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
-
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.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »Before I discuss my thoughts, I wanted to let everyone know, this thread is not the place to discuss your displeasure or express your concerns over MFP and/or the moderation team or employees of MFP. There are platforms for that (surveys, user panels, and you can send your thoughts to a moderator that you trust and/or an admin). This subforum was set up in response to the overwhelming request of many users who wanted to area to have in depth discussions on nutrition. Overall, we are trying to provide some delineation from the main forum (GW&D) to allow members to have a place to get some answer without having their thread hijacked everything someone uses words like: sugar addiction, Paleo, low carb, etc... This does NOT mean that if someone asked about the next big "fat burning" supplement, or Dr. Oz diet, that one should not provide them a scientific response answer. In an essence, we are trying to mitigate some of the debates over semantics in favor of OP's getting helped. As too often, the moment a person uses those words, the thread gets hijacking and taken down that path to never receive answers.
This leads me to my thoughts on semantics and some of the problems I have with some of these threads... it's the absolutism that is applied. But before I expand on what I mean, let me first state that I have not seen a human study that would suggest that physical sugar addiction exist. And i firmly believe that "food addiction" is more behavioral than anything else. I also firmly believe that just because one thinks they have an addiction to "xx" doesn't mean they are using that as an excuse. Many people use it a means of telling oneself that something has to change (i.e. - they join MFP to make better choices and lose that weight they finally wanted to).
This leads me to my main point. The discussion of semantics is based on context... no different than diet. If the subject is about a news article or a thread like that, then yes, semantics matter. But for a large in part, as a newbie in the GD&W section, I see semantics mean less than the plan itself. Why? Because most noobs, have so much information overload already going-on, that 20 pages of debating semantics is not going to give them what they need. Now, let me also state, that there are exceptions to every rule (again, no absolutes) who actually care about semantics... but I see them as the minority around here. Do I like semantics.. absolutely. I love to see emerging science. But when I am working with people, 99% of them don't care about them. They just want a plan to get them on the right path.
Or maybe when some people were new....like I was...they could have their incorrect beliefs about food addiction challenged, learn the actual science/truth of it all and be better for it. Placating someone's incorrect beliefs isn't about semantics, it's about the belief above all else that everyone's beliefs and feelings must be protected above all else.
I know why MFP takes that stance and I don't respect it, but not my circus...not my monkeys. MFP will get their forever customers and I'll help whoever I can elsewhere.
No one is suggesting to not correct misstatements but not all threads need to divulge into a debate over semantics. Its generally not helpful to the OP.
If people could correct poor informationand provide solutions to an issue, this place would have less issues.
Here's the problem though:lemurcat12 wrote: »
Often people are really invested in the idea that sugar is worse than heroin or whatever (sigh) and jump in and so an argument ends up raging, as people feel compelled to correct the misinformation (like the suggestion that sugar, but not other foods, has some special effect on the brain or my favorite, that "processed" foods are somehow more hard to resist than other foods). Usually it's not the OP who gets into the argument, although sometimes the OP is also invested.
More often than not, the OP makes an unfortunate word choice...someone (as lemurcat described) gently corrects him/her, and then in comes the brigade of rat studies from completely unrelated (and often new) users. So those posters also need to be corrected, and on down the rabbit hole we go until inevitably someone shouts "SEMANTICS!" and the thread gets locked.
It is unfortunate that most of the time, the OP's actual concerns get overshadowed. I'm not sure what the right answer is. I do think that stifling the correction of misinformation is NOT the right answer though.
There needs to be balance between correcting misinformation and pseudoscience, and being able to address the OP's concerns (the latter is generally what falls to the waste side as many would rather argue the semantics).
In other dark parts of the forum, people can find that balance more frequently. Unfortunately, there are certain threads that seem to trigger certain responses (since we are talking addiction, you can call them trigger phrases).
The issue being what we're usually talking isn't truly addiction no matter how much some people swear it is. Countering a member who flat out claims an addiction gets deemed derailing, arguing, off topic, etc and moved from the main forum. Words have meanings ... or used to.
What usually happens, is someone uses that word addiction, people pile in to argue addiction and never address the OP. Again, people are missing the context of the conversation and ONLY care about arguing the semantics.
And yes, words do have meaning, but a lot of people misuse the words and this doesn't even address the cultural differences between words.
Look back at the chocoholic thread that split into this forum's Sugar Addiction thread. The outright claims of addiction remain, including those made after people noted the error of their wording. The countering posts are now in this subforum. It should amaze me that you concede words have meaning while rationalizing why the incorrect usage is eplicitly condoned by MFP while the correct usage gets moved. Sadly, it doesn't due to the frequent occurrence of such behavior.
If sugar addiction is not a suitable topic for the main forum then why do the assertions of some remain while the counterpoints disappear?
Extremely valid point.
Previously the threads were deleted which reinforces the cycle
Now with this new board, which comes out of what was as a totally different suggestion, the actual discussion and what I understand to be the truth based on current thinking has been separated and sidelined rather than the complete discussion moved and a shadow left in place directing participants to the revised location.
It's manipulative and perverse.0 -
This leads me to my thoughts on semantics and some of the problems I have with some of these threads... it's the absolutism that is applied. But before I expand on what I mean, let me first state that I have not seen a human study that would suggest that physical sugar addiction exist. And i firmly believe that "food addiction" is more behavioral than anything else. I also firmly believe that just because one thinks they have an addiction to "xx" doesn't mean they are using that as an excuse. Many people use it a means of telling oneself that something has to change (i.e. - they join MFP to make better choices and lose that weight they finally wanted to).
This leads me to my main point. The discussion of semantics is based on context... no different than diet. If the subject is about a news article or a thread like that, then yes, semantics matter. But for a large in part, as a newbie in the GD&W section, I see semantics mean less than the plan itself. Why? Because most noobs, have so much information overload already going-on, that 20 pages of debating semantics is not going to give them what they need. Now, let me also state, that there are exceptions to every rule (again, no absolutes) who actually care about semantics... but I see them as the minority around here. Do I like semantics.. absolutely. I love to see emerging science. But when I am working with people, 99% of them don't care about them. They just want a plan to get them on the right path.
@psulemon
Well stated, and very much my view as well. I also tend to find that where you find absolute statements, you find people that really have no intention of discussion or debate. There mind is already made up, and not likely to change. Those absolute statements often lead to gross distractions making any attempt to support them, and the more reasoned statements, questions, and real discussion gets buried in the mix.
And I'll be one of the vocal minority that completely understands the reasoning behind creating this forum section. I've seen countless threads in the other sections become nothing productive over semantics time after time while disregarding the OPs questions and desire for input.0 -
I'm addicted to sriracha. Its kind of a problem.0
-
robertw486 wrote: »This leads me to my thoughts on semantics and some of the problems I have with some of these threads... it's the absolutism that is applied. But before I expand on what I mean, let me first state that I have not seen a human study that would suggest that physical sugar addiction exist. And i firmly believe that "food addiction" is more behavioral than anything else. I also firmly believe that just because one thinks they have an addiction to "xx" doesn't mean they are using that as an excuse. Many people use it a means of telling oneself that something has to change (i.e. - they join MFP to make better choices and lose that weight they finally wanted to).
This leads me to my main point. The discussion of semantics is based on context... no different than diet. If the subject is about a news article or a thread like that, then yes, semantics matter. But for a large in part, as a newbie in the GD&W section, I see semantics mean less than the plan itself. Why? Because most noobs, have so much information overload already going-on, that 20 pages of debating semantics is not going to give them what they need. Now, let me also state, that there are exceptions to every rule (again, no absolutes) who actually care about semantics... but I see them as the minority around here. Do I like semantics.. absolutely. I love to see emerging science. But when I am working with people, 99% of them don't care about them. They just want a plan to get them on the right path.
@psulemon
Well stated, and very much my view as well. I also tend to find that where you find absolute statements, you find people that really have no intention of discussion or debate. There mind is already made up, and not likely to change. Those absolute statements often lead to gross distractions making any attempt to support them, and the more reasoned statements, questions, and real discussion gets buried in the mix.
And I'll be one of the vocal minority that completely understands the reasoning behind creating this forum section. I've seen countless threads in the other sections become nothing productive over semantics time after time while disregarding the OPs questions and desire for input.
Is that why you are so verbose? Then again I always feel posts over 2 short paragraphs should generally include a TL:DR sign off
The section has validity but it is being touted as responsive to member requests based on specific threads which it is not
0 -
positivepowers 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.
I can relate. To both the food and the cigarette story. I quit smoking years ago but if I'm around someone smoking I notice I tend to breathe much deeper. Like you, I will get carbs from any source, including eating sugar straight from the bag when there wasn't anything else. As a young child my mother would put chocolate flavoring in my milk to get me to drink it. I would pour the milk out and eat the undissolved powder in the bottom of the glass. Sometimes I would forego the milk altogether.
Yesterday (Valentine's Day), at work the hospital provided some bags of M&Ms as treats for those of us giving up our Sunday. They were small bags, so I took one. . . an hour later all I could think about were those M&Ms, so I took another telling myself, "No more." Then I took another and another. Since the bowl was in my direct line of sight I couldn't even get away from them. I can't remember how many I ate. The worst part is, I know that if I hadn't taken the first package the whole thing would have been averted.
YES!!! That is how it feels when it happens; and it happens every time, and not from any one specific carb laden food. I used to believe it has something to do with the 'glycemic load' of a food item. The more starch or sugar laden it is, the less of it I can consume and keep control of portions or repetitive eating ... That said, eating too much of even low glycemic index foods at one time also has the effect of wanting to eat something - anything - carb laden soon after. At least for me that is what happens. The only way I have been successful in controlling this is by limiting the grams of carb per meal and abstaining from sweatened confections and bakery items the best that I can.
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.
Congratulations to you on quiting smoking. That was the hardest thing I ever did, quit smoking. When I am having a hard time controlling my cravings for sweet confections or bakery items I remind myself that if I was able to do that, then this is doable also, I just need to keep at it.
If it is an addiction, seek medical attention and prepare to avoid whatever substance you're addicted to for life. Of course, your own posts in this thread indicate what you have is not an addiction and that the preference you mention in the second paragraph is correct. If you want to consider that a character "fault" ... that is on you.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?0 -
robertw486 wrote: »This leads me to my thoughts on semantics and some of the problems I have with some of these threads... it's the absolutism that is applied. But before I expand on what I mean, let me first state that I have not seen a human study that would suggest that physical sugar addiction exist. And i firmly believe that "food addiction" is more behavioral than anything else. I also firmly believe that just because one thinks they have an addiction to "xx" doesn't mean they are using that as an excuse. Many people use it a means of telling oneself that something has to change (i.e. - they join MFP to make better choices and lose that weight they finally wanted to).
This leads me to my main point. The discussion of semantics is based on context... no different than diet. If the subject is about a news article or a thread like that, then yes, semantics matter. But for a large in part, as a newbie in the GD&W section, I see semantics mean less than the plan itself. Why? Because most noobs, have so much information overload already going-on, that 20 pages of debating semantics is not going to give them what they need. Now, let me also state, that there are exceptions to every rule (again, no absolutes) who actually care about semantics... but I see them as the minority around here. Do I like semantics.. absolutely. I love to see emerging science. But when I am working with people, 99% of them don't care about them. They just want a plan to get them on the right path.
@psulemon
Well stated, and very much my view as well. I also tend to find that where you find absolute statements, you find people that really have no intention of discussion or debate. There mind is already made up, and not likely to change. Those absolute statements often lead to gross distractions making any attempt to support them, and the more reasoned statements, questions, and real discussion gets buried in the mix.
And I'll be one of the vocal minority that completely understands the reasoning behind creating this forum section. I've seen countless threads in the other sections become nothing productive over semantics time after time while disregarding the OPs questions and desire for input.
So if someone is absolutely insisting it is purely a semantics argument, you'd say that person has no intention of discussion? I find myself agreeing with you.0 -
How can one give productive input to a person with a position based upon a fallacy without addressing the fallacy?
0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »Before I discuss my thoughts, I wanted to let everyone know, this thread is not the place to discuss your displeasure or express your concerns over MFP and/or the moderation team or employees of MFP. There are platforms for that (surveys, user panels, and you can send your thoughts to a moderator that you trust and/or an admin). This subforum was set up in response to the overwhelming request of many users who wanted to area to have in depth discussions on nutrition. Overall, we are trying to provide some delineation from the main forum (GW&D) to allow members to have a place to get some answer without having their thread hijacked everything someone uses words like: sugar addiction, Paleo, low carb, etc... This does NOT mean that if someone asked about the next big "fat burning" supplement, or Dr. Oz diet, that one should not provide them a scientific response answer. In an essence, we are trying to mitigate some of the debates over semantics in favor of OP's getting helped. As too often, the moment a person uses those words, the thread gets hijacking and taken down that path to never receive answers.
This leads me to my thoughts on semantics and some of the problems I have with some of these threads... it's the absolutism that is applied. But before I expand on what I mean, let me first state that I have not seen a human study that would suggest that physical sugar addiction exist. And i firmly believe that "food addiction" is more behavioral than anything else. I also firmly believe that just because one thinks they have an addiction to "xx" doesn't mean they are using that as an excuse. Many people use it a means of telling oneself that something has to change (i.e. - they join MFP to make better choices and lose that weight they finally wanted to).
This leads me to my main point. The discussion of semantics is based on context... no different than diet. If the subject is about a news article or a thread like that, then yes, semantics matter. But for a large in part, as a newbie in the GD&W section, I see semantics mean less than the plan itself. Why? Because most noobs, have so much information overload already going-on, that 20 pages of debating semantics is not going to give them what they need. Now, let me also state, that there are exceptions to every rule (again, no absolutes) who actually care about semantics... but I see them as the minority around here. Do I like semantics.. absolutely. I love to see emerging science. But when I am working with people, 99% of them don't care about them. They just want a plan to get them on the right path.
Or maybe when some people were new....like I was...they could have their incorrect beliefs about food addiction challenged, learn the actual science/truth of it all and be better for it. Placating someone's incorrect beliefs isn't about semantics, it's about the belief above all else that everyone's beliefs and feelings must be protected above all else.
I know why MFP takes that stance and I don't respect it, but not my circus...not my monkeys. MFP will get their forever customers and I'll help whoever I can elsewhere.
No one is suggesting to not correct misstatements but not all threads need to divulge into a debate over semantics. Its generally not helpful to the OP.
If people could correct poor informationand provide solutions to an issue, this place would have less issues.
Here's the problem though:lemurcat12 wrote: »
Often people are really invested in the idea that sugar is worse than heroin or whatever (sigh) and jump in and so an argument ends up raging, as people feel compelled to correct the misinformation (like the suggestion that sugar, but not other foods, has some special effect on the brain or my favorite, that "processed" foods are somehow more hard to resist than other foods). Usually it's not the OP who gets into the argument, although sometimes the OP is also invested.
More often than not, the OP makes an unfortunate word choice...someone (as lemurcat described) gently corrects him/her, and then in comes the brigade of rat studies from completely unrelated (and often new) users. So those posters also need to be corrected, and on down the rabbit hole we go until inevitably someone shouts "SEMANTICS!" and the thread gets locked.
It is unfortunate that most of the time, the OP's actual concerns get overshadowed. I'm not sure what the right answer is. I do think that stifling the correction of misinformation is NOT the right answer though.
There needs to be balance between correcting misinformation and pseudoscience, and being able to address the OP's concerns (the latter is generally what falls to the waste side as many would rather argue the semantics).
In other dark parts of the forum, people can find that balance more frequently. Unfortunately, there are certain threads that seem to trigger certain responses (since we are talking addiction, you can call them trigger phrases).
The issue being what we're usually talking isn't truly addiction no matter how much some people swear it is. Countering a member who flat out claims an addiction gets deemed derailing, arguing, off topic, etc and moved from the main forum. Words have meanings ... or used to.
What usually happens, is someone uses that word addiction, people pile in to argue addiction and never address the OP. Again, people are missing the context of the conversation and ONLY care about arguing the semantics.
And yes, words do have meaning, but a lot of people misuse the words and this doesn't even address the cultural differences between words.
Look back at the chocoholic thread that split into this forum's Sugar Addiction thread. The outright claims of addiction remain, including those made after people noted the error of their wording. The countering posts are now in this subforum. It should amaze me that you concede words have meaning while rationalizing why the incorrect usage is eplicitly condoned by MFP while the correct usage gets moved. Sadly, it doesn't due to the frequent occurrence of such behavior.
If sugar addiction is not a suitable topic for the main forum then why do the assertions of some remain while the counterpoints disappear?
Extremely valid point.
Previously the threads were deleted which reinforces the cycle
Now with this new board, which comes out of what was as a totally different suggestion, the actual discussion and what I understand to be the truth based on current thinking has been separated and sidelined rather than the complete discussion moved and a shadow left in place directing participants to the revised location.
It's manipulative and perverse.
What it reinforces, is that fact that people feel the need to turn every thread into a debate of semantics with little to NO intent to provide the OP with a solution (and this do NOT mean that we have to agree or support "woo"). Add on a lot of sarcasm and belittling of members, and you have a recipe for it being pulled. The blind belief that MFP pulls threads based on the content is only fooling yourself as a means to support your own beliefs.
Don't get me wrong, if a thread, such as this, calls for a debate over semantics, then by all means, lets have a semantic argument. But the NEED to turn every sugar addiction, low carb, keto, paleo or etc... into debate of semantics is not beneficial to anyone. And the fact, that most people have the inability to correct misinformation and provide a solution to the OP literally hurts my head because this is something we used to do on the old platform. Because there are ways to make all of these discussions productive. Unfortunately, we choose to only debate a component of a thread. Which further reinforces the fact that context isn't taken into consideration when discussing topics.0 -
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.
0 -
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.
0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »Before I discuss my thoughts, I wanted to let everyone know, this thread is not the place to discuss your displeasure or express your concerns over MFP and/or the moderation team or employees of MFP. There are platforms for that (surveys, user panels, and you can send your thoughts to a moderator that you trust and/or an admin). This subforum was set up in response to the overwhelming request of many users who wanted to area to have in depth discussions on nutrition. Overall, we are trying to provide some delineation from the main forum (GW&D) to allow members to have a place to get some answer without having their thread hijacked everything someone uses words like: sugar addiction, Paleo, low carb, etc... This does NOT mean that if someone asked about the next big "fat burning" supplement, or Dr. Oz diet, that one should not provide them a scientific response answer. In an essence, we are trying to mitigate some of the debates over semantics in favor of OP's getting helped. As too often, the moment a person uses those words, the thread gets hijacking and taken down that path to never receive answers.
This leads me to my thoughts on semantics and some of the problems I have with some of these threads... it's the absolutism that is applied. But before I expand on what I mean, let me first state that I have not seen a human study that would suggest that physical sugar addiction exist. And i firmly believe that "food addiction" is more behavioral than anything else. I also firmly believe that just because one thinks they have an addiction to "xx" doesn't mean they are using that as an excuse. Many people use it a means of telling oneself that something has to change (i.e. - they join MFP to make better choices and lose that weight they finally wanted to).
This leads me to my main point. The discussion of semantics is based on context... no different than diet. If the subject is about a news article or a thread like that, then yes, semantics matter. But for a large in part, as a newbie in the GD&W section, I see semantics mean less than the plan itself. Why? Because most noobs, have so much information overload already going-on, that 20 pages of debating semantics is not going to give them what they need. Now, let me also state, that there are exceptions to every rule (again, no absolutes) who actually care about semantics... but I see them as the minority around here. Do I like semantics.. absolutely. I love to see emerging science. But when I am working with people, 99% of them don't care about them. They just want a plan to get them on the right path.
Or maybe when some people were new....like I was...they could have their incorrect beliefs about food addiction challenged, learn the actual science/truth of it all and be better for it. Placating someone's incorrect beliefs isn't about semantics, it's about the belief above all else that everyone's beliefs and feelings must be protected above all else.
I know why MFP takes that stance and I don't respect it, but not my circus...not my monkeys. MFP will get their forever customers and I'll help whoever I can elsewhere.
No one is suggesting to not correct misstatements but not all threads need to divulge into a debate over semantics. Its generally not helpful to the OP.
If people could correct poor informationand provide solutions to an issue, this place would have less issues.
Here's the problem though:lemurcat12 wrote: »
Often people are really invested in the idea that sugar is worse than heroin or whatever (sigh) and jump in and so an argument ends up raging, as people feel compelled to correct the misinformation (like the suggestion that sugar, but not other foods, has some special effect on the brain or my favorite, that "processed" foods are somehow more hard to resist than other foods). Usually it's not the OP who gets into the argument, although sometimes the OP is also invested.
More often than not, the OP makes an unfortunate word choice...someone (as lemurcat described) gently corrects him/her, and then in comes the brigade of rat studies from completely unrelated (and often new) users. So those posters also need to be corrected, and on down the rabbit hole we go until inevitably someone shouts "SEMANTICS!" and the thread gets locked.
It is unfortunate that most of the time, the OP's actual concerns get overshadowed. I'm not sure what the right answer is. I do think that stifling the correction of misinformation is NOT the right answer though.
There needs to be balance between correcting misinformation and pseudoscience, and being able to address the OP's concerns (the latter is generally what falls to the waste side as many would rather argue the semantics).
In other dark parts of the forum, people can find that balance more frequently. Unfortunately, there are certain threads that seem to trigger certain responses (since we are talking addiction, you can call them trigger phrases).
The issue being what we're usually talking isn't truly addiction no matter how much some people swear it is. Countering a member who flat out claims an addiction gets deemed derailing, arguing, off topic, etc and moved from the main forum. Words have meanings ... or used to.
What usually happens, is someone uses that word addiction, people pile in to argue addiction and never address the OP. Again, people are missing the context of the conversation and ONLY care about arguing the semantics.
And yes, words do have meaning, but a lot of people misuse the words and this doesn't even address the cultural differences between words.
Look back at the chocoholic thread that split into this forum's Sugar Addiction thread. The outright claims of addiction remain, including those made after people noted the error of their wording. The countering posts are now in this subforum. It should amaze me that you concede words have meaning while rationalizing why the incorrect usage is eplicitly condoned by MFP while the correct usage gets moved. Sadly, it doesn't due to the frequent occurrence of such behavior.
If sugar addiction is not a suitable topic for the main forum then why do the assertions of some remain while the counterpoints disappear?
Extremely valid point.
Previously the threads were deleted which reinforces the cycle
Now with this new board, which comes out of what was as a totally different suggestion, the actual discussion and what I understand to be the truth based on current thinking has been separated and sidelined rather than the complete discussion moved and a shadow left in place directing participants to the revised location.
It's manipulative and perverse.
What it reinforces, is that fact that people feel the need to turn every thread into a debate of semantics with little to NO intent to provide the OP with a solution (and this do NOT mean that we have to agree or support "woo"). Add on a lot of sarcasm and belittling of members, and you have a recipe for it being pulled. The blind belief that MFP pulls threads based on the content is only fooling yourself as a means to support your own beliefs.
Don't get me wrong, if a thread, such as this, calls for a debate over semantics, then by all means, lets have a semantic argument. But the NEED to turn every sugar addiction, low carb, keto, paleo or etc... into debate of semantics is not beneficial to anyone. And the fact, that most people have the inability to correct misinformation and provide a solution to the OP literally hurts my head because this is something we used to do on the old platform. Because there are ways to make all of these discussions productive. Unfortunately, we choose to only debate a component of a thread. Which further reinforces the fact that context isn't taken into consideration when discussing topics.
You misunderstand, perhaps purposefully
The semantic argument can be part of the solution in that specific context ...it certainly helped me in the early stages
Sarcasm and belittling are not ok...but neither should passive aggression and holier than thou BS be
I won't discuss moderation0 -
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 difference between so-called sugar addictions seen here and behavioral addictions such as gambling or sex addiction is that, with the latter, we see the same phenomenally destructive behaviors that we see with alcoholism or drug abuse (i.e,, gambling addicts betting away the mortgage/kids' life savings; sex addicts losing their jobs/marriages because they are in the local XXX theatre more than they are at work or at home); we don't see the same behavior with the "sugar addicts" (food addicts, on the other hand, do exhibit behaviors similar to alcholics). And again, the treatment for addiction is very different than behavioral suggestions for someone eating too many Snickers bars. What works for an alcoholic is not going work for a so-called sugar addict. Which concepts (your word), then, should we apply?0 -
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.0 -
ClosetBayesian wrote: »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 difference between so-called sugar addictions seen here and behavioral addictions such as gambling or sex addiction is that, with the latter, we see the same phenomenally destructive behaviors that we see with alcoholism or drug abuse (i.e,, gambling addicts betting away the mortgage/kids' life savings; sex addicts losing their jobs/marriages because they are in the local XXX theatre more than they are at work or at home); we don't see the same behavior with the "sugar addicts" (food addicts, on the other hand, do exhibit behaviors similar to alcholics). And again, the treatment for addiction is very different than behavioral suggestions for someone eating too many Snickers bars. What works for an alcoholic is not going work for a so-called sugar addict. Which concepts (your word), then, should we apply?
Like I previously stated, I don't correlate it to sugar, I correlate it to food. Since generally it expands the scope of more than one piece of foods and multiple macronutrients.
And it's an insinuation to assume specific protocols don't cross between alcoholism, gambling, shopping, food, etc.. addictions. There are a magnitude of techniques that help people. Not just one absolute set. Overall, just like dietary preference, you have to figure out what is going to work for the person.0 -
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.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?
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).0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 401 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 990 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions