nuts, either M&M Peanuts or Planters Salted Peanuts. Pretty soon I noticed a pattern. If I had a Snickers bar, I would crave another bar the next day at snack time, but that didn't happen with the other choices. Then, if I went ahead and chose to have the Snickers bar, I would desire one later on in the day as well, so sometimes I bought 2 of them to be able to satisfy that urge later on. To this day, if I have a Snickers bar I will still crave to have a second one later on, and sometimes I start to crave other sweets as well and end up eating 6 candy bars instead of 1.
Now ... were both addictions of some sort, or not?
My doctor used the term nicotine addiction in the one case, in the other he told me to just stop buying Snickers candy bars since I seemed to have a low tolerance for controlling cravings when I had some. .... But, isn't an addiction to something also described as having a low or no tolerance for controlling the craving?
I can site a third example of low tolerance for abstaining from a cravings ... carb dense foods. Yes, I know that sugar is a carb. I also know that Snicker's candy bars are loaded with both sugar and fat (chocolate, nougat, caramel, nuts) ... yet I can eat a greasy hamburger or slice of meat and cheese pizza and not crave another, but if I eat french bread, or a chocolate chip cookie ... watch out! I will, later on ... in about 60 - 90 minutes, be feeling the strong desire to have something like ... a lot of fruit, more bread or cookies, noodles, ... and get no satisfaction of the desire to continue eating more even though I am not hungry. Needless to say, even though I am full to the point of feeling like I'll be sick to my stomach. ... Is that gorging steming from my lack of will or from some sort of chemical reaction inside my brain from specific foods?
So ... to end this long story ... Call it semantics, but if it feels like I cannot control it, then it feels like an addiction. My solution? ... abstinance.
This kind of delves into the difference between addiction as a psychologically contentious issue and actual physical dependence.
For the would be smoker, there is a habit that forms with smoking, a learned behavior. One can get into a semantics argument about if that constitutes addiction.
Undeniably, nicotine and many other substances generate a physical dependence no matter the form they take. Cocaine, caffeine, nicotine, heroin, alcohol - all create withdrawal symptoms to one respect or another as the substance leaves the system, and the only way to lessen this withdrawal is to wean off slowly or use a substitute substance that acts on similar receptors in the body.
Sugar is rather different - you cannot withdrawal from sugar as much as some people in other threads have called their irritability at changing a habit or possible keto-flu withdrawal from sugar. Actual withdrawal from sugar is called being dead - your body has an incredible feedback system for keeping your sugar at the level it needs to be at, any time it isn't working right, you really need a doctor because it is probably some of diabetes or related disease.
On top of this, people don't tend to want sugar itself. As others quipped, straight strapping a bag of Domino sugar to one's mouth would probably disgust most people that say they're sugar addicts. That's because they really like hyper-palatable foods that contain sugar, but they don't have an interest in sugar itself. Someone's craving for these foods won't be diminished by a pure sugar substitute. In comparison, nicotine gum can reduce a cigarette craving, and in a pinch the true alcoholic might drink hand sanitizer when in a detox center.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »OK ... so I've been reading along with this thread about arguing the meaning of the wording sugar 'addiction' ... and while I agree that it's not a good idea to use words loosely, I can relate to a time when it FELT LIKE I might have an addiction to certain substances.
I can remember asking my doctor about it because this is what happened in regards to 2 specific substances ...
1 ... nicotine from cigarettes
2 ... Snickers candy bars
In the first case, I had been a cigarette user for over 25 years with varying daily quantities from very casual to 1-1/2 packs a day to trying to quit the habit. I was in my 10th year of trying to stop smoking and was extremely frustrated by the ever increasing compulsion to smoke that grew daily the longer I abstained from it. Every time I quit I'd do very well for a couple of weeks, and then it would start to get harder and harder. As it happened, I had a check-up appointment with my doctor about 4 months into the last attempt and I told him about my constant mental obbsession and desire for a cigarette ... How I felt like I was going insane from my perceived 'need' for one. He decided that it wasn't a mouth habit that was holding me hostage, but an addiction to nicotine. The solution he provided was to go back to having some nicotine, but not in the form of a cigarette, and at the lowest dose I could manage. ... He put me on nicotine containing chewing gum. That was in 1990, and it only took one prescription to wean me off it to the point that it wasn't on my mind all the time (I made that one prescription last 6 months instad of 1 by cutting the tablets into quarters and eventually only using a quarter of a piece in several days.) It took another several months before I didn't try to get second hand smoke into my lungs as a means of getting some and, it was another 3 or 4 years before I no longer felt like a smoke during specific times ... like when under a lot of stress, or after a really good sex or out with friends in the bars or after a festive meal.
In the second case, after I gave up the cigarette habit, I got into the new habit of buying a snack out of the vending machine in the afternoon. Sometimes my choice was a Snickers candy bar. Other times it was nuts, either M&M Peanuts or Planters Salted Peanuts. Pretty soon I noticed a pattern. If I had a Snickers bar, I would crave another bar the next day at snack time, but that didn't happen with the other choices. Then, if I went ahead and chose to have the Snickers bar, I would desire one later on in the day as well, so sometimes I bought 2 of them to be able to satisfy that urge later on. To this day, if I have a Snickers bar I will still crave to have a second one later on, and sometimes I start to crave other sweets as well and end up eating 6 candy bars instead of 1.
Now ... were both addictions of some sort, or not?
My doctor used the term nicotine addiction in the one case, in the other he told me to just stop buying Snickers candy bars since I seemed to have a low tolerance for controlling cravings when I had some. .... But, isn't an addiction to something also described as having a low or no tolerance for controlling the craving?
I can site a third example of low tolerance for abstaining from a cravings ... carb dense foods. Yes, I know that sugar is a carb. I also know that Snicker's candy bars are loaded with both sugar and fat (chocolate, nougat, caramel, nuts) ... yet I can eat a greasy hamburger or slice of meat and cheese pizza and not crave another, but if I eat french bread, or a chocolate chip cookie ... watch out! I will, later on ... in about 60 - 90 minutes, be feeling the strong desire to have something like ... a lot of fruit, more bread or cookies, noodles, ... and get no satisfaction of the desire to continue eating more even though I am not hungry. Needless to say, even though I am full to the point of feeling like I'll be sick to my stomach. ... Is that gorging steming from my lack of will or from some sort of chemical reaction inside my brain from specific foods?
So ... to end this long story ... Call it semantics, but if it feels like I cannot control it, then it feels like an addiction. My solution? ... abstinance.
Notice the very specific candy you claimed addiction to ... a brand made from common ingredients. So you liked the flavor and have little willpower ... that does not mean you had an addition to anything in a Snickers. If you were truly addicted to a chemical in any of the foods you mention, you would seek that chemical from any source ... not just the ones you happen to like the flavor of.
I did not claim addiction ... did you read and understand what I wrote? I said it felt like an addiction ... and it came from other sources and not just the snickers ... the snickers happened to be the one I spoke with my doctor about.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »OK ... so I've been reading along with this thread about arguing the meaning of the wording sugar 'addiction' ... and while I agree that it's not a good idea to use words loosely, I can relate to a time when it FELT LIKE I might have an addiction to certain substances.
I can remember asking my doctor about it because this is what happened in regards to 2 specific substances ...
1 ... nicotine from cigarettes
2 ... Snickers candy bars
In the first case, I had been a cigarette user for over 25 years with varying daily quantities from very casual to 1-1/2 packs a day to trying to quit the habit. I was in my 10th year of trying to stop smoking and was extremely frustrated by the ever increasing compulsion to smoke that grew daily the longer I abstained from it. Every time I quit I'd do very well for a couple of weeks, and then it would start to get harder and harder. As it happened, I had a check-up appointment with my doctor about 4 months into the last attempt and I told him about my constant mental obbsession and desire for a cigarette ... How I felt like I was going insane from my perceived 'need' for one. He decided that it wasn't a mouth habit that was holding me hostage, but an addiction to nicotine. The solution he provided was to go back to having some nicotine, but not in the form of a cigarette, and at the lowest dose I could manage. ... He put me on nicotine containing chewing gum. That was in 1990, and it only took one prescription to wean me off it to the point that it wasn't on my mind all the time (I made that one prescription last 6 months instad of 1 by cutting the tablets into quarters and eventually only using a quarter of a piece in several days.) It took another several months before I didn't try to get second hand smoke into my lungs as a means of getting some and, it was another 3 or 4 years before I no longer felt like a smoke during specific times ... like when under a lot of stress, or after a really good sex or out with friends in the bars or after a festive meal.
In the second case, after I gave up the cigarette habit, I got into the new habit of buying a snack out of the vending machine in the afternoon. Sometimes my choice was a Snickers candy bar. Other times it was nuts, either M&M Peanuts or Planters Salted Peanuts. Pretty soon I noticed a pattern. If I had a Snickers bar, I would crave another bar the next day at snack time, but that didn't happen with the other choices. Then, if I went ahead and chose to have the Snickers bar, I would desire one later on in the day as well, so sometimes I bought 2 of them to be able to satisfy that urge later on. To this day, if I have a Snickers bar I will still crave to have a second one later on, and sometimes I start to crave other sweets as well and end up eating 6 candy bars instead of 1.
Now ... were both addictions of some sort, or not?
My doctor used the term nicotine addiction in the one case, in the other he told me to just stop buying Snickers candy bars since I seemed to have a low tolerance for controlling cravings when I had some. .... But, isn't an addiction to something also described as having a low or no tolerance for controlling the craving?
I can site a third example of low tolerance for abstaining from a cravings ... carb dense foods. Yes, I know that sugar is a carb. I also know that Snicker's candy bars are loaded with both sugar and fat (chocolate, nougat, caramel, nuts) ... yet I can eat a greasy hamburger or slice of meat and cheese pizza and not crave another, but if I eat french bread, or a chocolate chip cookie ... watch out! I will, later on ... in about 60 - 90 minutes, be feeling the strong desire to have something like ... a lot of fruit, more bread or cookies, noodles, ... and get no satisfaction of the desire to continue eating more even though I am not hungry. Needless to say, even though I am full to the point of feeling like I'll be sick to my stomach. ... Is that gorging steming from my lack of will or from some sort of chemical reaction inside my brain from specific foods?
So ... to end this long story ... Call it semantics, but if it feels like I cannot control it, then it feels like an addiction. My solution? ... abstinance.
Notice the very specific candy you claimed addiction to ... a brand made from common ingredients. So you liked the flavor and have little willpower ... that does not mean you had an addition to anything in a Snickers. If you were truly addicted to a chemical in any of the foods you mention, you would seek that chemical from any source ... not just the ones you happen to like the flavor of.
I did not claim addiction ... did you read and understand what I wrote? I said it felt like an addiction ... and it came from other sources and not just the snickers ... the snickers happened to be the one I spoke with my doctor about.
I miss snickers so much. My favourite chocolate bar
no it's not the sugar I won't eat, I can't eat nuts lol 0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions