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.
"Addiction" versus "Dependence"
Replies
-
Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »@lemurcat12 hit on a valid point. There's a biiiiiiiig difference between "I'm craving these cookies so much that I'm going to eat them even though they will make me fat" and "I'm craving cookies so badly that I'm willing to steal from family members, abandon relationships and sell my body for a hit of tollhouse."
I woul argue that the 600 pound person who persists in overeating despite being bedridden fits your definition. In extreme examples, people have devistated their families.
But the degree of damage you describe is NOT required for something to be a clinical addiction.
600 lb people are willing to commit crimes for a hit of sugar when vegetables and lean proteins are available?? They're so desperate for a fix of candy that they'll directly engage in dangerous activity to get it???
Come on...obesity can be harmful to family members who have to care for sick and dying loved ones, sure...
But fat people are fat because of consistently eating in a surplus...not because they're so desperate for a hit of sucrose that they're willing to do whatever they can to get it.
Wow...
"Desperation" is not part of the criteria for addictions. A degree of compulsion is; it does not have to reach the point of desperation.
I never claimed that the situations were identical; or that the level of addiction is anywhere near as severe.
You still haven't really read my original post.
Wow.
Why do you assume I never read your post? I read it before I ever responded. Understood what you were getting at too. My post was an explanation for why the "I'm addicted to sugar claims" get shot down.
And yeah, you said "the 600 pound person who persists in overeating despite being bedridden fits your definition" after I said that there's a big difference between someone eating cookies despite it making them fat and someone stealing from family members to get a fix of tollhouse.
So I responded that no, it doesn't fit that definition.
As lemurcat already explained, there's a difference between failing to associate activities with long term effects (getting fat from too many cookies over time) and deliberately engaging in harmful/dangerous/unethical activity to satisfy a craving.
Choosing to have the large soda rather than create a calorie deficit hardly demonstrates an addiction in the same way as the destructive behaviors engaged in by true addicts.2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Yes, getting obese is bad for your health, but you aren't choosing to eat brownies over your family.
Morbidly obese people who can't take their children to the park are at least choosing brownies over normal and healthy family relationships. Some couples break up over this stuff, even when they have children.
I'm not saying all food is an addiction. Seems like most people who drink alcohol aren't alcoholics, and most fat people are probably not "addicted" to food. But some probably are. Hearing the definition of the word addiction makes it sound more likely, not less, that some people are addicted to food.6 -
mskessler89 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »@msemotan I think a lot of people who start threads like that do so with the same intent as you - trying to be silly/funny /witty/generally make light of the situation while reaching out for strategies on how to limit their sugar consumption.
Yeah, I agree with this, and don't want to seem like some humorless word police. When this is the intent I don't usually say anything and just give strategies, since I know what the person means and I understand the non-serious use of the term or the frustration being expressed.
What bugs me (although I try to not argue, just disagree) are things where it's clear the direct comparison is intended or, especially, where it's asserted it's just like heroin (or whatever) or often "even worse than any other addiction, since you can't stop eating food." Yeah, it's just not.
Ugh, tell me about it. I know a cocaine addict who's nearly been busted on airlines twice traveling with the stuff, but he keeps doing it because he can't imagine going a whole trip without it. Let me know the next time someone risks arrest because they can't go a few days without a brownie.
I've risked not having my rent payment because I bought calorie-dense, low nutrient foods before. When you are buying 5-6 chocolate bars at a time and eating them all before you get home so your spouse won't see you... well, I would consider that harmful. Just because the level of consequence is different (homelessness & shame vs jail time) doesn't mean it's not a real issue. That said, I'm not in that place anymore. I was self-medicating mild depression with food. I also have a family history of both addiction and dependence. I'm just glad that, for me, it manifested in a relatively harmless way.
9 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »@lemurcat12 hit on a valid point. There's a biiiiiiiig difference between "I'm craving these cookies so much that I'm going to eat them even though they will make me fat" and "I'm craving cookies so badly that I'm willing to steal from family members, abandon relationships and sell my body for a hit of tollhouse."
There are, however, many cases of people exhibiting other lesser types of addict behavior like eating food out of trash cans and stealing sweets from stores rather than face the humility of buying them.
1 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »@lemurcat12 hit on a valid point. There's a biiiiiiiig difference between "I'm craving these cookies so much that I'm going to eat them even though they will make me fat" and "I'm craving cookies so badly that I'm willing to steal from family members, abandon relationships and sell my body for a hit of tollhouse."
There are, however, many cases of people exhibiting other lesser types of addict behavior like eating food out of trash cans and stealing sweets from stores rather than face the humility of buying them.
This would indicate an eating disorder, not a substance addiction.3 -
I get what the OP is saying. Another way to think about it is this: If an alcoholic is sober and free of any physical dependencies, is it reasonable for them to attempt drinking moderately?2
-
The contention is that the individual cannot bring about the required deficit due to their inability to control their response to the their craving.Carlos_421 wrote: »Generally, from what I've experienced here on MFP, when people say "I'm addicted to sugar" they are really saying two things:
1) It's not my fault I'm fat
2) Sugar is the devil
The message that continues to get suppressed is that sugar cannot cause weight gain in a calorie deficit. The key to weight loss is a deficit. Period. The key to healthy eating is moderation. Period.
This falls into the OP's distinction between addiction and dependency. Any substance or activity can be addictive if people develop a craving they cannot control after partaking in it. There are people addicted to toilet paper, paint chips, hair, etc.The claims that sugar is an addictive substance are not only false but also destructive.
If a person has an adverse reaction to something causing an extraordinary craving, then moderation will only trigger that reaction. Thus, for those people, a diet of moderation is also doomed to fail. Are alcoholics not empowered by admitting that they cannot drink alcohol like as most people do?It overshadows the message of moderation, encourages elimination diets which are overly restrictive and bound for failure and demonizes an entire food group with no basis in reality.
It also discourages the implementation of self control. Why would someone bother trying to moderate their intake of food if they're just doomed to fail because of their addiction to sugar? This kind of thinking leads to a defeatist mindset and leads to surrender rather than success.
What is the difference of the behavior of putting a piece of chicken in your mouth as opposed to putting a donut in your mouth. The behavior is the same. I agree though that some people are addicted to the feeling they get when they overeat. Is that what you are talking about?No one is addicted to sugar. Some may have a behavioral addiction that involves eating sweet foods but they are not addicted to the substance of sugar.
Agree with you here.Nor is anyone dependent on sugar.
In a sense, we are all dependent on glucose because we need it to survive but we can sufficiently meet that need through complex carbs (plus the liver can produce it).People like sugar. It is pleasant to eat and provides a ready energy source. We like eating sugar. We crave the things we like.
Since people crave snacks containing sugar they say "Oh, I'm addicted to sugar" when the fact is that they just want it and lack the will to fight through the craving and/or moderate their intake.
I'll refer back to the OP's post: "Note that the craving alone does not suggest an addiction. It is the inability to fight off this craving even though satisfying the craving causes damage."
Alcohol addiction is not a thing, for me.Sugar addiction is not a thing.
5 -
Which disorder?Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »@lemurcat12 hit on a valid point. There's a biiiiiiiig difference between "I'm craving these cookies so much that I'm going to eat them even though they will make me fat" and "I'm craving cookies so badly that I'm willing to steal from family members, abandon relationships and sell my body for a hit of tollhouse."
There are, however, many cases of people exhibiting other lesser types of addict behavior like eating food out of trash cans and stealing sweets from stores rather than face the humility of buying them.
This would indicate an eating disorder, not a substance addiction.
1 -
I get what the OP is saying. Another way to think about it is this: If an alcoholic is sober and free of any physical dependencies, is it reasonable for them to attempt drinking moderately?
And the voice of reason cries out that this is a flawed line of reasoning because there is no such thing as an addiction to sugar as a substance!
If there were such a thing as sugarholism, I would say "Yes! Recovering sugarholics should avoid sugar just like an alcoholic should avoid alcohol."
But it isn't a thing!!!1 -
But if alcohol is an addictive substance shouldn't everybody avoid it? If the physical dependency is gone, shouldn't they be able to moderate?Carlos_421 wrote: »I get what the OP is saying. Another way to think about it is this: If an alcoholic is sober and free of any physical dependencies, is it reasonable for them to attempt drinking moderately?
And the voice of reason cries out that this is a flawed line of reasoning because there is no such thing as an addiction to sugar as a substance!
If there were such a thing as sugarholism, I would say "Yes! Recovering sugarholics should avoid sugar just like an alcoholic should avoid alcohol."
But it isn't a thing!!!
4 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »I get what the OP is saying. Another way to think about it is this: If an alcoholic is sober and free of any physical dependencies, is it reasonable for them to attempt drinking moderately?
And the voice of reason cries out that this is a flawed line of reasoning because there is no such thing as an addiction to sugar as a substance!
If there were such a thing as sugarholism, I would say "Yes! Recovering sugarholics should avoid sugar just like an alcoholic should avoid alcohol."
But it isn't a thing!!!
The voice of reason clearly cries out that you are chosing to redefine the term addiction.
I maintain you either did not read, or you do not understand, or you are chosing to ignore aspects of my original post.4 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »I get what the OP is saying. Another way to think about it is this: If an alcoholic is sober and free of any physical dependencies, is it reasonable for them to attempt drinking moderately?
And the voice of reason cries out that this is a flawed line of reasoning because there is no such thing as an addiction to sugar as a substance!
If there were such a thing as sugarholism, I would say "Yes! Recovering sugarholics should avoid sugar just like an alcoholic should avoid alcohol."
But it isn't a thing!!!
The voice of reason clearly cries out that you are chosing to redefine the term addiction.
I maintain you either did not read, or you do not understand, or you are chosing to ignore aspects of my original post.
Again, I read your post thoroughly.
The only redefining going on is your turning "addiction" into "irresponsibility."
Addiction doesn't mean "I want this so bad that I'll do it even though it's bad for me."
Addiction means "I'm going to do this because I can't help it" or "I'm going to do this because it "hurts" not to."
ad·dic·tion
əˈdikSH(ə)n/
noun
the fact or condition of being addicted to a particular substance, thing, or activity.
"he committed the theft to finance his drug addiction"
ad·dict·ed
əˈdiktəd/
adjective
physically and mentally dependent on a particular substance, and unable to stop taking it without incurring adverse effects.
"she became addicted to alcohol and diet pills"
This condition does not occur with sugar. Period.4 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »I get what the OP is saying. Another way to think about it is this: If an alcoholic is sober and free of any physical dependencies, is it reasonable for them to attempt drinking moderately?
And the voice of reason cries out that this is a flawed line of reasoning because there is no such thing as an addiction to sugar as a substance!
If there were such a thing as sugarholism, I would say "Yes! Recovering sugarholics should avoid sugar just like an alcoholic should avoid alcohol."
But it isn't a thing!!!
The voice of reason clearly cries out that you are chosing to redefine the term addiction.
I maintain you either did not read, or you do not understand, or you are chosing to ignore aspects of my original post.
Again, I read your post thoroughly.
The only redefining going on is your turning "addiction" into "irresponsibility."
Addiction doesn't mean "I want this so bad that I'll do it even though it's bad for me."
Addiction means "I'm going to do this because I can't help it" or "I'm going to do this because it "hurts" not to."
ad·dic·tion
əˈdikSH(ə)n/
noun
the fact or condition of being addicted to a particular substance, thing, or activity.
"he committed the theft to finance his drug addiction"
ad·dict·ed
əˈdiktəd/
adjective
physically and mentally dependent on a particular substance, and unable to stop taking it without incurring adverse effects.
"she became addicted to alcohol and diet pills"
This condition does not occur with sugar. Period.
Nor does it occur with any behaviors...which you concluded earlier could be addictive.
ETA: There are several sources which define those terms differently.
Also, I do not think admitting to an addiction is a form of irresponsibility. In fact, I think it is the beginning of taking responsibility for individuals who are truly addicted.3 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »I get what the OP is saying. Another way to think about it is this: If an alcoholic is sober and free of any physical dependencies, is it reasonable for them to attempt drinking moderately?
And the voice of reason cries out that this is a flawed line of reasoning because there is no such thing as an addiction to sugar as a substance!
If there were such a thing as sugarholism, I would say "Yes! Recovering sugarholics should avoid sugar just like an alcoholic should avoid alcohol."
But it isn't a thing!!!
The voice of reason clearly cries out that you are chosing to redefine the term addiction.
I maintain you either did not read, or you do not understand, or you are chosing to ignore aspects of my original post.
Again, I read your post thoroughly.
The only redefining going on is your turning "addiction" into "irresponsibility."
Addiction doesn't mean "I want this so bad that I'll do it even though it's bad for me."
Addiction means "I'm going to do this because I can't help it" or "I'm going to do this because it "hurts" not to."
ad·dic·tion
əˈdikSH(ə)n/
noun
the fact or condition of being addicted to a particular substance, thing, or activity.
"he committed the theft to finance his drug addiction"
ad·dict·ed
əˈdiktəd/
adjective
physically and mentally dependent on a particular substance, and unable to stop taking it without incurring adverse effects.
"she became addicted to alcohol and diet pills"
This condition does not occur with sugar. Period.
You totally didn't get it. I wonder if it's worth trying to explain it another way.....
Is this the dictionary you are quoting?2 -
-
Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »I get what the OP is saying. Another way to think about it is this: If an alcoholic is sober and free of any physical dependencies, is it reasonable for them to attempt drinking moderately?
And the voice of reason cries out that this is a flawed line of reasoning because there is no such thing as an addiction to sugar as a substance!
If there were such a thing as sugarholism, I would say "Yes! Recovering sugarholics should avoid sugar just like an alcoholic should avoid alcohol."
But it isn't a thing!!!
The voice of reason clearly cries out that you are chosing to redefine the term addiction.
I maintain you either did not read, or you do not understand, or you are chosing to ignore aspects of my original post.
Again, I read your post thoroughly.
The only redefining going on is your turning "addiction" into "irresponsibility."
Addiction doesn't mean "I want this so bad that I'll do it even though it's bad for me."
Addiction means "I'm going to do this because I can't help it" or "I'm going to do this because it "hurts" not to."
ad·dic·tion
əˈdikSH(ə)n/
noun
the fact or condition of being addicted to a particular substance, thing, or activity.
"he committed the theft to finance his drug addiction"
ad·dict·ed
əˈdiktəd/
adjective
physically and mentally dependent on a particular substance, and unable to stop taking it without incurring adverse effects.
"she became addicted to alcohol and diet pills"
This condition does not occur with sugar. Period.
Nor does it occur with any behaviors...which you concluded earlier could be addictive.
ETA: There are several sources which define those terms differently.
Also, I do not think admitting to an addiction is a form of irresponsibility. In fact, I think it is the beginning of taking responsibility for individuals who are truly addicted.
Actually, it does occur with certain behaviors which is why I called that out in my first post.
I didn't say that it is irresponsible to admit an addiction. I was contesting the OP's assertion that addiction is defined as craving "something so strongly that they consume the substance, or repeat the behavior, even when the substance or behavior is doing substantial harm."
That is not addiction. It is irresponsibility.
Addiction is not just engaging in something regardless of consequences. It is engaging in something because they can't help it whether due to dependency, phsychological disorder, etc.0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »I get what the OP is saying. Another way to think about it is this: If an alcoholic is sober and free of any physical dependencies, is it reasonable for them to attempt drinking moderately?
And the voice of reason cries out that this is a flawed line of reasoning because there is no such thing as an addiction to sugar as a substance!
If there were such a thing as sugarholism, I would say "Yes! Recovering sugarholics should avoid sugar just like an alcoholic should avoid alcohol."
But it isn't a thing!!!
The voice of reason clearly cries out that you are chosing to redefine the term addiction.
I maintain you either did not read, or you do not understand, or you are chosing to ignore aspects of my original post.
Again, I read your post thoroughly.
The only redefining going on is your turning "addiction" into "irresponsibility."
Addiction doesn't mean "I want this so bad that I'll do it even though it's bad for me."
Addiction means "I'm going to do this because I can't help it" or "I'm going to do this because it "hurts" not to."
ad·dic·tion
əˈdikSH(ə)n/
noun
the fact or condition of being addicted to a particular substance, thing, or activity.
"he committed the theft to finance his drug addiction"
ad·dict·ed
əˈdiktəd/
adjective
physically and mentally dependent on a particular substance, and unable to stop taking it without incurring adverse effects.
"she became addicted to alcohol and diet pills"
This condition does not occur with sugar. Period.
You totally didn't get it. I wonder if it's worth trying to explain it another way.....
Is this the dictionary you are quoting?
Disagreeing with you =\= not getting it1 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »I get what the OP is saying. Another way to think about it is this: If an alcoholic is sober and free of any physical dependencies, is it reasonable for them to attempt drinking moderately?
And the voice of reason cries out that this is a flawed line of reasoning because there is no such thing as an addiction to sugar as a substance!
If there were such a thing as sugarholism, I would say "Yes! Recovering sugarholics should avoid sugar just like an alcoholic should avoid alcohol."
But it isn't a thing!!!
The voice of reason clearly cries out that you are chosing to redefine the term addiction.
I maintain you either did not read, or you do not understand, or you are chosing to ignore aspects of my original post.
Again, I read your post thoroughly.
The only redefining going on is your turning "addiction" into "irresponsibility."
Addiction doesn't mean "I want this so bad that I'll do it even though it's bad for me."
Addiction means "I'm going to do this because I can't help it" or "I'm going to do this because it "hurts" not to."
ad·dic·tion
əˈdikSH(ə)n/
noun
the fact or condition of being addicted to a particular substance, thing, or activity.
"he committed the theft to finance his drug addiction"
ad·dict·ed
əˈdiktəd/
adjective
physically and mentally dependent on a particular substance, and unable to stop taking it without incurring adverse effects.
"she became addicted to alcohol and diet pills"
This condition does not occur with sugar. Period.
Nor does it occur with any behaviors...which you concluded earlier could be addictive.
ETA: There are several sources which define those terms differently.
Also, I do not think admitting to an addiction is a form of irresponsibility. In fact, I think it is the beginning of taking responsibility for individuals who are truly addicted.
Actually, it does occur with certain behaviors which is why I called that out in my first post.
I didn't say that it is irresponsible to admit an addiction. I was contesting the OP's assertion that addiction is defined as craving "something so strongly that they consume the substance, or repeat the behavior, even when the substance or behavior is doing substantial harm."
That is not addiction. It is irresponsibility.
Addiction is not just engaging in something regardless of consequences. It is engaging in something because they can't help it whether due to dependency, phsychological disorder, etc.
What substance are compulsive gamblers addicted to, and are we sure that those claiming addiction to sugar are not exposed to that same substance? Are compulsive gamblers just irresponsible?5 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »I get what the OP is saying. Another way to think about it is this: If an alcoholic is sober and free of any physical dependencies, is it reasonable for them to attempt drinking moderately?
And the voice of reason cries out that this is a flawed line of reasoning because there is no such thing as an addiction to sugar as a substance!
If there were such a thing as sugarholism, I would say "Yes! Recovering sugarholics should avoid sugar just like an alcoholic should avoid alcohol."
But it isn't a thing!!!
Correct, sugarholism is not a thing.
Alcoholism is a disease characterized by physical dependency on alcohol. The only "cure" for alcoholism is total abstinence because it is physiological. There is no equivalent physical dependency for sugar, carbs, fat, or any other food that people try to demonize.
Some people may be problem drinkers to deal with psychological issues, but this is not the same as alcoholism because it is not a physiological dependency (in every case; many problem drinkers are alcoholics, but not all). Translated to food, some may binge eat, eat in secret, etc. to deal with their problems. But this does not mean dependence or addiction. This is more in line with behavioral disorders that can be improved or corrected by going to the source of the problem or trauma, like depression or abuse.
The lines get blurry when you compare grossly overconsuming food to a compulsive addiction like gambling, but I still don't think anyone can say they are compulsively grossly overconsuming a single food type where it should be classified as an addiction.6 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »I get what the OP is saying. Another way to think about it is this: If an alcoholic is sober and free of any physical dependencies, is it reasonable for them to attempt drinking moderately?
And the voice of reason cries out that this is a flawed line of reasoning because there is no such thing as an addiction to sugar as a substance!
If there were such a thing as sugarholism, I would say "Yes! Recovering sugarholics should avoid sugar just like an alcoholic should avoid alcohol."
But it isn't a thing!!!
The voice of reason clearly cries out that you are chosing to redefine the term addiction.
I maintain you either did not read, or you do not understand, or you are chosing to ignore aspects of my original post.
Again, I read your post thoroughly.
The only redefining going on is your turning "addiction" into "irresponsibility."
Addiction doesn't mean "I want this so bad that I'll do it even though it's bad for me."
Addiction means "I'm going to do this because I can't help it" or "I'm going to do this because it "hurts" not to."
ad·dic·tion
əˈdikSH(ə)n/
noun
the fact or condition of being addicted to a particular substance, thing, or activity.
"he committed the theft to finance his drug addiction"
ad·dict·ed
əˈdiktəd/
adjective
physically and mentally dependent on a particular substance, and unable to stop taking it without incurring adverse effects.
"she became addicted to alcohol and diet pills"
This condition does not occur with sugar. Period.
You totally didn't get it. I wonder if it's worth trying to explain it another way.....
Is this the dictionary you are quoting?
Disagreeing with you =\= not getting it
Where did you receive your clinical training?2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 898 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions