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
11920222425

Replies

  • 100df
    100df Posts: 668 Member
    Options
    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.
  • brianpperkins
    brianpperkins Posts: 6,124 Member
    Options
    100df wrote: »
    Sorry I wasn't clear. I was pointing out that people who post the threads on addiction or binges are feeling badly. I think that should be considered when responding to them so you (not you specifically) don't contribute to making them feel worse.

    So feeling bad is an excuse for incorrect self diagnosis and insisting on help based upon that incorrect self diagnosis and not the actual issue?
  • msf74
    msf74 Posts: 3,498 Member
    Options
    At a basic level this conversation seems to be what is more important if one had to choose: the quality of information a user is presented with on using the forum or the quality of the experience they receive.

    The latter seems to have won.

    The latter also has a number of downsides which are patently obvious but it is a policy seemingly adopted across many social media platforms.
  • missblondi2u
    missblondi2u Posts: 851 Member
    Options
    shell1005 wrote: »
    auddii wrote: »
    psulemon wrote: »
    That's because "bonk" is slang.

    All the definitions of "addiction" you brought up though had the same gist. It's a medical condition characterized by substance abuse or disordered behavior and severe problems that probably need treatment as a result of it. I don't see how you can say that people have different definitions of it depending on the source if all your sources said pretty much the same thing.
    None of those are applicable for when people come around claiming sugar is as addictive as cocaine or heroin but at the same time they say everything went better because they could just stop eating it from one day to the other no problem and also they're only addicted to sugar when it's in one of 2-3 different foods.
    That is simply not what an addiction to a substance is by any definition.

    Would you prefer if we change the word to binge?

    Seriously, not arguing sugar addiction... just semantics of words.

    If it's actual binging. That also has a definition. The symptoms are closer to what people are saying than to addiction at least.
    But I'm unsure if there's binge eating that's limited to certain foods instead of "whatever is nearby".

    I have never seen anyone with BED say they only binge on one item. It's why getting x out of the house isn't a valid solution.

    Hell, I binged on Monday, and I had half a tub of ice cream in the house, but I told myself I want going to be "that fatty" so I aye the most random things in my pantry. And then I ate the ice cream anyways.

    I've binged on cans of corn and chili; it's not a good that drives it, it's a compulsion.
    auddii wrote: »
    psulemon wrote: »
    That's because "bonk" is slang.

    All the definitions of "addiction" you brought up though had the same gist. It's a medical condition characterized by substance abuse or disordered behavior and severe problems that probably need treatment as a result of it. I don't see how you can say that people have different definitions of it depending on the source if all your sources said pretty much the same thing.
    None of those are applicable for when people come around claiming sugar is as addictive as cocaine or heroin but at the same time they say everything went better because they could just stop eating it from one day to the other no problem and also they're only addicted to sugar when it's in one of 2-3 different foods.
    That is simply not what an addiction to a substance is by any definition.

    Would you prefer if we change the word to binge?

    Seriously, not arguing sugar addiction... just semantics of words.

    If it's actual binging. That also has a definition. The symptoms are closer to what people are saying than to addiction at least.
    But I'm unsure if there's binge eating that's limited to certain foods instead of "whatever is nearby".

    I have never seen anyone with BED say they only binge on one item. It's why getting x out of the house isn't a valid solution.

    Hell, I binged on Monday, and I had half a tub of ice cream in the house, but I told myself I want going to be "that fatty" so I aye the most random things in my pantry. And then I ate the ice cream anyways.

    I've binged on cans of corn and chili; it's not a good that drives it, it's a compulsion.

    Yep. Binging can manifest different ways but it has specific criteria or it isn't binging.

    Now when people said "I totes binged last night" (meaning 2 cookies) or saying "I'm totes addicted to Cross fit" or "I went postal when I found out he was cheating" or "I am so OCD when it comes to cleaning the kitchen" they are usually slang when it comes to real actual diagnosiable disorders. I think there is real damage in that on a variety of fronts.

    However I honestly don't think it applies much here in terms of arguing semantics. I think almost everyone who posts they are addicted to sugar believe it to be so. It is a misnomer and it is not arguing semantics to challenge that.

    And what are those specific criteria? I couldn't find it readily available on the Internet.

    You couldn't? It's listed on wiki.

    The following are DSM-5 criteria that must be present to make a diagnosis of binge eating disorder. Studies have confirmed the high predictive value of these criteria for diagnosing BED.[4]
    "A. Recurrent episodes of binge eating. An episode of binge eating is characterized by both of the following:

    Eating, in a discrete period of time (e.g., within any 2-hour period), an amount of food that is definitely larger than what most people would eat in a similar period of time under similar circumstances.
    A sense of lack of control over eating during the episode (e.g., a feeling that one cannot stop eating or control what or how much one is eating).

    B. The binge-eating episodes are associated with three (or more) of the following:

    Eating much more rapidly than normal.
    Eating until feeling uncomfortably full.
    Eating large amounts of food when not feeling physically hungry.
    Eating alone because of feeling embarrassed by how much one is eating.
    Feeling disgusted with oneself, depressed, or very guilty afterward.

    C. Marked distress regarding binge eating is present.
    D. The binge eating occurs, on average, at least once a week for 3 months.
    E. The binge eating is not associated with the recurrent use of inappropriate compensatory behavior as in bulimia nervosa and does not occur exclusively during the course of bulimia nervosa or anorexia nervosa."[5]

    Binge eating is a core symptom of binge eating disorder; however, not everyone who binge eats has binge eating disorder.[6] An individual may occasionally binge eat without experiencing many of the negative physical, psychological, or social effects of binge eating disorder. This example may be considered an eating problem (or not), rather than a disorder.

    But what you reference is the definition of binge eating disorder. Binge, by itself, has no such criteria.
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    Options
    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).
  • 100df
    100df Posts: 668 Member
    Options
    100df wrote: »
    Sorry I wasn't clear. I was pointing out that people who post the threads on addiction or binges are feeling badly. I think that should be considered when responding to them so you (not you specifically) don't contribute to making them feel worse.

    So feeling bad is an excuse for incorrect self diagnosis and insisting on help based upon that incorrect self diagnosis and not the actual issue?

    I didn't say that.
  • senecarr
    senecarr Posts: 5,377 Member
    Options
    tomteboda wrote: »
    It needs to be pointed out that 2+2 = 5 for sufficiently large values of 2.

    See, I tried to put caveats to prevent that response, but I still got it.
  • 100df
    100df Posts: 668 Member
    Options
    shell1005 wrote: »
    100df wrote: »
    Sorry I wasn't clear. I was pointing out that people who post the threads on addiction or binges are feeling badly. I think that should be considered when responding to them so you (not you specifically) don't contribute to making them feel worse.

    Hmm. Well I once believed I was a food addict and confronting that misinformation in the end made me a healthier, happier person. So because someone else might not be able to emotionally handle it, I should have been denied the challenge and confrontation that worked best for me???

    I didn't say that. What works for you doesn't work for all.
  • senecarr
    senecarr Posts: 5,377 Member
    Options
    100df 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.
  • LINIA
    LINIA Posts: 1,046 Member
    Options
    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?
  • brianpperkins
    brianpperkins Posts: 6,124 Member
    Options
    LINIA wrote: »
    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?

    Anyone versed in fact, logic, and science.
  • auddii
    auddii Posts: 15,357 Member
    Options
    LINIA wrote: »
    I'm absolutely sure that Corporations hire scientists, chemists, food specialists to manipulate the processed foods to create Food Addictions , they use sugar, salt & fat.
    Who could deny that?

    Lots of people. They hire people to create food people find palatable. They don't set out to create addictions. The foods do not contain any addictive substances (this is not cigarette companies putting nicotine in their product to get people hooked).
  • senecarr
    senecarr Posts: 5,377 Member
    edited February 2016
    Options
    LINIA wrote: »
    I'm absolutely sure that Corporations hire scientists, chemists, food specialists to manipulate the processed foods to create Food Addictions , they use sugar, salt & fat.
    Who could deny that?

    So why not skip what doesn't work (you can't be addicted to sugar) and put actual addictive drugs in the food?

    Now do corporations hire people to make food tastier and therefore increase the chances that you'll want to eat it again - possibly even eat more than is health for you? Of course. Welcome to unintended consequences of unquestioned profit motive.
  • jofjltncb6
    jofjltncb6 Posts: 34,415 Member
    Options
    100df wrote: »
    shell1005 wrote: »
    100df wrote: »
    Sorry I wasn't clear. I was pointing out that people who post the threads on addiction or binges are feeling badly. I think that should be considered when responding to them so you (not you specifically) don't contribute to making them feel worse.

    Hmm. Well I once believed I was a food addict and confronting that misinformation in the end made me a healthier, happier person. So because someone else might not be able to emotionally handle it, I should have been denied the challenge and confrontation that worked best for me???

    I didn't say that. What works for you doesn't work for all.

    That's essentially the crux of her argument of why your proposed instructions for how everyone is to behave are flawed.
  • 100df
    100df Posts: 668 Member
    Options
    senecarr wrote: »
    100df 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.
  • missblondi2u
    missblondi2u Posts: 851 Member
    Options
    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.
This discussion has been closed.