Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Arguing Semantics - sugar addiction
Replies
-
When someone makes a post saying they are addicted to sugar they are looking for strategies to stop feeling that way IMO. I don't think they are looking for people to say that because they are addicted they have an excuse to overeat.
It doesn't matter what the science says when you have white knuckles for hours from not eating something that puts you over your calorie goal. The science doesn't matter when you have already eaten hundreds or thousands of calories over your goal.
I know the "feelz" are mocked here but in my experience will power and discipline come to me mentally. Those two things do not happen well unless my "feelz" are in the right place.
cosigned.
I'm finding it wildly offensive that people keep suggesting that rejecting (based on all the evidence and logic) that people overeat Snickers because they are "addicted to sugar" means that we are not being helpful or ignoring the "feelz." To the contrary, I think my posts in the relevant threads encourage people to think about what's going on when they struggle and have trouble with specific foods or overeating at particular times or places, and I can relate to the feelz. Presumably most of us who have been overweight can.
Again, I'd put the helpfulness of my posts, and shelley's and winogelato's and many many others above the average person who jumps in those threads to affirm the idea that sugar is super addictive and the problem is, simply, sugar, and doesn't actually provide any help (or says the way to go is to quit all sugar, including fruit and higher sugar veg like carrots, or, similarly, to go keto or give up "processed" foods (plenty of which don't even contain sugar, sigh)).0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »When someone makes a post saying they are addicted to sugar they are looking for strategies to stop feeling that way IMO. I don't think they are looking for people to say that because they are addicted they have an excuse to overeat.
It doesn't matter what the science says when you have white knuckles for hours from not eating something that puts you over your calorie goal. The science doesn't matter when you have already eaten hundreds or thousands of calories over your goal.
I know the "feelz" are mocked here but in my experience will power and discipline come to me mentally. Those two things do not happen well unless my "feelz" are in the right place.
cosigned.
I'm finding it wildly offensive that people keep suggesting that rejecting (based on all the evidence and logic) that people overeat Snickers because they are "addicted to sugar" means that we are not being helpful or ignoring the "feelz." To the contrary, I think my posts in the relevant threads encourage people to think about what's going on when they struggle and have trouble with specific foods or overeating at particular times or places, and I can relate to the feelz. Presumably most of us who have been overweight can.
Again, I'd put the helpfulness of my posts, and shelley's and winogelato's and many many others above the average person who jumps in those threads to affirm the idea that sugar is super addictive and the problem is, simply, sugar, and doesn't actually provide any help (or says the way to go is to quit all sugar, including fruit and higher sugar veg like carrots, or, similarly, to go keto or give up "processed" foods (plenty of which don't even contain sugar, sigh)).
You seem a little upset over this. Have you tried keto?0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »When someone makes a post saying they are addicted to sugar they are looking for strategies to stop feeling that way IMO. I don't think they are looking for people to say that because they are addicted they have an excuse to overeat.
It doesn't matter what the science says when you have white knuckles for hours from not eating something that puts you over your calorie goal. The science doesn't matter when you have already eaten hundreds or thousands of calories over your goal.
I know the "feelz" are mocked here but in my experience will power and discipline come to me mentally. Those two things do not happen well unless my "feelz" are in the right place.
cosigned.
I'm finding it wildly offensive that people keep suggesting that rejecting (based on all the evidence and logic) that people overeat Snickers because they are "addicted to sugar" means that we are not being helpful or ignoring the "feelz." To the contrary, I think my posts in the relevant threads encourage people to think about what's going on when they struggle and have trouble with specific foods or overeating at particular times or places, and I can relate to the feelz. Presumably most of us who have been overweight can.
Again, I'd put the helpfulness of my posts, and shelley's and winogelato's and many many others above the average person who jumps in those threads to affirm the idea that sugar is super addictive and the problem is, simply, sugar, and doesn't actually provide any help (or says the way to go is to quit all sugar, including fruit and higher sugar veg like carrots, or, similarly, to go keto or give up "processed" foods (plenty of which don't even contain sugar, sigh)).
You seem a little upset over this. Have you tried keto?
Heh.0 -
I know the "feelz" are mocked here
Are they? I think most posters here are actively sensitive towards the feelings of others and don't disregard them generally (although there are obviously isolated incidents where the boundary gets over stepped.)
What gets challenged or mocked is the idea that a belief rooted in faith somehow makes that belief valid despite evidence to the contrary, or worse, it is superior and should be accepted above an evidence based position. Those positions should be challenged.
There is no monopoly on compassion by people who have a "softer" approach over those that are more direct in manner.
0 -
I believe people can be compulsive eaters...they have an eating addiction, much like gambling or compulsive sex addiction, etc...it's a behavior addiction which is different than actually being addicted to a substance...in this case, sugar. A gambler isn't addicted to the black jack table...they may have a preference there, but ultimately they are addicted to the act of gambling...in the absence of the black jack table, any form of gambling will do.
In that regard, it's not really semantics...a behavior addiction, in this case compulsive eating disorder is different than, "I'm addicted to sugar"...as in I'm physically addicted to this particular substance. Understanding what you're actually dealing with is kind of important to recovery, so it's really not semantics considering you have two very different things going on here. The compulsive eater may have a preference, but that preference isn't the addiction...the overall behavior is. For a lot of people, sugar wouldn't be their poison of choice...I myself tend to overeat savory and fatty foods...and I'd wager that for most compulsive eaters, it's not sugar in isolation but rather the combination of sugar and fat that is their preference which drives the behavior...that, and other underlying issues.0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »When someone makes a post saying they are addicted to sugar they are looking for strategies to stop feeling that way IMO. I don't think they are looking for people to say that because they are addicted they have an excuse to overeat.
It doesn't matter what the science says when you have white knuckles for hours from not eating something that puts you over your calorie goal. The science doesn't matter when you have already eaten hundreds or thousands of calories over your goal.
I know the "feelz" are mocked here but in my experience will power and discipline come to me mentally. Those two things do not happen well unless my "feelz" are in the right place.
That is the support that you need, and I hope that you're able to get it. That's not the support that I need, though, and I would hope that MFP would not stifle the voices of support that helped me in favor of people like you.
The forum is big enough for both kinds of support.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »As has been stated already, the idea behind eating addiction seems to have merit for some posters and would be considered in the same vein as gambling or sex addiction.
The debate is whether or not you can be physically addicted to any one food item, with the science out there so far pointing to no.
Technical, the OP only spoke about addiction. Most inferred it was physical addiction. And while there has been mention of behavioral and chemical addiction, we haven't addressed those that much. So the question comes down, is there a different type of addiction related to food?
The problem is that much of the argument in that thread was driven by someone other than the OP jumping in and asserting that sugar is just like heroin (or something similar). I am happy to let the OP use colorful language or "addiction" casually, although I might note that I don't think it's really an addiction, of course, and IMO there are more helpful ways of thinking of it before giving my advice/what I did.
But when the people who seem to always want to go on about sugar, it's the devil, see those threads, they jump in and make extreme and unscientific assertions like that and IMO need to be countered as they are spreading bad information. I would prefer the arguments not happen in a support thread, personally, but I think those pernicious and unscientific assertions need to be moved over here too -- keeping them in the thread while moving the counter arguments suggests that MFP is endorsing those stupid and silly ideas, and is especially frustrating when most people who said "I don't believe it's an addiction, but" also gave helpful ideas and its the people who jump in to takl about evil, evil sugar who fail to actually give helpful advice.
All that aside, I happen to like the existence of this forum and think it serves a positive function (or at least has the potential to do so).
The biggest issue is that people are seeing things as an either or. Either they debate the claim or help the OP. Unfortunately, many only chose the former. The third option, is the most simple. Do both.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »When someone makes a post saying they are addicted to sugar they are looking for strategies to stop feeling that way IMO. I don't think they are looking for people to say that because they are addicted they have an excuse to overeat.
It doesn't matter what the science says when you have white knuckles for hours from not eating something that puts you over your calorie goal. The science doesn't matter when you have already eaten hundreds or thousands of calories over your goal.
I know the "feelz" are mocked here but in my experience will power and discipline come to me mentally. Those two things do not happen well unless my "feelz" are in the right place.
cosigned.
I'm finding it wildly offensive that people keep suggesting that rejecting (based on all the evidence and logic) that people overeat Snickers because they are "addicted to sugar" means that we are not being helpful or ignoring the "feelz." To the contrary, I think my posts in the relevant threads encourage people to think about what's going on when they struggle and have trouble with specific foods or overeating at particular times or places, and I can relate to the feelz. Presumably most of us who have been overweight can.
Again, I'd put the helpfulness of my posts, and shelley's and winogelato's and many many others above the average person who jumps in those threads to affirm the idea that sugar is super addictive and the problem is, simply, sugar, and doesn't actually provide any help (or says the way to go is to quit all sugar, including fruit and higher sugar veg like carrots, or, similarly, to go keto or give up "processed" foods (plenty of which don't even contain sugar, sigh)).
I was about to cosign this when I saw that you referenced me as being a helpful poster so I don't want to cosign it because then it looks like I'm just promoting my own posting style...
Thanks for the compliment. I do try to address the fact that whether or not you believe sugar is addictive (I personally do not) it can FEEL like an overwhelming compulsion to consume a particular food at times and it is important to understand why you feel that way when looking for strategies to cope with the urges. However I also feel that many people can find great success in empowering themselves, rather than the substance (sugar, snickers, whatever) by understanding that it isn't addictive and it is a behavioral habit that can be modified with mindfulness.
I know this new section is in its infancy and the way we use this "nutrition debate" section (mods and community) and the type of things we post in it is going to evolve over time - however, I too am bothered by the fact that only posts ascertaining that sugar isn't addictive or trying to refute those claims that it is as bad as heroin or people are powerless are moved over here while the posts making those wild claims (which I do cosign are just as unhelpful to the OP as the ones claiming it isn't addictive) are allowed to stay in the original thread. I hope as we get a few more threads posted we can try to balance the content which is redirected over here. Otherwise there isn't going to be much debate here after all!0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »When someone makes a post saying they are addicted to sugar they are looking for strategies to stop feeling that way IMO. I don't think they are looking for people to say that because they are addicted they have an excuse to overeat.
It doesn't matter what the science says when you have white knuckles for hours from not eating something that puts you over your calorie goal. The science doesn't matter when you have already eaten hundreds or thousands of calories over your goal.
I know the "feelz" are mocked here but in my experience will power and discipline come to me mentally. Those two things do not happen well unless my "feelz" are in the right place.
That is the support that you need, and I hope that you're able to get it. That's not the support that I need, though, and I would hope that MFP would not stifle the voices of support that helped me in favor of people like you.
The forum is big enough for both kinds of support.
Apparently not, or they wouldn't have felt the need to create this section.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »When someone makes a post saying they are addicted to sugar they are looking for strategies to stop feeling that way IMO. I don't think they are looking for people to say that because they are addicted they have an excuse to overeat.
It doesn't matter what the science says when you have white knuckles for hours from not eating something that puts you over your calorie goal. The science doesn't matter when you have already eaten hundreds or thousands of calories over your goal.
I know the "feelz" are mocked here but in my experience will power and discipline come to me mentally. Those two things do not happen well unless my "feelz" are in the right place.
cosigned.
I'm finding it wildly offensive that people keep suggesting that rejecting (based on all the evidence and logic) that people overeat Snickers because they are "addicted to sugar" means that we are not being helpful or ignoring the "feelz." To the contrary, I think my posts in the relevant threads encourage people to think about what's going on when they struggle and have trouble with specific foods or overeating at particular times or places, and I can relate to the feelz. Presumably most of us who have been overweight can.
Again, I'd put the helpfulness of my posts, and shelley's and winogelato's and many many others above the average person who jumps in those threads to affirm the idea that sugar is super addictive and the problem is, simply, sugar, and doesn't actually provide any help (or says the way to go is to quit all sugar, including fruit and higher sugar veg like carrots, or, similarly, to go keto or give up "processed" foods (plenty of which don't even contain sugar, sigh)).
There are significant posting styles on MFP. Some are highly beneficial. When members speak of their past and relate it to the post (like shelley did early), it's great. But when we get the generic... "you get a thrapist, I get a therapist, we all get a therapist" (<--I picture Oprah saying this) for every single post, it's not helpful...0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »When someone makes a post saying they are addicted to sugar they are looking for strategies to stop feeling that way IMO. I don't think they are looking for people to say that because they are addicted they have an excuse to overeat.
It doesn't matter what the science says when you have white knuckles for hours from not eating something that puts you over your calorie goal. The science doesn't matter when you have already eaten hundreds or thousands of calories over your goal.
I know the "feelz" are mocked here but in my experience will power and discipline come to me mentally. Those two things do not happen well unless my "feelz" are in the right place.
That is the support that you need, and I hope that you're able to get it. That's not the support that I need, though, and I would hope that MFP would not stifle the voices of support that helped me in favor of people like you.
The forum is big enough for both kinds of support.
Apparently not, or they wouldn't have felt the need to create this section.
I hope you are wrong. Time will tell. I don't dismiss the science. I read as much of it as I can.0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »When someone makes a post saying they are addicted to sugar they are looking for strategies to stop feeling that way IMO. I don't think they are looking for people to say that because they are addicted they have an excuse to overeat.
It doesn't matter what the science says when you have white knuckles for hours from not eating something that puts you over your calorie goal. The science doesn't matter when you have already eaten hundreds or thousands of calories over your goal.
I know the "feelz" are mocked here but in my experience will power and discipline come to me mentally. Those two things do not happen well unless my "feelz" are in the right place.
That is the support that you need, and I hope that you're able to get it. That's not the support that I need, though, and I would hope that MFP would not stifle the voices of support that helped me in favor of people like you.
The forum is big enough for both kinds of support.
Apparently not, or they wouldn't have felt the need to create this section.
i thought this section was requested. I remember a request for a hot topics0 -
Therealobi1 wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »When someone makes a post saying they are addicted to sugar they are looking for strategies to stop feeling that way IMO. I don't think they are looking for people to say that because they are addicted they have an excuse to overeat.
It doesn't matter what the science says when you have white knuckles for hours from not eating something that puts you over your calorie goal. The science doesn't matter when you have already eaten hundreds or thousands of calories over your goal.
I know the "feelz" are mocked here but in my experience will power and discipline come to me mentally. Those two things do not happen well unless my "feelz" are in the right place.
That is the support that you need, and I hope that you're able to get it. That's not the support that I need, though, and I would hope that MFP would not stifle the voices of support that helped me in favor of people like you.
The forum is big enough for both kinds of support.
Apparently not, or they wouldn't have felt the need to create this section.
i thought this section was requested. I remember a request for a hot topics
It was requested because apparently the other forums were not, in fact, big enough for nutritional debate. That's the point I'm making.0 -
Therealobi1 wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »When someone makes a post saying they are addicted to sugar they are looking for strategies to stop feeling that way IMO. I don't think they are looking for people to say that because they are addicted they have an excuse to overeat.
It doesn't matter what the science says when you have white knuckles for hours from not eating something that puts you over your calorie goal. The science doesn't matter when you have already eaten hundreds or thousands of calories over your goal.
I know the "feelz" are mocked here but in my experience will power and discipline come to me mentally. Those two things do not happen well unless my "feelz" are in the right place.
That is the support that you need, and I hope that you're able to get it. That's not the support that I need, though, and I would hope that MFP would not stifle the voices of support that helped me in favor of people like you.
The forum is big enough for both kinds of support.
Apparently not, or they wouldn't have felt the need to create this section.
i thought this section was requested. I remember a request for a hot topics
I object that anybody thinks this came out of that thread0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »As has been stated already, the idea behind eating addiction seems to have merit for some posters and would be considered in the same vein as gambling or sex addiction.
The debate is whether or not you can be physically addicted to any one food item, with the science out there so far pointing to no.
Technical, the OP only spoke about addiction. Most inferred it was physical addiction. And while there has been mention of behavioral and chemical addiction, we haven't addressed those that much. So the question comes down, is there a different type of addiction related to food?
The problem is that much of the argument in that thread was driven by someone other than the OP jumping in and asserting that sugar is just like heroin (or something similar). I am happy to let the OP use colorful language or "addiction" casually, although I might note that I don't think it's really an addiction, of course, and IMO there are more helpful ways of thinking of it before giving my advice/what I did.
This is the point I was trying to make. It's usually NOT the OP who ends up sparking the inevitable debate but other well-meaning posters who jump in, and frequently citing only 'dem feelz' and ignoring the previously posted science to the contrary.
The quandry, then - how do we, with truly good intentions, continue to correct the subsequent misinformation posted (when often, these subsequent posters continue to debate against the science and info provided), yet not lose sight of the poor OP's questions(s), AND (perhaps most importantly) not get 'in trouble' and labelled 'troublemakers' for derailing the thread? As it stands, it seems an impossible task to do all of these.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
brianpperkins wrote: »How can one give productive input to a person with a position based upon a fallacy without addressing the fallacy?
How can you believe that science won't change? Or how have you not considered that maybe it's not a physical addiction, but rather behavioral, chemical or some type of eating pattern. How have you not considered that sometimes people are just looking for ideas from people who have gone through similar situations and the universal reply is NOT therapy. Maybe, just maybe, people are looking for sympathy. I know my wife and I did when we lost our first child. We wanted support from people who went through that same situation to see what worked for them. So similarly, we should be able to apply those similar concepts to diet.
The flaw in your example is that addiction to a single food isn't factual .. loss of a loved one is.
Mandating support of fallacy based positions requires compromising integrity ... countering those fallacies gets moved or deleted ... the continuing claims of sugar, an now soy sauce, addiction are permitted to remain.0 -
juggernaut1974 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »As has been stated already, the idea behind eating addiction seems to have merit for some posters and would be considered in the same vein as gambling or sex addiction.
The debate is whether or not you can be physically addicted to any one food item, with the science out there so far pointing to no.
Technical, the OP only spoke about addiction. Most inferred it was physical addiction. And while there has been mention of behavioral and chemical addiction, we haven't addressed those that much. So the question comes down, is there a different type of addiction related to food?
The problem is that much of the argument in that thread was driven by someone other than the OP jumping in and asserting that sugar is just like heroin (or something similar). I am happy to let the OP use colorful language or "addiction" casually, although I might note that I don't think it's really an addiction, of course, and IMO there are more helpful ways of thinking of it before giving my advice/what I did.
This is the point I was trying to make. It's usually NOT the OP who ends up sparking the inevitable debate but other well-meaning posters who jump in, and frequently citing only 'dem feelz' and ignoring the previously posted science to the contrary.
The quandry, then - how do we, with truly good intentions, continue to correct the subsequent misinformation posted (when often, these subsequent posters continue to debate against the science and info provided), yet not lose sight of the poor OP's questions(s), AND (perhaps most importantly) not get 'in trouble' and labelled 'troublemakers' for derailing the thread? As it stands, it seems an impossible task to do all of these.
I think this is one of the most insightful questions that has been asked here. How do we strike that balance when the more vocal opposition seems to be shouting down evidence based answers in favor of their anecdotal situations?0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »When someone makes a post saying they are addicted to sugar they are looking for strategies to stop feeling that way IMO. I don't think they are looking for people to say that because they are addicted they have an excuse to overeat.
It doesn't matter what the science says when you have white knuckles for hours from not eating something that puts you over your calorie goal. The science doesn't matter when you have already eaten hundreds or thousands of calories over your goal.
I know the "feelz" are mocked here but in my experience will power and discipline come to me mentally. Those two things do not happen well unless my "feelz" are in the right place.
cosigned.
I'm finding it wildly offensive that people keep suggesting that rejecting (based on all the evidence and logic) that people overeat Snickers because they are "addicted to sugar" means that we are not being helpful or ignoring the "feelz." To the contrary, I think my posts in the relevant threads encourage people to think about what's going on when they struggle and have trouble with specific foods or overeating at particular times or places, and I can relate to the feelz. Presumably most of us who have been overweight can.
Again, I'd put the helpfulness of my posts, and shelley's and winogelato's and many many others above the average person who jumps in those threads to affirm the idea that sugar is super addictive and the problem is, simply, sugar, and doesn't actually provide any help (or says the way to go is to quit all sugar, including fruit and higher sugar veg like carrots, or, similarly, to go keto or give up "processed" foods (plenty of which don't even contain sugar, sigh)).
There are significant posting styles on MFP. Some are highly beneficial. When members speak of their past and relate it to the post (like shelley did early), it's great. But when we get the generic... "you get a thrapist, I get a therapist, we all get a therapist" (<--I picture Oprah saying this) for every single post, it's not helpful...
If someone truly thinks he is addicted to sugar, what he needs is a therapist. That is, honestly, the best advice. A therapist is capable of determining the type of treatment needed, whether it's an unhealthy relationship with food or actual eating addiction.0 -
juggernaut1974 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »As has been stated already, the idea behind eating addiction seems to have merit for some posters and would be considered in the same vein as gambling or sex addiction.
The debate is whether or not you can be physically addicted to any one food item, with the science out there so far pointing to no.
Technical, the OP only spoke about addiction. Most inferred it was physical addiction. And while there has been mention of behavioral and chemical addiction, we haven't addressed those that much. So the question comes down, is there a different type of addiction related to food?
The problem is that much of the argument in that thread was driven by someone other than the OP jumping in and asserting that sugar is just like heroin (or something similar). I am happy to let the OP use colorful language or "addiction" casually, although I might note that I don't think it's really an addiction, of course, and IMO there are more helpful ways of thinking of it before giving my advice/what I did.
This is the point I was trying to make. It's usually NOT the OP who ends up sparking the inevitable debate but other well-meaning posters who jump in, and frequently citing only 'dem feelz' and ignoring the previously posted science to the contrary.
The quandry, then - how do we, with truly good intentions, continue to correct the subsequent misinformation posted (when often, these subsequent posters continue to debate against the science and info provided), yet not lose sight of the poor OP's questions(s), AND (perhaps most importantly) not get 'in trouble' and labelled 'troublemakers' for derailing the thread? As it stands, it seems an impossible task to do all of these.
Not seemingly impossible, but entirely demonstrably impossible (at least in the current environment).0 -
As has been stated already, the idea behind eating addiction seems to have merit for some posters and would be considered in the same vein as gambling or sex addiction.
The debate is whether or not you can be physically addicted to any one food item, with the science out there so far pointing to no.
Technical, the OP only spoke about addiction. Most inferred it was physical addiction. And while there has been mention of behavioral and chemical addiction, we haven't addressed those that much. So the question comes down, is there a different type of addiction related to food?
I was responding directly to:
However, you and I are discussing this on a forum that is intended to argue addiction, so while we have trouble with controlling these types of food we must accept that many posters on here would classify that as a fault in character or preference of tastes or food items rather than anything that is an addiction because one cannot be addicted to food.
As I said, some posters seem to think that there are some merits towards the idea of eating addiction. Both of the posters in this particular quote-thread were implying that sugar is physically addictive, and this post seemed to imply that we were being dismissive.
So, I stand by what I said. Some posters, including myself, seem to agree that the idea of eating addiction has merit, but the science is currently pointing to "no" as far as it being physically addictive.
0 -
BecomingBane wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »As has been stated already, the idea behind eating addiction seems to have merit for some posters and would be considered in the same vein as gambling or sex addiction.
The debate is whether or not you can be physically addicted to any one food item, with the science out there so far pointing to no.
Technical, the OP only spoke about addiction. Most inferred it was physical addiction. And while there has been mention of behavioral and chemical addiction, we haven't addressed those that much. So the question comes down, is there a different type of addiction related to food?
The problem is that much of the argument in that thread was driven by someone other than the OP jumping in and asserting that sugar is just like heroin (or something similar). I am happy to let the OP use colorful language or "addiction" casually, although I might note that I don't think it's really an addiction, of course, and IMO there are more helpful ways of thinking of it before giving my advice/what I did.
This is the point I was trying to make. It's usually NOT the OP who ends up sparking the inevitable debate but other well-meaning posters who jump in, and frequently citing only 'dem feelz' and ignoring the previously posted science to the contrary.
The quandry, then - how do we, with truly good intentions, continue to correct the subsequent misinformation posted (when often, these subsequent posters continue to debate against the science and info provided), yet not lose sight of the poor OP's questions(s), AND (perhaps most importantly) not get 'in trouble' and labelled 'troublemakers' for derailing the thread? As it stands, it seems an impossible task to do all of these.
I think this is one of the most insightful questions that has been asked here. How do we strike that balance when the more vocal opposition seems to be shouting down evidence based answers in favor of their anecdotal situations?
And who never get called on it. That's my biggest problem with all of this. It is decidedly unbalanced.0 -
BecomingBane wrote: »How do we strike that balance when the more vocal opposition seems to be shouting down evidence based answers in favor of their anecdotal situations?
Why should it be the duty of one set of posters to strike a balance when another set of posters are not doing so? That is not equality of treatment but rather one group holding a privileged status.
If there is a groups of posters vocally seeking to elevate faith based claims above evidence based claims then the other group should be allowed to tell them openly they are talking nonsense.
Some of you people are way too nice...
0 -
BecomingBane wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »As has been stated already, the idea behind eating addiction seems to have merit for some posters and would be considered in the same vein as gambling or sex addiction.
The debate is whether or not you can be physically addicted to any one food item, with the science out there so far pointing to no.
Technical, the OP only spoke about addiction. Most inferred it was physical addiction. And while there has been mention of behavioral and chemical addiction, we haven't addressed those that much. So the question comes down, is there a different type of addiction related to food?
The problem is that much of the argument in that thread was driven by someone other than the OP jumping in and asserting that sugar is just like heroin (or something similar). I am happy to let the OP use colorful language or "addiction" casually, although I might note that I don't think it's really an addiction, of course, and IMO there are more helpful ways of thinking of it before giving my advice/what I did.
This is the point I was trying to make. It's usually NOT the OP who ends up sparking the inevitable debate but other well-meaning posters who jump in, and frequently citing only 'dem feelz' and ignoring the previously posted science to the contrary.
The quandry, then - how do we, with truly good intentions, continue to correct the subsequent misinformation posted (when often, these subsequent posters continue to debate against the science and info provided), yet not lose sight of the poor OP's questions(s), AND (perhaps most importantly) not get 'in trouble' and labelled 'troublemakers' for derailing the thread? As it stands, it seems an impossible task to do all of these.
I think this is one of the most insightful questions that has been asked here. How do we strike that balance when the more vocal opposition seems to be shouting down evidence based answers in favor of their anecdotal situations?
And who never get called on it. That's my biggest problem with all of this. It is decidedly unbalanced.
I have it on good authority that all moderator actions are unbiased and fair. Don't question otherwise.0 -
BecomingBane wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »As has been stated already, the idea behind eating addiction seems to have merit for some posters and would be considered in the same vein as gambling or sex addiction.
The debate is whether or not you can be physically addicted to any one food item, with the science out there so far pointing to no.
Technical, the OP only spoke about addiction. Most inferred it was physical addiction. And while there has been mention of behavioral and chemical addiction, we haven't addressed those that much. So the question comes down, is there a different type of addiction related to food?
The problem is that much of the argument in that thread was driven by someone other than the OP jumping in and asserting that sugar is just like heroin (or something similar). I am happy to let the OP use colorful language or "addiction" casually, although I might note that I don't think it's really an addiction, of course, and IMO there are more helpful ways of thinking of it before giving my advice/what I did.
This is the point I was trying to make. It's usually NOT the OP who ends up sparking the inevitable debate but other well-meaning posters who jump in, and frequently citing only 'dem feelz' and ignoring the previously posted science to the contrary.
The quandry, then - how do we, with truly good intentions, continue to correct the subsequent misinformation posted (when often, these subsequent posters continue to debate against the science and info provided), yet not lose sight of the poor OP's questions(s), AND (perhaps most importantly) not get 'in trouble' and labelled 'troublemakers' for derailing the thread? As it stands, it seems an impossible task to do all of these.
I think this is one of the most insightful questions that has been asked here. How do we strike that balance when the more vocal opposition seems to be shouting down evidence based answers in favor of their anecdotal situations?
Thank you for the compliment - it's a question I think many of us are currently struggling with.
For a perfect example - look to the "Sugar Addiction" thread just a couple posts down on this forum.
Granted - there's no OP in this case, but look at the most recent set of posts from a poster who demands that "Fed Up" and the massively flawed rat studies it cites be accepted as proof of sugar addiction. Had this post still remained in one of the non-debate forums, the thread would now be completely derailed, and the OP's question lost. Yet, it's important that that type of post not be left to stand uncorrected.0 -
BecomingBane wrote: »How do we strike that balance when the more vocal opposition seems to be shouting down evidence based answers in favor of their anecdotal situations?
Why should it be the duty of one set of posters to strike a balance when another set of posters are not doing so? That is not equality of treatment but rather one group holding a privileged status.
If there is a groups of posters vocally seeking to elevate faith based claims above evidence based claims then the other group should be allowed to tell them openly they are talking nonsense.
Some of you people are way too nice...BecomingBane wrote: »How do we strike that balance when the more vocal opposition seems to be shouting down evidence based answers in favor of their anecdotal situations?
Why should it be the duty of one set of posters to strike a balance when another set of posters are not doing so? That is not equality of treatment but rather one group holding a privileged status.
If there is a groups of posters vocally seeking to elevate faith based claims above evidence based claims then the other group should be allowed to tell them openly they are talking nonsense.
Some of you people are way too nice...
but how has that worked so far? when someone at the time really believes they are addicted at that time they truly believe they are addicted. to me this is no different from someone who believes they are logging accurately and doing everything they can to lose weight and cant see why they are not.0 -
Therealobi1 wrote: »BecomingBane wrote: »How do we strike that balance when the more vocal opposition seems to be shouting down evidence based answers in favor of their anecdotal situations?
Why should it be the duty of one set of posters to strike a balance when another set of posters are not doing so? That is not equality of treatment but rather one group holding a privileged status.
If there is a groups of posters vocally seeking to elevate faith based claims above evidence based claims then the other group should be allowed to tell them openly they are talking nonsense.
Some of you people are way too nice...BecomingBane wrote: »How do we strike that balance when the more vocal opposition seems to be shouting down evidence based answers in favor of their anecdotal situations?
Why should it be the duty of one set of posters to strike a balance when another set of posters are not doing so? That is not equality of treatment but rather one group holding a privileged status.
If there is a groups of posters vocally seeking to elevate faith based claims above evidence based claims then the other group should be allowed to tell them openly they are talking nonsense.
Some of you people are way too nice...
but how has that worked so far? when someone at the time really believes they are addicted at that time they truly believe they are addicted. to me this is no different from someone who believes they are logging accurately and doing everything they can to lose weight and cant see why they are not.
And then the only duty on the person seeking to counter the erroneous belief should be to convey accurate information in a manner they see fit but which does not slide into hate speech or so forth.
I have been participating in these forums for many years (this is not my first account) and the approach of infantilising posters, even new posters, and an excessive concern for feelings above evidence has more costs than benefits on a global level. There is not less misinformation and flawed beliefs these days, there is more.0 -
Therealobi1 wrote: »BecomingBane wrote: »How do we strike that balance when the more vocal opposition seems to be shouting down evidence based answers in favor of their anecdotal situations?
Why should it be the duty of one set of posters to strike a balance when another set of posters are not doing so? That is not equality of treatment but rather one group holding a privileged status.
If there is a groups of posters vocally seeking to elevate faith based claims above evidence based claims then the other group should be allowed to tell them openly they are talking nonsense.
Some of you people are way too nice...BecomingBane wrote: »How do we strike that balance when the more vocal opposition seems to be shouting down evidence based answers in favor of their anecdotal situations?
Why should it be the duty of one set of posters to strike a balance when another set of posters are not doing so? That is not equality of treatment but rather one group holding a privileged status.
If there is a groups of posters vocally seeking to elevate faith based claims above evidence based claims then the other group should be allowed to tell them openly they are talking nonsense.
Some of you people are way too nice...
but how has that worked so far? when someone at the time really believes they are addicted at that time they truly believe they are addicted. to me this is no different from someone who believes they are logging accurately and doing everything they can to lose weight and cant see why they are not.
And then the only duty one the person seeking to counter the erroneous belief should be to convey accurate information in a manner they see fit but which does not slide into hate speech or so forth.
I have been participating in these forums for many years (this is not my first account) and the approach of infantilising posters, even new posters, and an excessive concern for feelings above evidence has more costs than benefits on a global level. There is not less misinformation and flawed beliefs these days, there is more.
One needs only to peruse the "Recent Topics" list to see the evidence of this.0 -
Therealobi1 wrote: »BecomingBane wrote: »How do we strike that balance when the more vocal opposition seems to be shouting down evidence based answers in favor of their anecdotal situations?
Why should it be the duty of one set of posters to strike a balance when another set of posters are not doing so? That is not equality of treatment but rather one group holding a privileged status.
If there is a groups of posters vocally seeking to elevate faith based claims above evidence based claims then the other group should be allowed to tell them openly they are talking nonsense.
Some of you people are way too nice...BecomingBane wrote: »How do we strike that balance when the more vocal opposition seems to be shouting down evidence based answers in favor of their anecdotal situations?
Why should it be the duty of one set of posters to strike a balance when another set of posters are not doing so? That is not equality of treatment but rather one group holding a privileged status.
If there is a groups of posters vocally seeking to elevate faith based claims above evidence based claims then the other group should be allowed to tell them openly they are talking nonsense.
Some of you people are way too nice...
but how has that worked so far? when someone at the time really believes they are addicted at that time they truly believe they are addicted. to me this is no different from someone who believes they are logging accurately and doing everything they can to lose weight and cant see why they are not.
Well touchy feely support hasn't worked
It will continual to fail and reinforce failure
And there will continue to be "board legislation" against the kind of help that finally made me successful after decades of failure ....straightforward in your face you're wrong on that ....so I continue to put on my twisted, convoluted hat on and try to effect change anyway, despite the required modus operandi rather than because of it ..but I do it less and less...cos semantic twisting hurts my head
0 -
"your body becomes addicted to the sugar and doesn't recognize the other stuff as food" ... a post allowed to stand.
MFP is clearly taking a position that countering fallacy based positions is not acceptable while endorsing them is.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions