Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Arguing Semantics - sugar addiction
Options
Replies
-
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.
An addiction won't feel like one brand. That is a like ... a preference ... and there is a huge difference between that and an addiction.0 -
Stay out of chit chat or fun and games section then.singingflutelady wrote: »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 lol0 -
Stay out of chit chat or fun and games section then.singingflutelady wrote: »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
Hahahahahaha0 -
-
brianpperkins wrote: »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.
An addiction won't feel like one brand. That is a like ... a preference ... and there is a huge difference between that and an addiction.
Ah ... another good word ... preference!0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »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.
An addiction won't feel like one brand. That is a like ... a preference ... and there is a huge difference between that and an addiction.
Ah ... another good word ... preference!
A preference, quite often taste based in the claims of MFP members, is not an addiction. What chemical compound would one be addicted to in your scenario? Why not seek whatever chemical it is from other sources, not certain breads and Snickers?
0 -
booksandchocolate12 wrote: »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.
The writing was on the wall once MFP started putting up "nutrition" blogs (e.g. health benefits of clean eating and vegetarianism) without any solid cited science behind the claims in the blogs and basically disallowed any meaningful feedback.0 -
To begin with, I'm a bit dismayed that several of the people who have dismissed sugar addiction arguments as semantics are people who have knowledge or links to psychology. If you think semantics is unimportant and reason to dismiss something, I feel you're frankly doing a real poor job understanding psychology as one of the last big shifts in psychology was the development of cognitive therapy and the cognitive approach. In some ways, cognitive therapy is entirely about semantics - how you label the same behavior is important and matters. How you label it mentally, according to cognitive psychology, does change outcomes. Which I think, even without a cognitive psychology approach, many people on MFP are staunchly against letting people label themselves as sugar addicts - the practical experience and learning that achieving long term weight loss is about a relation with food, and how we view it, ourselves, and our connection to it. Labeling oneself an addict absolutely precludes the possibility of having a healthy relationship with a category of food.
What's more, I do, absolutely, 100% deny that it is a semantics argument when at least once per thread about sugar addiction someone says sugar addiction is real, and that the same areas of the brain light up in reaction to sugar that they do for heroin (which I doubly dislike as an example of compounded bad science because the drug comparison is cocaine - heroin acts on opoid receptors while food and cocaine both do work with dopamine and serotonin). There is almost irony in that some of these people who make that claim want to ride two horses going in opposite directions because they'll also be the ones to say it is an unhelpful semantics argument.
Alcohol addiction-so yes it exists? Right?-substance abuse (must be cut out completely there's no going back to moderation)
Drug addiction-so yes it exists? Right?-substance abuse(must be cut out completely no moderation)
Sex addiction-so yes it exists? Right?-addiction to a feel/need(can't be cut out completely must be controlled it's a part of life)
Gambling addiction-yes it exists also? Right?-addiction to an out come or a promise of winning/feeling of winning(another with no moderation must be cut out)
Shopping addiction-yes it also exists? Right?-addiction to a feeling of pleasure (can't be cut out completely must learn self control again it's a part of life)
But food or sugar addiction doesn't exist? Hmmmmmmmmm why not?
Addiction is caused by a few things and one of those is to do with how it makes a person feel whilst they are doing the "activity" some of these addictions are by an activity that is not required to live and as such are not able to be controlled by moderation and must be removed they ruin families and lives (alcohol, drugs, gambling) 2 of those is actually a chemical addiction very nasty! (The father of my children was addicted to all 3 of these things) others are things that are required to live (sex, shopping, food) they are everyday activities that still must be performed so learning moderation is a must but when done to excess they also ruin people's families and lives (my mother had a food addiction and at 58 years old still struggles) as kids we went to school with empty lunch boxes because mum ate our lunches while we were in bed asleep, I'm a mum now and I honestly could never send my kids to school hungry. She would eat all the cereal covered in cream and sugar like you have never seen before, bread, anything she could get her hands on we would wake up and not have anything, she was a single mum and she wasn't coping, eating was her way of coping she only did it when we were asleep never in front of us, never in front of anyone it was always behind closed doors. My sister and I ended up hiding food so we had things to take to school. She ended up at OA it helped for a little while but then she would stop going to meetings and bam we would be straight back to square one again. It was a vicious circle of self destruction and very hard for us kids to understand, I mean how could a mum send her kids to school with empty lunch boxes and hungry it really was hard for us.
Vast majority of people with addictions have underlying mental illness issues that lead them down the path of addictions....vast majority of people with serious weight issues also have underlying mental illness issues.
Yes a lot of people say they are "addicted" to sugar....."addicted" to alcohol..... "Addicted" to shopping but really they are just say they like/love it, just as a lover of meat says they are a carnivore (they aren't really just a figure of speech) if it really came down to it they would/could stop it if they needed too i.e. No chocolate in the house miss it but doesn't really matter, no beer left after a hard days work or can't afford it this week they can go without no stress really, can't afford that dress s-@t happens. But others really can't control it and will use lying,cheating,stealing and deceit to obtain what they desire to get that feeling of pleasure.
So yes I know food addiction does exist and it can be exreamly dangerous, damaging to families and relationships even deadly BUT I also think in most cases it's a figure of speech to say they really really like or love something and it's hard to reduce it.
0 -
summerkissed wrote: »To begin with, I'm a bit dismayed that several of the people who have dismissed sugar addiction arguments as semantics are people who have knowledge or links to psychology. If you think semantics is unimportant and reason to dismiss something, I feel you're frankly doing a real poor job understanding psychology as one of the last big shifts in psychology was the development of cognitive therapy and the cognitive approach. In some ways, cognitive therapy is entirely about semantics - how you label the same behavior is important and matters. How you label it mentally, according to cognitive psychology, does change outcomes. Which I think, even without a cognitive psychology approach, many people on MFP are staunchly against letting people label themselves as sugar addicts - the practical experience and learning that achieving long term weight loss is about a relation with food, and how we view it, ourselves, and our connection to it. Labeling oneself an addict absolutely precludes the possibility of having a healthy relationship with a category of food.
What's more, I do, absolutely, 100% deny that it is a semantics argument when at least once per thread about sugar addiction someone says sugar addiction is real, and that the same areas of the brain light up in reaction to sugar that they do for heroin (which I doubly dislike as an example of compounded bad science because the drug comparison is cocaine - heroin acts on opoid receptors while food and cocaine both do work with dopamine and serotonin). There is almost irony in that some of these people who make that claim want to ride two horses going in opposite directions because they'll also be the ones to say it is an unhelpful semantics argument.
Alcohol addiction-so yes it exists? Right?-substance abuse (must be cut out completely there's no going back to moderation)
Drug addiction-so yes it exists? Right?-substance abuse(must be cut out completely no moderation)
Sex addiction-so yes it exists? Right?-addiction to a feel/need(can't be cut out completely must be controlled it's a part of life)
Gambling addiction-yes it exists also? Right?-addiction to an out come or a promise of winning/feeling of winning(another with no moderation must be cut out)
Shopping addiction-yes it also exists? Right?-addiction to a feeling of pleasure (can't be cut out completely must learn self control again it's a part of life)
But food or sugar addiction doesn't exist? Hmmmmmmmmm why not?
Addiction is caused by a few things and one of those is to do with how it makes a person feel whilst they are doing the "activity" some of these addictions are by an activity that is not required to live and as such are not able to be controlled by moderation and must be removed they ruin families and lives (alcohol, drugs, gambling) 2 of those is actually a chemical addiction very nasty! (The father of my children was addicted to all 3 of these things) others are things that are required to live (sex, shopping, food) they are everyday activities that still must be performed so learning moderation is a must but when done to excess they also ruin people's families and lives (my mother had a food addiction and at 58 years old still struggles) as kids we went to school with empty lunch boxes because mum ate our lunches while we were in bed asleep, I'm a mum now and I honestly could never send my kids to school hungry. She would eat all the cereal covered in cream and sugar like you have never seen before, bread, anything she could get her hands on we would wake up and not have anything, she was a single mum and she wasn't coping, eating was her way of coping she only did it when we were asleep never in front of us, never in front of anyone it was always behind closed doors. My sister and I ended up hiding food so we had things to take to school. She ended up at OA it helped for a little while but then she would stop going to meetings and bam we would be straight back to square one again. It was a vicious circle of self destruction and very hard for us kids to understand, I mean how could a mum send her kids to school with empty lunch boxes and hungry it really was hard for us.
Vast majority of people with addictions have underlying mental illness issues that lead them down the path of addictions....vast majority of people with serious weight issues also have underlying mental illness issues.
Yes a lot of people say they are "addicted" to sugar....."addicted" to alcohol..... "Addicted" to shopping but really they are just say they like/love it, just as a lover of meat says they are a carnivore (they aren't really just a figure of speech) if it really came down to it they would/could stop it if they needed too i.e. No chocolate in the house miss it but doesn't really matter, no beer left after a hard days work or can't afford it this week they can go without no stress really, can't afford that dress s-@t happens. But others really can't control it and will use lying,cheating,stealing and deceit to obtain what they desire to get that feeling of pleasure.
So yes I know food addiction does exist and it can be exreamly dangerous, damaging to families and relationships even deadly BUT I also think in most cases it's a figure of speech to say they really really like or love something and it's hard to reduce it.
I'm willing to concede that food addiction exists - your description of your mother's behavior is analogous to the behavior of an alcoholic who drinks away his/her kids' lunch money.
I am sure I am not the only person here who has been legitimately addicted to something, legal or illegal (mine fall into the latter category, I'll admit it). I know firsthand what addiction looks like. Your mother's behavior with food looks like an addiction.
Enabling the use of the term "addiction" as a figure of speech is unhelpful. If nothing else, the treatment for an honest-to-gosh addiction is completely different than a treatment for what, in many cases, boils down to a case of the it's delicious-and-I-want-it's.
I make poor decisions when it comes to cheesecake. We do not keep cheesecake in the house, because I will eat that sucker for breakfast, lunch, and dinner until it is gone.
I am not addicted to cheesecake. I do not mainline cream cheese and granulated sugar when I am out of cheesecake. I do not shake while eating cannoli and simultaneously kvetching that it sucks to stoop so low as having to eat this cheap ricotta filling to get a fix, man, and the cops really need to keep their noses out of the new Cheesecake Factory.....
<quick break to go looking for cream cheese>
Anyway, there's a difference, and it's more than semantics. There are a lot of new posters who believe they are addicted to sugar, and they're just not. They don't blow rent money on sugar. They don't snort pixie sticks off the steering wheel on the way to work in the morning. They don't need a stint in glucose rehab. Helping people like this to get a grip on their relationship with food looks very different than treating an addiction. That's why it's more than just semantics.
/end soapbox0 -
I'm one of those who insists there's a difference between physical addiction like heroin, cocaine and, yes, nicotine, and behavioral addiction like food, sex, gambling and sugar. You're not addicted to the actual food, for example, but to the pleasure that eating it gives you.
They are not the same.0 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »I'm one of those who insists there's a difference between physical addiction like heroin, cocaine and, yes, nicotine, and behavioral addiction like food, sex, gambling and sugar. You're not addicted to the actual food, for example, but to the pleasure that eating it gives you.
They are not the same.
The behavior exhibited by a "sugar addict" is different than a food addict. How many times have you seen a sugar addict eat broccoli with reckless abandon because it's the only sugar in the house? Ever see someone eat a bag of confectioner's in one sitting? Why do sugar addict not blow rent money on a ten-pound'er of light brown?
(Hint: not an addiction...)0 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »I'm one of those who insists there's a difference between physical addiction like heroin, cocaine and, yes, nicotine, and behavioral addiction like food, sex, gambling and sugar. You're not addicted to the actual food, for example, but to the pleasure that eating it gives you.
They are not the same.
No they are not the 'same' as addiction is broken into the 2 categories, but doesn't change the fact they are both addictions and very very hard to beat they cause positive highs followed by extreme lows....anyway read this it explains it better than I ever could
http://www.asam.org/for-the-public/definition-of-addiction
0 -
summerkissed wrote: »To begin with, I'm a bit dismayed that several of the people who have dismissed sugar addiction arguments as semantics are people who have knowledge or links to psychology. If you think semantics is unimportant and reason to dismiss something, I feel you're frankly doing a real poor job understanding psychology as one of the last big shifts in psychology was the development of cognitive therapy and the cognitive approach. In some ways, cognitive therapy is entirely about semantics - how you label the same behavior is important and matters. How you label it mentally, according to cognitive psychology, does change outcomes. Which I think, even without a cognitive psychology approach, many people on MFP are staunchly against letting people label themselves as sugar addicts - the practical experience and learning that achieving long term weight loss is about a relation with food, and how we view it, ourselves, and our connection to it. Labeling oneself an addict absolutely precludes the possibility of having a healthy relationship with a category of food.
What's more, I do, absolutely, 100% deny that it is a semantics argument when at least once per thread about sugar addiction someone says sugar addiction is real, and that the same areas of the brain light up in reaction to sugar that they do for heroin (which I doubly dislike as an example of compounded bad science because the drug comparison is cocaine - heroin acts on opoid receptors while food and cocaine both do work with dopamine and serotonin). There is almost irony in that some of these people who make that claim want to ride two horses going in opposite directions because they'll also be the ones to say it is an unhelpful semantics argument.
Alcohol addiction-so yes it exists? Right?-substance abuse (must be cut out completely there's no going back to moderation)
Drug addiction-so yes it exists? Right?-substance abuse(must be cut out completely no moderation)
Sex addiction-so yes it exists? Right?-addiction to a feel/need(can't be cut out completely must be controlled it's a part of life)
Gambling addiction-yes it exists also? Right?-addiction to an out come or a promise of winning/feeling of winning(another with no moderation must be cut out)
Shopping addiction-yes it also exists? Right?-addiction to a feeling of pleasure (can't be cut out completely must learn self control again it's a part of life)
But food or sugar addiction doesn't exist? Hmmmmmmmmm why not?
Addiction is caused by a few things and one of those is to do with how it makes a person feel whilst they are doing the "activity" some of these addictions are by an activity that is not required to live and as such are not able to be controlled by moderation and must be removed they ruin families and lives (alcohol, drugs, gambling) 2 of those is actually a chemical addiction very nasty! (The father of my children was addicted to all 3 of these things) others are things that are required to live (sex, shopping, food) they are everyday activities that still must be performed so learning moderation is a must but when done to excess they also ruin people's families and lives (my mother had a food addiction and at 58 years old still struggles) as kids we went to school with empty lunch boxes because mum ate our lunches while we were in bed asleep, I'm a mum now and I honestly could never send my kids to school hungry. She would eat all the cereal covered in cream and sugar like you have never seen before, bread, anything she could get her hands on we would wake up and not have anything, she was a single mum and she wasn't coping, eating was her way of coping she only did it when we were asleep never in front of us, never in front of anyone it was always behind closed doors. My sister and I ended up hiding food so we had things to take to school. She ended up at OA it helped for a little while but then she would stop going to meetings and bam we would be straight back to square one again. It was a vicious circle of self destruction and very hard for us kids to understand, I mean how could a mum send her kids to school with empty lunch boxes and hungry it really was hard for us.
Vast majority of people with addictions have underlying mental illness issues that lead them down the path of addictions....vast majority of people with serious weight issues also have underlying mental illness issues.
Yes a lot of people say they are "addicted" to sugar....."addicted" to alcohol..... "Addicted" to shopping but really they are just say they like/love it, just as a lover of meat says they are a carnivore (they aren't really just a figure of speech) if it really came down to it they would/could stop it if they needed too i.e. No chocolate in the house miss it but doesn't really matter, no beer left after a hard days work or can't afford it this week they can go without no stress really, can't afford that dress s-@t happens. But others really can't control it and will use lying,cheating,stealing and deceit to obtain what they desire to get that feeling of pleasure.
So yes I know food addiction does exist and it can be exreamly dangerous, damaging to families and relationships even deadly BUT I also think in most cases it's a figure of speech to say they really really like or love something and it's hard to reduce it.
Sex addiction and shopping addiction are not recognized by the DSM - gambling addiction was added to the DSM V as the only acknowledged (so far) behavioral, rather than substance addiction. By those standards, I believe one day there could be an eating addiction - food addiction would imply that the addiction to the substance which chemically is not true - acknowledged by psychology, but I feel the diagnosis would be far more limited than people use it on themselves.
There are already diagnoses that describe problem behavior with food more accurately than eating addiction would. Interestingly, many of the behaviors of the common binging disorders would generally be exacerbated by engaging in elimination behavior such as cutting out all added sugar foods as some professed sugar addicts do.0 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »I'm one of those who insists there's a difference between physical addiction like heroin, cocaine and, yes, nicotine, and behavioral addiction like food, sex, gambling and sugar. You're not addicted to the actual food, for example, but to the pleasure that eating it gives you.
They are not the same.
Agreed.
As discussed a bit earlier in the thread, people who claim to be addicted to sugar likely have a preference for sweet things and/or habits around comfort and eating sweet things. I'm guilty of this - for a long time, if I was feeling bad, I'd eat a pint of ice cream and watch the Princess Bride.
Was I addicted to the sugar in ice cream? No. It just tasted yummy and was a small comfort when things were bad.
Eating addiction is not sugar addiction and people who try to equate them are doing a disservice to both the people who have an eating addiction as well as the people hiding behind sugar addiction as an explanation for their likely unhealthy relationship with food.0 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »I'm one of those who insists there's a difference between physical addiction like heroin, cocaine and, yes, nicotine, and behavioral addiction like food, sex, gambling and sugar. You're not addicted to the actual food, for example, but to the pleasure that eating it gives you.
They are not the same.
Agreed.
As discussed a bit earlier in the thread, people who claim to be addicted to sugar likely have a preference for sweet things and/or habits around comfort and eating sweet things. I'm guilty of this - for a long time, if I was feeling bad, I'd eat a pint of ice cream and watch the Princess Bride.
Was I addicted to the sugar in ice cream? No. It just tasted yummy and was a small comfort when things were bad.
Eating addiction is not sugar addiction and people who try to equate them are doing a disservice to both the people who have an eating addiction as well as the people hiding behind sugar addiction as an explanation for their likely unhealthy relationship with food.
But were you addicted to The Princess Bride it is that inconceivable?0 -
summerkissed wrote: »To begin with, I'm a bit dismayed that several of the people who have dismissed sugar addiction arguments as semantics are people who have knowledge or links to psychology. If you think semantics is unimportant and reason to dismiss something, I feel you're frankly doing a real poor job understanding psychology as one of the last big shifts in psychology was the development of cognitive therapy and the cognitive approach. In some ways, cognitive therapy is entirely about semantics - how you label the same behavior is important and matters. How you label it mentally, according to cognitive psychology, does change outcomes. Which I think, even without a cognitive psychology approach, many people on MFP are staunchly against letting people label themselves as sugar addicts - the practical experience and learning that achieving long term weight loss is about a relation with food, and how we view it, ourselves, and our connection to it. Labeling oneself an addict absolutely precludes the possibility of having a healthy relationship with a category of food.
What's more, I do, absolutely, 100% deny that it is a semantics argument when at least once per thread about sugar addiction someone says sugar addiction is real, and that the same areas of the brain light up in reaction to sugar that they do for heroin (which I doubly dislike as an example of compounded bad science because the drug comparison is cocaine - heroin acts on opoid receptors while food and cocaine both do work with dopamine and serotonin). There is almost irony in that some of these people who make that claim want to ride two horses going in opposite directions because they'll also be the ones to say it is an unhelpful semantics argument.
Alcohol addiction-so yes it exists? Right?-substance abuse (must be cut out completely there's no going back to moderation)
Drug addiction-so yes it exists? Right?-substance abuse(must be cut out completely no moderation)
Sex addiction-so yes it exists? Right?-addiction to a feel/need(can't be cut out completely must be controlled it's a part of life)
Gambling addiction-yes it exists also? Right?-addiction to an out come or a promise of winning/feeling of winning(another with no moderation must be cut out)
Shopping addiction-yes it also exists? Right?-addiction to a feeling of pleasure (can't be cut out completely must learn self control again it's a part of life)
But food or sugar addiction doesn't exist? Hmmmmmmmmm why not?
Addiction is caused by a few things and one of those is to do with how it makes a person feel whilst they are doing the "activity" some of these addictions are by an activity that is not required to live and as such are not able to be controlled by moderation and must be removed they ruin families and lives (alcohol, drugs, gambling) 2 of those is actually a chemical addiction very nasty! (The father of my children was addicted to all 3 of these things) others are things that are required to live (sex, shopping, food) they are everyday activities that still must be performed so learning moderation is a must but when done to excess they also ruin people's families and lives (my mother had a food addiction and at 58 years old still struggles) as kids we went to school with empty lunch boxes because mum ate our lunches while we were in bed asleep, I'm a mum now and I honestly could never send my kids to school hungry. She would eat all the cereal covered in cream and sugar like you have never seen before, bread, anything she could get her hands on we would wake up and not have anything, she was a single mum and she wasn't coping, eating was her way of coping she only did it when we were asleep never in front of us, never in front of anyone it was always behind closed doors. My sister and I ended up hiding food so we had things to take to school. She ended up at OA it helped for a little while but then she would stop going to meetings and bam we would be straight back to square one again. It was a vicious circle of self destruction and very hard for us kids to understand, I mean how could a mum send her kids to school with empty lunch boxes and hungry it really was hard for us.
Vast majority of people with addictions have underlying mental illness issues that lead them down the path of addictions....vast majority of people with serious weight issues also have underlying mental illness issues.
Yes a lot of people say they are "addicted" to sugar....."addicted" to alcohol..... "Addicted" to shopping but really they are just say they like/love it, just as a lover of meat says they are a carnivore (they aren't really just a figure of speech) if it really came down to it they would/could stop it if they needed too i.e. No chocolate in the house miss it but doesn't really matter, no beer left after a hard days work or can't afford it this week they can go without no stress really, can't afford that dress s-@t happens. But others really can't control it and will use lying,cheating,stealing and deceit to obtain what they desire to get that feeling of pleasure.
So yes I know food addiction does exist and it can be exreamly dangerous, damaging to families and relationships even deadly BUT I also think in most cases it's a figure of speech to say they really really like or love something and it's hard to reduce it.
Sex addiction and shopping addiction are not recognized by the DSM - gambling addiction was added to the DSM V as the only acknowledged (so far) behavioral, rather than substance addiction. By those standards, I believe one day there could be an eating addiction - food addiction would imply that the addiction to the substance which chemically is not true - acknowledged by psychology, but I feel the diagnosis would be far more limited than people use it on themselves.
There are already diagnoses that describe problem behavior with food more accurately than eating addiction would. Interestingly, many of the behaviors of the common binging disorders would generally be exacerbated by engaging in elimination behavior such as cutting out all added sugar foods as some professed sugar addicts do.
The financial association of DSM-5 panel members within industry continues to be a concern for financial conflict of interest.0 -
summerkissed wrote: »summerkissed wrote: »To begin with, I'm a bit dismayed that several of the people who have dismissed sugar addiction arguments as semantics are people who have knowledge or links to psychology. If you think semantics is unimportant and reason to dismiss something, I feel you're frankly doing a real poor job understanding psychology as one of the last big shifts in psychology was the development of cognitive therapy and the cognitive approach. In some ways, cognitive therapy is entirely about semantics - how you label the same behavior is important and matters. How you label it mentally, according to cognitive psychology, does change outcomes. Which I think, even without a cognitive psychology approach, many people on MFP are staunchly against letting people label themselves as sugar addicts - the practical experience and learning that achieving long term weight loss is about a relation with food, and how we view it, ourselves, and our connection to it. Labeling oneself an addict absolutely precludes the possibility of having a healthy relationship with a category of food.
What's more, I do, absolutely, 100% deny that it is a semantics argument when at least once per thread about sugar addiction someone says sugar addiction is real, and that the same areas of the brain light up in reaction to sugar that they do for heroin (which I doubly dislike as an example of compounded bad science because the drug comparison is cocaine - heroin acts on opoid receptors while food and cocaine both do work with dopamine and serotonin). There is almost irony in that some of these people who make that claim want to ride two horses going in opposite directions because they'll also be the ones to say it is an unhelpful semantics argument.
Alcohol addiction-so yes it exists? Right?-substance abuse (must be cut out completely there's no going back to moderation)
Drug addiction-so yes it exists? Right?-substance abuse(must be cut out completely no moderation)
Sex addiction-so yes it exists? Right?-addiction to a feel/need(can't be cut out completely must be controlled it's a part of life)
Gambling addiction-yes it exists also? Right?-addiction to an out come or a promise of winning/feeling of winning(another with no moderation must be cut out)
Shopping addiction-yes it also exists? Right?-addiction to a feeling of pleasure (can't be cut out completely must learn self control again it's a part of life)
But food or sugar addiction doesn't exist? Hmmmmmmmmm why not?
Addiction is caused by a few things and one of those is to do with how it makes a person feel whilst they are doing the "activity" some of these addictions are by an activity that is not required to live and as such are not able to be controlled by moderation and must be removed they ruin families and lives (alcohol, drugs, gambling) 2 of those is actually a chemical addiction very nasty! (The father of my children was addicted to all 3 of these things) others are things that are required to live (sex, shopping, food) they are everyday activities that still must be performed so learning moderation is a must but when done to excess they also ruin people's families and lives (my mother had a food addiction and at 58 years old still struggles) as kids we went to school with empty lunch boxes because mum ate our lunches while we were in bed asleep, I'm a mum now and I honestly could never send my kids to school hungry. She would eat all the cereal covered in cream and sugar like you have never seen before, bread, anything she could get her hands on we would wake up and not have anything, she was a single mum and she wasn't coping, eating was her way of coping she only did it when we were asleep never in front of us, never in front of anyone it was always behind closed doors. My sister and I ended up hiding food so we had things to take to school. She ended up at OA it helped for a little while but then she would stop going to meetings and bam we would be straight back to square one again. It was a vicious circle of self destruction and very hard for us kids to understand, I mean how could a mum send her kids to school with empty lunch boxes and hungry it really was hard for us.
Vast majority of people with addictions have underlying mental illness issues that lead them down the path of addictions....vast majority of people with serious weight issues also have underlying mental illness issues.
Yes a lot of people say they are "addicted" to sugar....."addicted" to alcohol..... "Addicted" to shopping but really they are just say they like/love it, just as a lover of meat says they are a carnivore (they aren't really just a figure of speech) if it really came down to it they would/could stop it if they needed too i.e. No chocolate in the house miss it but doesn't really matter, no beer left after a hard days work or can't afford it this week they can go without no stress really, can't afford that dress s-@t happens. But others really can't control it and will use lying,cheating,stealing and deceit to obtain what they desire to get that feeling of pleasure.
So yes I know food addiction does exist and it can be exreamly dangerous, damaging to families and relationships even deadly BUT I also think in most cases it's a figure of speech to say they really really like or love something and it's hard to reduce it.
Sex addiction and shopping addiction are not recognized by the DSM - gambling addiction was added to the DSM V as the only acknowledged (so far) behavioral, rather than substance addiction. By those standards, I believe one day there could be an eating addiction - food addiction would imply that the addiction to the substance which chemically is not true - acknowledged by psychology, but I feel the diagnosis would be far more limited than people use it on themselves.
There are already diagnoses that describe problem behavior with food more accurately than eating addiction would. Interestingly, many of the behaviors of the common binging disorders would generally be exacerbated by engaging in elimination behavior such as cutting out all added sugar foods as some professed sugar addicts do.
The financial association of DSM-5 panel members within industry continues to be a concern for financial conflict of interest.
Beyond the DSM, what recommendation would you make for defining disorders then?0 -
summerkissed wrote: »summerkissed wrote: »To begin with, I'm a bit dismayed that several of the people who have dismissed sugar addiction arguments as semantics are people who have knowledge or links to psychology. If you think semantics is unimportant and reason to dismiss something, I feel you're frankly doing a real poor job understanding psychology as one of the last big shifts in psychology was the development of cognitive therapy and the cognitive approach. In some ways, cognitive therapy is entirely about semantics - how you label the same behavior is important and matters. How you label it mentally, according to cognitive psychology, does change outcomes. Which I think, even without a cognitive psychology approach, many people on MFP are staunchly against letting people label themselves as sugar addicts - the practical experience and learning that achieving long term weight loss is about a relation with food, and how we view it, ourselves, and our connection to it. Labeling oneself an addict absolutely precludes the possibility of having a healthy relationship with a category of food.
What's more, I do, absolutely, 100% deny that it is a semantics argument when at least once per thread about sugar addiction someone says sugar addiction is real, and that the same areas of the brain light up in reaction to sugar that they do for heroin (which I doubly dislike as an example of compounded bad science because the drug comparison is cocaine - heroin acts on opoid receptors while food and cocaine both do work with dopamine and serotonin). There is almost irony in that some of these people who make that claim want to ride two horses going in opposite directions because they'll also be the ones to say it is an unhelpful semantics argument.
Alcohol addiction-so yes it exists? Right?-substance abuse (must be cut out completely there's no going back to moderation)
Drug addiction-so yes it exists? Right?-substance abuse(must be cut out completely no moderation)
Sex addiction-so yes it exists? Right?-addiction to a feel/need(can't be cut out completely must be controlled it's a part of life)
Gambling addiction-yes it exists also? Right?-addiction to an out come or a promise of winning/feeling of winning(another with no moderation must be cut out)
Shopping addiction-yes it also exists? Right?-addiction to a feeling of pleasure (can't be cut out completely must learn self control again it's a part of life)
But food or sugar addiction doesn't exist? Hmmmmmmmmm why not?
Addiction is caused by a few things and one of those is to do with how it makes a person feel whilst they are doing the "activity" some of these addictions are by an activity that is not required to live and as such are not able to be controlled by moderation and must be removed they ruin families and lives (alcohol, drugs, gambling) 2 of those is actually a chemical addiction very nasty! (The father of my children was addicted to all 3 of these things) others are things that are required to live (sex, shopping, food) they are everyday activities that still must be performed so learning moderation is a must but when done to excess they also ruin people's families and lives (my mother had a food addiction and at 58 years old still struggles) as kids we went to school with empty lunch boxes because mum ate our lunches while we were in bed asleep, I'm a mum now and I honestly could never send my kids to school hungry. She would eat all the cereal covered in cream and sugar like you have never seen before, bread, anything she could get her hands on we would wake up and not have anything, she was a single mum and she wasn't coping, eating was her way of coping she only did it when we were asleep never in front of us, never in front of anyone it was always behind closed doors. My sister and I ended up hiding food so we had things to take to school. She ended up at OA it helped for a little while but then she would stop going to meetings and bam we would be straight back to square one again. It was a vicious circle of self destruction and very hard for us kids to understand, I mean how could a mum send her kids to school with empty lunch boxes and hungry it really was hard for us.
Vast majority of people with addictions have underlying mental illness issues that lead them down the path of addictions....vast majority of people with serious weight issues also have underlying mental illness issues.
Yes a lot of people say they are "addicted" to sugar....."addicted" to alcohol..... "Addicted" to shopping but really they are just say they like/love it, just as a lover of meat says they are a carnivore (they aren't really just a figure of speech) if it really came down to it they would/could stop it if they needed too i.e. No chocolate in the house miss it but doesn't really matter, no beer left after a hard days work or can't afford it this week they can go without no stress really, can't afford that dress s-@t happens. But others really can't control it and will use lying,cheating,stealing and deceit to obtain what they desire to get that feeling of pleasure.
So yes I know food addiction does exist and it can be exreamly dangerous, damaging to families and relationships even deadly BUT I also think in most cases it's a figure of speech to say they really really like or love something and it's hard to reduce it.
Sex addiction and shopping addiction are not recognized by the DSM - gambling addiction was added to the DSM V as the only acknowledged (so far) behavioral, rather than substance addiction. By those standards, I believe one day there could be an eating addiction - food addiction would imply that the addiction to the substance which chemically is not true - acknowledged by psychology, but I feel the diagnosis would be far more limited than people use it on themselves.
There are already diagnoses that describe problem behavior with food more accurately than eating addiction would. Interestingly, many of the behaviors of the common binging disorders would generally be exacerbated by engaging in elimination behavior such as cutting out all added sugar foods as some professed sugar addicts do.
The financial association of DSM-5 panel members within industry continues to be a concern for financial conflict of interest.
Ad hominem isn't actually a way to address science. The DSM could be published jointly by Coca Cola and Pepsi with coupons for Snickers, and wouldn't change the fact that a person can not have physical dependence on sugar, nor the ability to withdraw from it outside of death, nor that people do not consume raw sugar when they don't otherwise have access to hyper-palatable foods. Thus, addiction to food as a substance is limited to the way all humans are addicted to it - we starve in its absence.0 -
Not to mention, at the risk of tu quoque, I've hardly seen anyone advocating food addiction without a book or lecture circuit they're selling. Luckily I don't use that as a basis of dismissing them. I do so for their poor science.0
-
summerkissed wrote: »To begin with, I'm a bit dismayed that several of the people who have dismissed sugar addiction arguments as semantics are people who have knowledge or links to psychology. If you think semantics is unimportant and reason to dismiss something, I feel you're frankly doing a real poor job understanding psychology as one of the last big shifts in psychology was the development of cognitive therapy and the cognitive approach. In some ways, cognitive therapy is entirely about semantics - how you label the same behavior is important and matters. How you label it mentally, according to cognitive psychology, does change outcomes. Which I think, even without a cognitive psychology approach, many people on MFP are staunchly against letting people label themselves as sugar addicts - the practical experience and learning that achieving long term weight loss is about a relation with food, and how we view it, ourselves, and our connection to it. Labeling oneself an addict absolutely precludes the possibility of having a healthy relationship with a category of food.
What's more, I do, absolutely, 100% deny that it is a semantics argument when at least once per thread about sugar addiction someone says sugar addiction is real, and that the same areas of the brain light up in reaction to sugar that they do for heroin (which I doubly dislike as an example of compounded bad science because the drug comparison is cocaine - heroin acts on opoid receptors while food and cocaine both do work with dopamine and serotonin). There is almost irony in that some of these people who make that claim want to ride two horses going in opposite directions because they'll also be the ones to say it is an unhelpful semantics argument.
Alcohol addiction-so yes it exists? Right?-substance abuse (must be cut out completely there's no going back to moderation)
Drug addiction-so yes it exists? Right?-substance abuse(must be cut out completely no moderation)
Sex addiction-so yes it exists? Right?-addiction to a feel/need(can't be cut out completely must be controlled it's a part of life)
Gambling addiction-yes it exists also? Right?-addiction to an out come or a promise of winning/feeling of winning(another with no moderation must be cut out)
Shopping addiction-yes it also exists? Right?-addiction to a feeling of pleasure (can't be cut out completely must learn self control again it's a part of life)
But food or sugar addiction doesn't exist? Hmmmmmmmmm why not?
Addiction is caused by a few things and one of those is to do with how it makes a person feel whilst they are doing the "activity" some of these addictions are by an activity that is not required to live and as such are not able to be controlled by moderation and must be removed they ruin families and lives (alcohol, drugs, gambling) 2 of those is actually a chemical addiction very nasty! (The father of my children was addicted to all 3 of these things) others are things that are required to live (sex, shopping, food) they are everyday activities that still must be performed so learning moderation is a must but when done to excess they also ruin people's families and lives (my mother had a food addiction and at 58 years old still struggles) as kids we went to school with empty lunch boxes because mum ate our lunches while we were in bed asleep, I'm a mum now and I honestly could never send my kids to school hungry. She would eat all the cereal covered in cream and sugar like you have never seen before, bread, anything she could get her hands on we would wake up and not have anything, she was a single mum and she wasn't coping, eating was her way of coping she only did it when we were asleep never in front of us, never in front of anyone it was always behind closed doors. My sister and I ended up hiding food so we had things to take to school. She ended up at OA it helped for a little while but then she would stop going to meetings and bam we would be straight back to square one again. It was a vicious circle of self destruction and very hard for us kids to understand, I mean how could a mum send her kids to school with empty lunch boxes and hungry it really was hard for us.
Vast majority of people with addictions have underlying mental illness issues that lead them down the path of addictions....vast majority of people with serious weight issues also have underlying mental illness issues.
Yes a lot of people say they are "addicted" to sugar....."addicted" to alcohol..... "Addicted" to shopping but really they are just say they like/love it, just as a lover of meat says they are a carnivore (they aren't really just a figure of speech) if it really came down to it they would/could stop it if they needed too i.e. No chocolate in the house miss it but doesn't really matter, no beer left after a hard days work or can't afford it this week they can go without no stress really, can't afford that dress s-@t happens. But others really can't control it and will use lying,cheating,stealing and deceit to obtain what they desire to get that feeling of pleasure.
So yes I know food addiction does exist and it can be exreamly dangerous, damaging to families and relationships even deadly BUT I also think in most cases it's a figure of speech to say they really really like or love something and it's hard to reduce it.
Sex addiction and shopping addiction are not recognized by the DSM - gambling addiction was added to the DSM V as the only acknowledged (so far) behavioral, rather than substance addiction. By those standards, I believe one day there could be an eating addiction - food addiction would imply that the addiction to the substance which chemically is not true - acknowledged by psychology, but I feel the diagnosis would be far more limited than people use it on themselves.
There are already diagnoses that describe problem behavior with food more accurately than eating addiction would. Interestingly, many of the behaviors of the common binging disorders would generally be exacerbated by engaging in elimination behavior such as cutting out all added sugar foods as some professed sugar addicts do.
This brings an interesting argument to the question of if semantics is an important discussion. It's like misdiagnosing something, treating it as such, and then wondering why the cure isn't working. Naming things appropriately, defining what the issue is, becomes an integral part of figuring out the best approach to countering it.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 390 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 921 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions