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
11920212325

Replies

  • 100df
    100df Posts: 668 Member
    Options
    jofjltncb6 wrote: »
    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.

    I am not instructing anyone on how to behave.
  • auddii
    auddii Posts: 15,357 Member
    Options
    100df wrote: »
    jofjltncb6 wrote: »
    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.

    I am not instructing anyone on how to behave.

    But what we're saying is that semantics discussions should be allowed to an extent; instead we're segregated to a separate forum, and those arguments are actually removed from threads entirely to be split here. That's the whole point of this discussion. Sometimes realizing you aren't actually addicted can help people move on. It should be a valid statement.
  • LINIA
    LINIA Posts: 1,046 Member
    Options
    The facts lie in the conduct and behavior we see all around us, i see people who would love to leave behind all of the medications they are taking, i see IRL people who struggle terribly and never become an acceptable size or weight; the problem we have worldwide is the sugar, salt and fat placed in foods that cause/reinforce/create a dependance. These are not truly foods, they are chemicals packaged to resemble foods.
    Is there any nutritional value in Sugar?
  • senecarr
    senecarr Posts: 5,377 Member
    Options
    100df wrote: »
    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.

    If a person's ability to cope with their current life is wrapped in a false belief of them having addiction, no one is under any obligation to deny the truth and weight of current scientific understanding to them to protect that identity. For such people, honesty is going to cause a certain level of discomfort, but at some point they'll have to pick between getting better and self-deception. It isn't on me to feed their self deception just because they desire it.
  • brianpperkins
    brianpperkins Posts: 6,124 Member
    Options
    LINIA wrote: »
    The facts lie in the conduct and behavior we see all around us, i see people who would love to leave behind all of the medications they are taking, i see IRL people who struggle terribly and never become an acceptable size or weight; the problem we have worldwide is the sugar, salt and fat placed in foods that cause/reinforce/create a dependance. These are not truly foods, they are chemicals packaged to resemble foods.
    Is there any nutritional value in Sugar?

    You mean besides it being a MACRONUTRIENT?

    Your assertions are flat out wrong but your posts do help illustrate why so many of us see culling out posts calling out such flawed assertions is a mistake. Sugar, salt, and fat are not addictive substances no matter how much you try to give them credit for people's behavior ... and abdicate people from responsibility in the process.
  • senecarr
    senecarr Posts: 5,377 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.

    Because over specification would be foolish. It also ignores the prime point of psychological diagnosis and treatement - to help someone cope with their existence. Defining a specific calorie range has nothing to do with that. Think about it. Plenty of competitive food eaters would meet the defintion if it is based on worrying about the calories than the actual distress and emotional impairment it causes a person, but most competitive eaters are rather happy with the fact that they managed to consume inordinately large amounts of food in a sitting. The terms are "vague" because the terms matter in the context of how the person feels about it and how it is impacting that person's ability to live and function.
    So, yeah, I've probably ate 2000 or 3000 in 5 minutes doing a hot dog eating contest, but it wasn't something that hindered my life. The person who eats 1000 calories of cookie dough in their room crying and feeling they can't stop what they're doing is having a binge. You're focusing on absolutely the wrong part of the diagnosis just because you think the terms need specific criteria when that isn't the important part of a psychological issue.
  • Sued0nim
    Sued0nim Posts: 17,456 Member
    edited February 2016
    Options
    LINIA wrote: »
    The facts lie in the conduct and behavior we see all around us, i see people who would love to leave behind all of the medications they are taking, i see IRL people who struggle terribly and never become an acceptable size or weight; the problem we have worldwide is the sugar, salt and fat placed in foods that cause/reinforce/create a dependance. These are not truly foods, they are chemicals packaged to resemble foods.
    Is there any nutritional value in Sugar?

    I disagree

    The failing is in the individual not taking responsibility and blaming everything else but themselves

    Sometimes that individual needs to be shocked into understanding that's it down to them, sometimes coached, sometimes traditional therapies

    The problem is believing the issue is extrinsic and you are a powerless victim

    An old cliche that parents use with children is "and if your friends said to jump off a cliff...?"

    The problem fat people have is choice and lack of desire to choose the harder path

    Even with diagnosed illnesses ...caused by obesity ..people get mired in their victimhood or they choose to ignore that it is their actions that lead them there

    Sugar has calories ...calories are energy ...eat too many calories and don't burn them off and the body will store that as fat ...the body would do the same to excess calories from protein, fats, and cauliflower

  • Sued0nim
    Sued0nim Posts: 17,456 Member
    Options
    I'm not saying it isn't hard

    But when did we ever come to the conclusion that life should just be a long easy ride? Who promised us that

  • senecarr
    senecarr Posts: 5,377 Member
    Options
    LINIA wrote: »
    The facts lie in the conduct and behavior we see all around us, i see people who would love to leave behind all of the medications they are taking, i see IRL people who struggle terribly and never become an acceptable size or weight; the problem we have worldwide is the sugar, salt and fat placed in foods that cause/reinforce/create a dependance. These are not truly foods, they are chemicals packaged to resemble foods.
    Is there any nutritional value in Sugar?

    And yet this thread is filled with people that have lost weight and eaten fat, sugar, salt, processed, packaged, homogenized, specialized, commodified, rarified, exemplified and defied, demonized and despised, foods and still survived!
    And yes. Sugar is a carbohydrate which makes it a macro nutrition, which by definition means it has nutritional value.
  • Therealobi1
    Therealobi1 Posts: 3,261 Member
    Options
    rabbitjb wrote: »
    LINIA wrote: »
    The facts lie in the conduct and behavior we see all around us, i see people who would love to leave behind all of the medications they are taking, i see IRL people who struggle terribly and never become an acceptable size or weight; the problem we have worldwide is the sugar, salt and fat placed in foods that cause/reinforce/create a dependance. These are not truly foods, they are chemicals packaged to resemble foods.
    Is there any nutritional value in Sugar?

    I disagree

    The failing is in the individual not taking responsibility and blaming everything else but themselves

    Sometimes that individual needs to be shocked into understanding that's it down to them, sometimes coached, sometimes traditional therapies

    The problem is believing the issue is extrinsic and you are a powerless victim

    An old cliche that parents use with children is "and if your friends said to jump off a cliff...?"

    The problem fat people have is choice and lack of desire to choose the harder path

    Even with diagnosed illnesses ...caused by obesity ..people get mired in their victimhood or they choose to ignore that it is their actions that lead them there

    Sugar has calories ...calories are energy ...eat too many calories and don't burn them off and the body will store that as fat ...the body would do the same to excess calories from protein, fats, and cauliflower

    see i agree with this, but it takes us all different times to get to that stage. one or two posts wont always work when its taken some of us years to make the change.
    also sometimes i think when you are in a different stage to others it is hard to remember being like the OP. Posters just want the OP to hurry up and wake up right now but its not always going to be like. that i see gets some people frustrated around here. Hopefully setting up an account here means that people wanted to better themselves in some form.

    I remember that post that one of the mods started that asked something like if you were shocked by your GP re a terminal illness will that make you start losing weight immediately. it was something along that lines. lots of people said that may not immediately change if i remember. And then on the other hand some will use the wake up call from the GP and get cracking.

    Are they all mired in victimhood? some honestly think its the food not them, some scared, some dont know where to start, some to lazy to start? but it looks like we are bunching them all in the same pot.

  • missblondi2u
    missblondi2u Posts: 851 Member
    Options
    senecarr wrote: »
    A. Recurrent episodes of binge eating. An episode of binge eating is characterized by both of the following:

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

    So there are several "wiggle" words here: A "discrete period of time" is subjective, even though they give an example. The terms "larger than what most people eat" is vague since they don't say how much larger it has to be (500 calories, 5000 calories?). Also the description of "under similar circumstances" is completely arbitrary. Are we talking similar height/weight stats, similar environmental stimuli, similar levels of hunger. So no, this definition give no absolute criteria to determine what rises to the binge level. That's my point.

    Because over specification would be foolish. It also ignores the prime point of psychological diagnosis and treatement - to help someone cope with their existence. Defining a specific calorie range has nothing to do with that. Think about it. Plenty of competitive food eaters would meet the defintion if it is based on worrying about the calories than the actual distress and emotional impairment it causes a person, but most competitive eaters are rather happy with the fact that they managed to consume inordinately large amounts of food in a sitting. The terms are "vague" because the terms matter in the context of how the person feels about it and how it is impacting that person's ability to live and function.
    So, yeah, I've probably ate 2000 or 3000 in 5 minutes doing a hot dog eating contest, but it wasn't something that hindered my life. The person who eats 1000 calories of cookie dough in their room crying and feeling they can't stop what they're doing is having a binge. You're focusing on absolutely the wrong part of the diagnosis just because you think the terms need specific criteria when that isn't the important part of a psychological issue.

    I think we're talking about different things here. If you read my earlier posts, all I was saying is that a person can use the word "binge" in a way that does not mean an actual binge disorder. And the reason that is acceptable is because there is a difference between the medical term binge eating disorder and the dictionary definition of a binge. And I don't think you can expect that everyone on here is intending the medical term when they use the word. It has different connotations for different people. That is my point.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 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.

    Feeling out of control and that you are bad because you are drawn to bad foods is an important part of why people feel badly. Helping them see how to regain control (rather than agreeing "yes, you are simply an addict, sucks for you!") and encouraging them to see that black and white thinking where food is bad or good is probably related to their out of control feelings is, I think, helpful.

    In fact, one reason I find the encouragement of people to see specific foods as bad and addictive to be pernicious and worth fighting is that I think this kind of illogical thinking about food usually makes the problem worse. I've seen women in my life (and been prone to it some myself) identify foods as bad, swear off eating it, and then eat it, see themselves as bad (because only a bad and disgusting person would want that bad and disgusting food, let alone eat it in that piggish, disgusting way -- this is the messed up mind thinking here). The resulting depression and self-disgust just leads to feeling hopeless and deciding you might as well give up and eat more.

    I think one very helpful thing is to think as logically as possible about foods. They aren't addictive. They aren't bad or good. They contain a certain number of calories and package of nutrients and sure you can make better or worse choices about your diet but no individual choice is that big a deal and eating a less than healthful diet doesn't make you a bad person. It is something you can work to improve and learn from your mistakes (without worrying about being perfect).

    And there's really no quick fix.

    But yes, beyond this I dislike words being used incorrectly and overeating cookies being compared to a heroin addiction.
  • Sued0nim
    Sued0nim Posts: 17,456 Member
    Options
    rabbitjb wrote: »
    LINIA wrote: »
    The facts lie in the conduct and behavior we see all around us, i see people who would love to leave behind all of the medications they are taking, i see IRL people who struggle terribly and never become an acceptable size or weight; the problem we have worldwide is the sugar, salt and fat placed in foods that cause/reinforce/create a dependance. These are not truly foods, they are chemicals packaged to resemble foods.
    Is there any nutritional value in Sugar?

    I disagree

    The failing is in the individual not taking responsibility and blaming everything else but themselves

    Sometimes that individual needs to be shocked into understanding that's it down to them, sometimes coached, sometimes traditional therapies

    The problem is believing the issue is extrinsic and you are a powerless victim

    An old cliche that parents use with children is "and if your friends said to jump off a cliff...?"

    The problem fat people have is choice and lack of desire to choose the harder path

    Even with diagnosed illnesses ...caused by obesity ..people get mired in their victimhood or they choose to ignore that it is their actions that lead them there

    Sugar has calories ...calories are energy ...eat too many calories and don't burn them off and the body will store that as fat ...the body would do the same to excess calories from protein, fats, and cauliflower

    see i agree with this, but it takes us all different times to get to that stage. one or two posts wont always work when its taken some of us years to make the change.
    also sometimes i think when you are in a different stage to others it is hard to remember being like the OP. Posters just want the OP to hurry up and wake up right now but its not always going to be like. that i see gets some people frustrated around here. Hopefully setting up an account here means that people wanted to better themselves in some form.

    I remember that post that one of the mods started that asked something like if you were shocked by your GP re a terminal illness will that make you start losing weight immediately. it was something along that lines. lots of people said that may not immediately change if i remember. And then on the other hand some will use the wake up call from the GP and get cracking.

    Are they all mired in victimhood? some honestly think its the food not them, some scared, some dont know where to start, some to lazy to start? but it looks like we are bunching them all in the same pot.

    You're right

    It took me 30 years until I was ready

    What didn't help along the way?
    - feeling like I couldn't do anything about it, it was inevitable
    - People telling me I wasn't fat and looked great
    - Falling for the latest fix, superfoods, fad
    - Feeling middle-aged
    - Losing weight through macro restriction and crashing and burning
    - Serious health conditions

    What helped?
    - being ready, watching my fit father get frail and thinking wow that happened quick
    - Taking control
    - Disposable income for a trainer
    - Clever people talking up science objectively
    - The removal of social niceties and excused from my own head ...yes you are fat, yes you are lazy ...do something or don't ...nobody else cares and it effects nobody else
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 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.

    Also, lots of people are probably feeling badly and many people posting before they even read the forums at all may be the sorts of people who just get off on attention. (I've started one thread not in a group since I've been here, so I tend to think people who jump into a new forum and start a thread right away are extremely unlikely to be that thin-skinned in reality, much as they might enjoy calling those trying to help them names.)

    Since you don't know what's going on in anyone else's life or if they are really hurting, it is probably nice to give everyone the benefit of the doubt and try to be kind to everyone, even those of us who find the use of the term "addiction" wrong-headed. Indeed, why I, and some others, who react to comments like "sugar addiction is just like heroin addiction" or "sugar is the worst addiction, far worse than a drug!" so negatively (and I do have a strongly negative reaction although I generally respond nicely to OPs, as I think they are struggling and I can relate to the struggles), is because we have seen the results of other addictions and find the comparison in really bad taste and quite callous.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 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?

    I've cooked Christmas dinner (among many other meals) using sugar, salt, and fat. Am I a pusher?

    Again, anyone who thinks highly processed foods are harder to resist than well-made homemade foods has apparently never been exposed to good cooking. The deal with highly processed foods is that they have managed to improve how tasty they are over the years (yes, using sugar, fat, and salt -- items that are in a huge number of other foods), and they are cheap and easily available, and for whatever reason many people no longer use any judgment in terms of deciding how much they should eat (i.e., snacking constantly) or reading nutrition and calorie information.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    100df wrote: »
    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.

    No one is trying to hurt anyone. If being told "no, having an issue with overeating cookies is not the same thing as an addiction" is hurtful in your opinion, then you should probably limit your internet discussions to forums where everyone is already in agreement.

    That people increasingly think they should be protected from opposing ideas is SO depressing and related to what's wrong with the world today.
  • Sued0nim
    Sued0nim Posts: 17,456 Member
    Options
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    100df wrote: »
    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.

    No one is trying to hurt anyone. If being told "no, having an issue with overeating cookies is not the same thing as an addiction" is hurtful in your opinion, then you should probably limit your internet discussions to forums where everyone is already in agreement.

    That people increasingly think they should be protected from opposing ideas is SO depressing and related to what's wrong with the world today.

    Victims. Victims everywhere :huh:
  • jofjltncb6
    jofjltncb6 Posts: 34,415 Member
    Options
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    100df wrote: »
    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.

    No one is trying to hurt anyone. If being told "no, having an issue with overeating cookies is not the same thing as an addiction" is hurtful in your opinion, then you should probably limit your internet discussions to forums where everyone is already in agreement.

    That people increasingly think they should be protected from opposing ideas is SO depressing and related to what's wrong with the world today.

    Church.

    Many decades from now, historians will identify this as the single greatest factor in the inevitable decline (and possibly extinction) of humanity.
This discussion has been closed.