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: »tlflag1620 wrote: »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.
Addiction is irresponsible.
I think here is where the disconnect takes place - you seem to think (for some reason) that admitting or claiming to be an addict somehow absolves a person of any and all responsibility for their choices. It doesn't.
I don't know where you got that because that's not even close to accurate.
Addicts are fully responsible for their own situations and actions. Absolutely.
If I misunderstood you, I apologize. You had said inability to control ones behavior wrt food is "irresponsibility", but addict (who are incapable of controlling their behavior wrt whatever they are addicted to) "can't help it". In both cases the person "can't help it". That's kind of what characterizes it as addiction; if they were in complete control they wouldn't be addicts.
And really, I should clarify - unaddressed, untreated addiction is irresponsible. Someone who has taken steps to get help and change their behavior and regain control is not irresponsible.
4 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »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.
Addiction is irresponsible.
I think here is where the disconnect takes place - you seem to think (for some reason) that admitting or claiming to be an addict somehow absolves a person of any and all responsibility for their choices. It doesn't.
I don't know where you got that because that's not even close to accurate.
Addicts are fully responsible for their own situations and actions. Absolutely.
I think his perception and mine is that you believe people claim sugar addiction as a way to excuse themselves from taking responsibility. I think you said something to that effect in your first post, but I can't really pull it up on my phone to reference here.
Is that perception incorrect?
ETA: Here it is: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
Many people do. On a regular basis posters on here complain that they can't lose weight because they're addicted to sugar.1 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »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.
Addiction is irresponsible.
I think here is where the disconnect takes place - you seem to think (for some reason) that admitting or claiming to be an addict somehow absolves a person of any and all responsibility for their choices. It doesn't.
I don't know where you got that because that's not even close to accurate.
Addicts are fully responsible for their own situations and actions. Absolutely.
I think his perception and mine is that you believe people claim sugar addiction as a way to excuse themselves from taking responsibility. I think you said something to that effect in your first post, but I can't really pull it up on my phone to reference here.
Is that perception incorrect?
ETA: Here it is: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
Many people do. On a regular basis posters on here complain that they can't lose weight because they're addicted to sugar.
I read the posts differently. They are asking how others deal with it so they can lose weight. While I am sure I miss lots of posts, I really doubt there many saying "because of my addiction, I have to stay fat".
You seem to have a strong reaction around posts about addiction. Is it possible you are reading stuff in these posts that aren't there because of this bias?5 -
My dad was addicted to alcohol until I was 21. He still calls himself a recovering alcoholic after nearly 26 sober years. He was very definitely dependent...he coded twice during detox. His BAC was 1.3 when he checked in. He was truly a functional alcoholic...no one outside my house knew he drank more than a beer on Friday night.
My FIL is addicted to gambling and there are definite physical symptoms - anxiety and even fever - when he wants to gamble and can't. He has the money to lose and doesn't gamble if he thinks he's too close to his margin of error, but that takes a physical toll on him. He's dependent on the rush of a card game.
I am a caffeine habituated coffee drinker, to the tune of 4-5 16 oz mugs daily, but I gave it up cold turkey for Lent and never had a withdrawal headache.
It's possible, psychologically to become addicted to anything, including sugar. I never take those posts lightly because I know what addiction looks like. I also know there's light at the end of the tunnel.5 -
tlflag1620 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »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.
Addiction is irresponsible.
I think here is where the disconnect takes place - you seem to think (for some reason) that admitting or claiming to be an addict somehow absolves a person of any and all responsibility for their choices. It doesn't.
I don't know where you got that because that's not even close to accurate.
Addicts are fully responsible for their own situations and actions. Absolutely.
If I misunderstood you, I apologize. You had said inability to control ones behavior wrt food is "irresponsibility", but addict (who are incapable of controlling their behavior wrt whatever they are addicted to) "can't help it". In both cases the person "can't help it". That's kind of what characterizes it as addiction; if they were in complete control they wouldn't be addicts.
And really, I should clarify - unaddressed, untreated addiction is irresponsible. Someone who has taken steps to get help and change their behavior and regain control is not irresponsible.
What I was saying there is that when I stopped at Wendy's this evening and got a chocolate frosty even though it would put me in a surplus for the day, I was not out of control.
If I'd decided to go home and have some steamed broccoli instead, I'd have been just fine.
But I was irresponsible and went for the instant gratification.
For an addict, resisting temptation results in withdrawal and/or fits.
It is certainly irresponsible to use addictive substances.
But while all addictions are irresponsible, not all irresponsibility is a sign of addiction.0 -
I understand the perception, but I am skeptical of the conclusion. Though I haven't analyzed any of the instances, it seems odd that someone would come on a weight loss forum just to say "It's not my fault I'm fat."Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »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.
Addiction is irresponsible.
I think here is where the disconnect takes place - you seem to think (for some reason) that admitting or claiming to be an addict somehow absolves a person of any and all responsibility for their choices. It doesn't.
I don't know where you got that because that's not even close to accurate.
Addicts are fully responsible for their own situations and actions. Absolutely.
I think his perception and mine is that you believe people claim sugar addiction as a way to excuse themselves from taking responsibility. I think you said something to that effect in your first post, but I can't really pull it up on my phone to reference here.
Is that perception incorrect?
ETA: Here it is: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
Many people do. On a regular basis posters on here complain that they can't lose weight because they're addicted to sugar.
I could conceive a situation in which someone might claim that their path is more difficult than others, and that would be inconsiderate.
3 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »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.
Addiction is irresponsible.
I think here is where the disconnect takes place - you seem to think (for some reason) that admitting or claiming to be an addict somehow absolves a person of any and all responsibility for their choices. It doesn't.
I don't know where you got that because that's not even close to accurate.
Addicts are fully responsible for their own situations and actions. Absolutely.
I think his perception and mine is that you believe people claim sugar addiction as a way to excuse themselves from taking responsibility. I think you said something to that effect in your first post, but I can't really pull it up on my phone to reference here.
Is that perception incorrect?
ETA: Here it is: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
Many people do. On a regular basis posters on here complain that they can't lose weight because they're addicted to sugar.
I read the posts differently. They are asking how others deal with it so they can lose weight. While I am sure I miss lots of posts, I really doubt there many saying "because of my addiction, I have to stay fat".
You seem to have a strong reaction around posts about addiction. Is it possible you are reading stuff in these posts that aren't there because of this bias?
There are lots that seem to read "I can't help it" or "it's harder for me." I don't think those are true, and I also don't think they would be true even if addiction was applicable (but I don't think it is -- I've seen people on MFP who I think may have eating addictions, but these posts aren't typically from them, the person elaborates and means they tend to overeat certain trigger foods they find highly palatable).
IMO, people are told on the internet and elsewhere that getting fat is not their fault or about eating too much (well, at least not in a chosen way), that we get fat because sugar makes up and BigSugar addicts us and they don't need to worry about calories but kicking their "addiction" to sugar and "processed foods" (as if that meant anything). The person thinks -- yeah! I don't eat that much, but I do like my sugary things and fast food -- it's not my responsibility I'm fat (or a tiny bit heavier than I'd like to be, often), SUGAR made me so, I have no responsibility at all for my issues -- and posts "HELP! I'm a sugar addict."
This is a message that's around, so I get it, but one reason it frustrates me is that I think an important part of dealing with a real addiction is understanding that whatever the nature of the addiction it DOES NOT absolve you of responsibility or mean you are in some category of people who have it harder than everyone else. This is one of the misunderstandings about addiction that seem to be glaring in the posts we are talking about.
And no, I don't mean people who rather jokingly post "ugh, I feel like an addict almost" or "I think I must be addicted to peanut butter." I mean those who insist it's exactly like cocaine, since they've read those sites intended to convince you that you aren't responsible for gaining weight (which do promote the idea that we were tricked, couldn't help it, etc., as well as often "sugar detoxes" and the like).
7 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »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.
Addiction is irresponsible.
I think here is where the disconnect takes place - you seem to think (for some reason) that admitting or claiming to be an addict somehow absolves a person of any and all responsibility for their choices. It doesn't.
I don't know where you got that because that's not even close to accurate.
Addicts are fully responsible for their own situations and actions. Absolutely.
I think his perception and mine is that you believe people claim sugar addiction as a way to excuse themselves from taking responsibility. I think you said something to that effect in your first post, but I can't really pull it up on my phone to reference here.
Is that perception incorrect?
ETA: Here it is: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
Many people do. On a regular basis posters on here complain that they can't lose weight because they're addicted to sugar.
I read the posts differently. They are asking how others deal with it so they can lose weight. While I am sure I miss lots of posts, I really doubt there many saying "because of my addiction, I have to stay fat".
You seem to have a strong reaction around posts about addiction. Is it possible you are reading stuff in these posts that aren't there because of this bias?
There are lots that seem to read "I can't help it" or "it's harder for me." I don't think those are true, and I also don't think they would be true even if addiction was applicable (but I don't think it is -- I've seen people on MFP who I think may have eating addictions, but these posts aren't typically from them, the person elaborates and means they tend to overeat certain trigger foods they find highly palatable).
IMO, people are told on the internet and elsewhere that getting fat is not their fault or about eating too much (well, at least not in a chosen way), that we get fat because sugar makes up and BigSugar addicts us and they don't need to worry about calories but kicking their "addiction" to sugar and "processed foods" (as if that meant anything). The person thinks -- yeah! I don't eat that much, but I do like my sugary things and fast food -- it's not my responsibility I'm fat (or a tiny bit heavier than I'd like to be, often), SUGAR made me so, I have no responsibility at all for my issues -- and posts "HELP! I'm a sugar addict."
This is a message that's around, so I get it, but one reason it frustrates me is that I think an important part of dealing with a real addiction is understanding that whatever the nature of the addiction it DOES NOT absolve you of responsibility or mean you are in some category of people who have it harder than everyone else. This is one of the misunderstandings about addiction that seem to be glaring in the posts we are talking about.
And no, I don't mean people who rather jokingly post "ugh, I feel like an addict almost" or "I think I must be addicted to peanut butter." I mean those who insist it's exactly like cocaine, since they've read those sites intended to convince you that you aren't responsible for gaining weight (which do promote the idea that we were tricked, couldn't help it, etc., as well as often "sugar detoxes" and the like).
My sentiments exactly.0 -
I DO think it's harder for someone who is dealing with intense sugar cravings than it is for someone who is not. They both have all the normal challenges of staying in a calorie deficit, plus the so called sugar addict is dealing with an added element. One that they often consider to be their biggest challenge.4
-
goldthistime wrote: »I DO think it's harder for someone who is dealing with intense sugar cravings than it is for someone who is not. They both have all the normal challenges of staying in a calorie deficit, plus the so called sugar addict is dealing with an added element. One that they often consider to be their biggest challenge.
Yeah but it's the end of the MFP forum world to say someone has a harder time than another person. Bad bad bad!
I think everyone has their own challenges. Some have it easier than others. With the differences in bodies (hormone levels as an example), it is harder and easier for individuals. Uhoh, another end of the world statements.5 -
Minimizing the devastation that the very real medical condition of obesity can cause is just wrong. Obesity contributes to sleep apnea, diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, peripheral vascular disease, joint destruction, and major depression. Certain trigger foods affect areas of the brain that are also affected by addicting drugs. Naltrexone is currently being used to help reduce cravings and obsessive thinking about food, either alone or in combination with other medications. This is no accident. Naltrexone is an opiate antagonist used for opiate and alcohol addiction. Food addiction definitely does fit the definition and obesity is a major health problem.6
-
Carlos_421 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »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.
Addiction is irresponsible.
I think here is where the disconnect takes place - you seem to think (for some reason) that admitting or claiming to be an addict somehow absolves a person of any and all responsibility for their choices. It doesn't.
I don't know where you got that because that's not even close to accurate.
Addicts are fully responsible for their own situations and actions. Absolutely.
If I misunderstood you, I apologize. You had said inability to control ones behavior wrt food is "irresponsibility", but addict (who are incapable of controlling their behavior wrt whatever they are addicted to) "can't help it". In both cases the person "can't help it". That's kind of what characterizes it as addiction; if they were in complete control they wouldn't be addicts.
And really, I should clarify - unaddressed, untreated addiction is irresponsible. Someone who has taken steps to get help and change their behavior and regain control is not irresponsible.
What I was saying there is that when I stopped at Wendy's this evening and got a chocolate frosty even though it would put me in a surplus for the day, I was not out of control.
If I'd decided to go home and have some steamed broccoli instead, I'd have been just fine.
But I was irresponsible and went for the instant gratification.
For an addict, resisting temptation results in withdrawal and/or fits.
It is certainly irresponsible to use addictive substances.
But while all addictions are irresponsible, not all irresponsibility is a sign of addiction.
You said it yourself - you were not out of control. You chose to go over your calories one day. I wouldn't even call that "irresponsible". If it were happening frequently, maybe, but I get the impression that you make responsible food choices the majority of the time. Just as someone can go to the bar now and then, have two beers, and end it, and not be an addict, you can go to Wendy's, have one frosty, and end it, and not be an addict. Those examples are not addiction. They're not even what I would call irresponsible.
No one is saying that being addicted is an excuse not to lose weight, not sure why you think it is. Being addicted is not an excuse to keep smoking either. What addiction does is adds a level of difficulty that most other people simply don't have to deal with; it doesn't make it impossible to lose weight, but different strategies may need to be employed (avoiding trigger foods, people, and /or situations comes to mind). It's not an excuse to stay fat; its acknowledgment that one has a deeper set of issues going on that makes it harder for them to stay on track. Harder, not impossible.
Physical addiction and psychological addiction are two separate things. Yes, withdrawal occurs while the physical addiction is still present. I'll use nicotine as an example, as I am very familiar - nicotine clears your system within 72 hours of your last exposure. Within two weeks all physical symptoms will be done with. You are no longer physically addicted to nicotine at that point. But the psychological addiction remains, and really never goes away (ask any long term former smoker if they ever think about smoking or get the urge to smoke - if they are honest the vast vast majority will tell you that they do still sometimes want to smoke). They don't have "nic fits" anymore, they stopped being physically addicted long ago. But they still get an urge or a craving, sometimes quite powerful. And even one puff from a cigarette can lead them down the road to becoming a smoker again.
Wasn't it you that posted the dictionary definition of addiction? If so, did you read what you copied and pasted? I ask with no snark, it seems to me you didn't read it, or at least skipped over quite an important part - addiction is a physical ***or mental*** dependence. We are all physically dependent on food, obviously. When people talk about food addiction it is generally in terms of psychological addiction.4 -
goldthistime wrote: »I DO think it's harder for someone who is dealing with intense sugar cravings than it is for someone who is not. They both have all the normal challenges of staying in a calorie deficit, plus the so called sugar addict is dealing with an added element. One that they often consider to be their biggest challenge.
I don't. For me a craving is relatively easy to deal with because it's clear and can either be fought or dealt with. If I crave a food I figure out how to satisfy the craving in a healthier way, have a little, or fight it/put it off. What has always been harder for me are other things -- like the mind saying "oh, it doesn't matter" or "I'll do this tonight and then tomorrow will be different." Similarly, with aggressive cravings you can figure out how to satisfy them in some way, but there's also the constant feeling of wanting to eat or the habitual response of wanting to eat with certain triggers (emotional eating).
You can figure out how to deal with this other stuff too, and I have been successfully (and not, from time to time) working on it, but I disagree that it's inherently easier than cravings or that someone who tends to prefer savory foods (me, although I like plenty of sweet things) is somehow more responsible for their weight issues than someone who is a sugar fiend.
NOT saying my stuff is harder, of course, but this idea that some people have a much harder time than others (just because they say they do) is IMO a way of making an excuse.
I think some people do have a harder time -- I think having eating disorder type thinking or long-term messed up ideas about food (vs. logical thinking) or being really wrapped up in the idea that being fat/overeating makes you a failure so you end up with a cycle of shame and depression and the like ALL make it harder. (But that doesn't mean you have a harder time in general than others -- I find it really offputting when people do the "poor me, everyone else has it so easy" stuff.) But usually that has exactly nothing to do with who is claiming addiction and who is not. I've been motivated to reach out to some posters (and seen others I wanted to reach out to but didn't know how to help) who I felt like were really struggling and had a harder time than others (often people who were morbidly obese) and I have a friend in RL in that situation who I wish I knew how to help, but these aren't generally the people I've seen claiming "addiction" (and I don't think that's the issue--it's rarely just sugar, or just some specific food, after all, but maladaptive eating behaviors).
I also think not having experience with eating healthfully at all (the people who seem to never eat vegetables, not to have an idea of what a balanced meal is, who don't cook ever, or ask what to eat if they cut down on sugar, as if dinner normally involved lots of added sugar) can certainly make things harder, but again that's not about addiction. It's about education and developing your palate.1 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »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.
Addiction is irresponsible.
I think here is where the disconnect takes place - you seem to think (for some reason) that admitting or claiming to be an addict somehow absolves a person of any and all responsibility for their choices. It doesn't.
I don't know where you got that because that's not even close to accurate.
Addicts are fully responsible for their own situations and actions. Absolutely.
If I misunderstood you, I apologize. You had said inability to control ones behavior wrt food is "irresponsibility", but addict (who are incapable of controlling their behavior wrt whatever they are addicted to) "can't help it". In both cases the person "can't help it". That's kind of what characterizes it as addiction; if they were in complete control they wouldn't be addicts.
And really, I should clarify - unaddressed, untreated addiction is irresponsible. Someone who has taken steps to get help and change their behavior and regain control is not irresponsible.
What I was saying there is that when I stopped at Wendy's this evening and got a chocolate frosty even though it would put me in a surplus for the day, I was not out of control.
If I'd decided to go home and have some steamed broccoli instead, I'd have been just fine.
But I was irresponsible and went for the instant gratification.
For an addict, resisting temptation results in withdrawal and/or fits.
It is certainly irresponsible to use addictive substances.
But while all addictions are irresponsible, not all irresponsibility is a sign of addiction.
Addiction does NOT HAVE to entail withdrawal. DEPENDENCE does. People are addicted to things that don't cause withdrawal.
This was the primary point of my original post. You insist that you read it carefully. I can't see how that's possible if you missed that point.7 -
goldthistime wrote: »I DO think it's harder for someone who is dealing with intense sugar cravings than it is for someone who is not. They both have all the normal challenges of staying in a calorie deficit, plus the so called sugar addict is dealing with an added element. One that they often consider to be their biggest challenge.
Yeah but it's the end of the MFP forum world to say someone has a harder time than another person. Bad bad bad!
I think everyone has their own challenges. Some have it easier than others. With the differences in bodies (hormone levels as an example), it is harder and easier for individuals. Uhoh, another end of the world statements.
Lol at "bad bad bad". Guess I should have started with "all things being equal". Certainly I agree that there are other challenges out there that are as bad or worse. I agree on the hormonal stuff, and meds that have been shown to cause weight gain comes to mind, depression and high stress levels etc.
3 -
I prefer to use the term "habit" for what most of us go through. We get in to a rut and it's hard to break out of it. Habits can be terrifically hard to break. It's sometimes simpler to redirect the habit to a better choice.
When overcome by a craving, I've described the experience as "riding the wave". Instead of trying to dampen the flood of cravings like holding back the tide with my hands, I allow it within limits. So there is chocolate in my house. I tell myself I can "spare a square". I marshal my willpower to eat it slowly, and I don't ever try and completely deprive myself.2 -
goldthistime wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »I DO think it's harder for someone who is dealing with intense sugar cravings than it is for someone who is not. They both have all the normal challenges of staying in a calorie deficit, plus the so called sugar addict is dealing with an added element. One that they often consider to be their biggest challenge.
Yeah but it's the end of the MFP forum world to say someone has a harder time than another person. Bad bad bad!
I think everyone has their own challenges. Some have it easier than others. With the differences in bodies (hormone levels as an example), it is harder and easier for individuals. Uhoh, another end of the world statements.
Lol at "bad bad bad". Guess I should have started with "all things being equal". Certainly I agree that there are other challenges out there that are as bad or worse. I agree on the hormonal stuff, and meds that have been shown to cause weight gain comes to mind, depression and high stress levels etc.
What gets me with the addiction posts specifically, is the posters often assume that being tempted or wanting to eat more than you should = addiction, and other posters who don't claim addiction don't experience this. So why would we get fat? Of course we have temptation and all the rest and messed up eating behaviors often. I just don't think that's addiction or that someone who claims to be "addicted" has it harder than everyone else.
I think focusing on the actual specifics (vs. claiming "oh, can't help it, once I have sugar I lose it, because addict" -- BigSugar made me fat) tends to be extremely illuminating and helpful, as it focuses in on why you are actually overeating, when, in what context, so on. Not eating certain trigger foods (even all aggressively sweet things) can certainly be a part of the solution, depending on context. None of that has to do with addiction, again, however.3 -
This works with a lot of people...maybe even most people. However, there are also a lot of people for which such actions have proven fruitless. For them, abstinence may be a perfectly viable option.I prefer to use the term "habit" for what most of us go through. We get in to a rut and it's hard to break out of it. Habits can be terrifically hard to break. It's sometimes simpler to redirect the habit to a better choice.
When overcome by a craving, I've described the experience as "riding the wave". Instead of trying to dampen the flood of cravings like holding back the tide with my hands, I allow it within limits. So there is chocolate in my house. I tell myself I can "spare a square". I marshal my willpower to eat it slowly, and I don't ever try and completely deprive myself.
1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »I DO think it's harder for someone who is dealing with intense sugar cravings than it is for someone who is not. They both have all the normal challenges of staying in a calorie deficit, plus the so called sugar addict is dealing with an added element. One that they often consider to be their biggest challenge.
Yeah but it's the end of the MFP forum world to say someone has a harder time than another person. Bad bad bad!
I think everyone has their own challenges. Some have it easier than others. With the differences in bodies (hormone levels as an example), it is harder and easier for individuals. Uhoh, another end of the world statements.
Lol at "bad bad bad". Guess I should have started with "all things being equal". Certainly I agree that there are other challenges out there that are as bad or worse. I agree on the hormonal stuff, and meds that have been shown to cause weight gain comes to mind, depression and high stress levels etc.
What gets me with the addiction posts specifically, is the posters often assume that being tempted or wanting to eat more than you should = addiction, and other posters who don't claim addiction don't experience this. So why would we get fat? Of course we have temptation and all the rest and messed up eating behaviors often. I just don't think that's addiction or that someone who claims to be "addicted" has it harder than everyone else.
I think focusing on the actual specifics (vs. claiming "oh, can't help it, once I have sugar I lose it, because addict" -- BigSugar made me fat) tends to be extremely illuminating and helpful, as it focuses in on why you are actually overeating, when, in what context, so on. Not eating certain trigger foods (even all aggressively sweet things) can certainly be a part of the solution, depending on context. None of that has to do with addiction, again, however.
I don't think anyone is saying all overweight people are food addicts.2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »I DO think it's harder for someone who is dealing with intense sugar cravings than it is for someone who is not. They both have all the normal challenges of staying in a calorie deficit, plus the so called sugar addict is dealing with an added element. One that they often consider to be their biggest challenge.
I don't. For me a craving is relatively easy to deal with because it's clear and can either be fought or dealt with. If I crave a food I figure out how to satisfy the craving in a healthier way, have a little, or fight it/put it off. What has always been harder for me are other things -- like the mind saying "oh, it doesn't matter" or "I'll do this tonight and then tomorrow will be different." Similarly, with aggressive cravings you can figure out how to satisfy them in some way, but there's also the constant feeling of wanting to eat or the habitual response of wanting to eat with certain triggers (emotional eating).
You can figure out how to deal with this other stuff too, and I have been successfully (and not, from time to time) working on it, but I disagree that it's inherently easier than cravings or that someone who tends to prefer savory foods (me, although I like plenty of sweet things) is somehow more responsible for their weight issues than someone who is a sugar fiend.
NOT saying my stuff is harder, of course, but this idea that some people have a much harder time than others (just because they say they do) is IMO a way of making an excuse.
I think some people do have a harder time -- I think having eating disorder type thinking or long-term messed up ideas about food (vs. logical thinking) or being really wrapped up in the idea that being fat/overeating makes you a failure so you end up with a cycle of shame and depression and the like ALL make it harder. (But that doesn't mean you have a harder time in general than others -- I find it really offputting when people do the "poor me, everyone else has it so easy" stuff.) But usually that has exactly nothing to do with who is claiming addiction and who is not. I've been motivated to reach out to some posters (and seen others I wanted to reach out to but didn't know how to help) who I felt like were really struggling and had a harder time than others (often people who were morbidly obese) and I have a friend in RL in that situation who I wish I knew how to help, but these aren't generally the people I've seen claiming "addiction" (and I don't think that's the issue--it's rarely just sugar, or just some specific food, after all, but maladaptive eating behaviors).
I also think not having experience with eating healthfully at all (the people who seem to never eat vegetables, not to have an idea of what a balanced meal is, who don't cook ever, or ask what to eat if they cut down on sugar, as if dinner normally involved lots of added sugar) can certainly make things harder, but again that's not about addiction. It's about education and developing your palate.
Do you think that people claiming to feel addicted to sugar or addict-like behaviour with sugary treats might indeed be verging on a disorder of some kind? If someone is using the word "addict" to describe their struggle, they are expressing to me that they feel they have a compelling problem. My word "cravings" was probably inadequate.
4 -
This works with a lot of people...maybe even most people. However, there are also a lot of people for which such actions have proven fruitless. For them, abstinence may be a perfectly viable option.I prefer to use the term "habit" for what most of us go through. We get in to a rut and it's hard to break out of it. Habits can be terrifically hard to break. It's sometimes simpler to redirect the habit to a better choice.
When overcome by a craving, I've described the experience as "riding the wave". Instead of trying to dampen the flood of cravings like holding back the tide with my hands, I allow it within limits. So there is chocolate in my house. I tell myself I can "spare a square". I marshal my willpower to eat it slowly, and I don't ever try and completely deprive myself.
Granted. I worry though, when people describe food in general as being addicting. It's not like we can abstain from eating completely.
I also get nervous if people, in their attempt to control their weight, drastically restrict or try and eliminate a complete macro, like "fats" or "carbs". Terrifically hard to do, and it comes with it's own risks.
And finally, I don't think it's a very good plan to go through abstain, binge, and guilt cycles. Remove the stigma from the food and it loses it's allure. I have found it interesting in countries where alcohol as ordinary (France, Isreal), there are far fewer alcoholics.2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »I DO think it's harder for someone who is dealing with intense sugar cravings than it is for someone who is not. They both have all the normal challenges of staying in a calorie deficit, plus the so called sugar addict is dealing with an added element. One that they often consider to be their biggest challenge.
Yeah but it's the end of the MFP forum world to say someone has a harder time than another person. Bad bad bad!
I think everyone has their own challenges. Some have it easier than others. With the differences in bodies (hormone levels as an example), it is harder and easier for individuals. Uhoh, another end of the world statements.
Lol at "bad bad bad". Guess I should have started with "all things being equal". Certainly I agree that there are other challenges out there that are as bad or worse. I agree on the hormonal stuff, and meds that have been shown to cause weight gain comes to mind, depression and high stress levels etc.
What gets me with the addiction posts specifically, is the posters often assume that being tempted or wanting to eat more than you should = addiction, and other posters who don't claim addiction don't experience this. So why would we get fat? Of course we have temptation and all the rest and messed up eating behaviors often. I just don't think that's addiction or that someone who claims to be "addicted" has it harder than everyone else.
I think focusing on the actual specifics (vs. claiming "oh, can't help it, once I have sugar I lose it, because addict" -- BigSugar made me fat) tends to be extremely illuminating and helpful, as it focuses in on why you are actually overeating, when, in what context, so on. Not eating certain trigger foods (even all aggressively sweet things) can certainly be a part of the solution, depending on context. None of that has to do with addiction, again, however.
I'm thrilled that this discussion has moved out of the main forums where it used to pop up all the time. I hope that we, as a community can stick to helpful stuff, like suggesting they avoid aggressively sweet trigger foods, as your example, rather than taking the time to educate them in their misuse of the word "addict" as had been happening for most of the three years I've been here. And that's really all I care about. I'm ambivalent about the actual word "addiction". I see both sides of the argument and actually lean away from calling it addiction, and prefer something that expresses that it is like an addiction. Part of my reasoning is that some of the stuff I read about qualifying for the label "problem drinker" versus "alcoholic" shocked me. I would have considered those "problem drinkers" to be alcoholics. It doesn't matter that my readings were dated (which I think they were), what matters is that there is a committee somewhere deciding what the criteria are for establishing the label "addiction" and it doesn't matter what I think. I was surprised to read the criteria for BED for instance. I have binged plenty in my life, I have definitely had what I thought was a disordered relationship with food at times, but I don't qualify as having BED because I don't meet the criteria for frequency.3 -
goldthistime wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »I DO think it's harder for someone who is dealing with intense sugar cravings than it is for someone who is not. They both have all the normal challenges of staying in a calorie deficit, plus the so called sugar addict is dealing with an added element. One that they often consider to be their biggest challenge.
Yeah but it's the end of the MFP forum world to say someone has a harder time than another person. Bad bad bad!
I think everyone has their own challenges. Some have it easier than others. With the differences in bodies (hormone levels as an example), it is harder and easier for individuals. Uhoh, another end of the world statements.
Lol at "bad bad bad". Guess I should have started with "all things being equal". Certainly I agree that there are other challenges out there that are as bad or worse. I agree on the hormonal stuff, and meds that have been shown to cause weight gain comes to mind, depression and high stress levels etc.
What gets me with the addiction posts specifically, is the posters often assume that being tempted or wanting to eat more than you should = addiction, and other posters who don't claim addiction don't experience this. So why would we get fat? Of course we have temptation and all the rest and messed up eating behaviors often. I just don't think that's addiction or that someone who claims to be "addicted" has it harder than everyone else.
I think focusing on the actual specifics (vs. claiming "oh, can't help it, once I have sugar I lose it, because addict" -- BigSugar made me fat) tends to be extremely illuminating and helpful, as it focuses in on why you are actually overeating, when, in what context, so on. Not eating certain trigger foods (even all aggressively sweet things) can certainly be a part of the solution, depending on context. None of that has to do with addiction, again, however.
I'm thrilled that this discussion has moved out of the main forums where it used to pop up all the time. I hope that we, as a community can stick to helpful stuff, like suggesting they avoid aggressively sweet trigger foods, as your example, rather than taking the time to educate them in their misuse of the word "addict" as had been happening for most of the three years I've been here. And that's really all I care about. I'm ambivalent about the actual word "addiction". I see both sides of the argument and actually lean away from calling it addiction, and prefer something that expresses that it is like an addiction. Part of my reasoning is that some of the stuff I read about qualifying for the label "problem drinker" versus "alcoholic" shocked me. I would have considered those "problem drinkers" to be alcoholics. It doesn't matter that my readings were dated (which I think they were), what matters is that there is a committee somewhere deciding what the criteria are for establishing the label "addiction" and it doesn't matter what I think. I was surprised to read the criteria for BED for instance. I have binged plenty in my life, I have definitely had what I thought was a disordered relationship with food at times, but I don't qualify as having BED because I don't meet the criteria for frequency.
Do you have a link for "problem drinker" versus "alcoholic"? Because I can now drink in moderation, I've gotten pushback about the nature of my past relationship with alcohol.0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »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.
Addiction is irresponsible.
I think here is where the disconnect takes place - you seem to think (for some reason) that admitting or claiming to be an addict somehow absolves a person of any and all responsibility for their choices. It doesn't.
I don't know where you got that because that's not even close to accurate.
Addicts are fully responsible for their own situations and actions. Absolutely.
I think his perception and mine is that you believe people claim sugar addiction as a way to excuse themselves from taking responsibility. I think you said something to that effect in your first post, but I can't really pull it up on my phone to reference here.
Is that perception incorrect?
ETA: Here it is: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
Many people do. On a regular basis posters on here complain that they can't lose weight because they're addicted to sugar.I read the posts differently. They are asking how others deal with it so they can lose weight. While I am sure I miss lots of posts, I really doubt there many saying "because of my addiction, I have to stay fat".
You seem to have a strong reaction around posts about addiction. Is it possible you are reading stuff in these posts that aren't there because of this bias?
Right, they start a thread because they are struggling and want help. They are not disavowing responsibility.
4 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »I DO think it's harder for someone who is dealing with intense sugar cravings than it is for someone who is not. They both have all the normal challenges of staying in a calorie deficit, plus the so called sugar addict is dealing with an added element. One that they often consider to be their biggest challenge.
I don't. For me a craving is relatively easy to deal with because it's clear and can either be fought or dealt with. If I crave a food I figure out how to satisfy the craving in a healthier way, have a little, or fight it/put it off. What has always been harder for me are other things -- like the mind saying "oh, it doesn't matter" or "I'll do this tonight and then tomorrow will be different." Similarly, with aggressive cravings you can figure out how to satisfy them in some way, but there's also the constant feeling of wanting to eat or the habitual response of wanting to eat with certain triggers (emotional eating).
You can figure out how to deal with this other stuff too, and I have been successfully (and not, from time to time) working on it, but I disagree that it's inherently easier than cravings or that someone who tends to prefer savory foods (me, although I like plenty of sweet things) is somehow more responsible for their weight issues than someone who is a sugar fiend.
NOT saying my stuff is harder, of course, but this idea that some people have a much harder time than others (just because they say they do) is IMO a way of making an excuse.
I think some people do have a harder time -- I think having eating disorder type thinking or long-term messed up ideas about food (vs. logical thinking) or being really wrapped up in the idea that being fat/overeating makes you a failure so you end up with a cycle of shame and depression and the like ALL make it harder. (But that doesn't mean you have a harder time in general than others -- I find it really offputting when people do the "poor me, everyone else has it so easy" stuff.) But usually that has exactly nothing to do with who is claiming addiction and who is not. I've been motivated to reach out to some posters (and seen others I wanted to reach out to but didn't know how to help) who I felt like were really struggling and had a harder time than others (often people who were morbidly obese) and I have a friend in RL in that situation who I wish I knew how to help, but these aren't generally the people I've seen claiming "addiction" (and I don't think that's the issue--it's rarely just sugar, or just some specific food, after all, but maladaptive eating behaviors).
I also think not having experience with eating healthfully at all (the people who seem to never eat vegetables, not to have an idea of what a balanced meal is, who don't cook ever, or ask what to eat if they cut down on sugar, as if dinner normally involved lots of added sugar) can certainly make things harder, but again that's not about addiction. It's about education and developing your palate.
The bolded part reminds me of the "contests in He!!" that my husband I and used to have early on in our marriage (when we were both younger and less mature). I'm a sahm, my husband commutes for work. He gets up earlier than I do, but often my sleep is broken because I'm the one who attends to the children if they wake at night. We used to spend considerable time arguing over 'who is most tired' lol. I refer to it as a "contest in He!!" because whoever "wins" ultimately loses (you're the most tired? congratulations, you lose). Once we stopped seeing it as some sort of competition, we were able to help each other and work together to maximize everyone's sleep.
Acknowledging that some people may have a harder time managing weight than others is not making excuses (it's only an excuse if they use it as a reason to stop trying altogether). It is not taking anything away from any one else's accomplishments. Weight loss is not a competition where the person who struggles the most gets some sort of bonus prize at the end. If you are finding it off putting that others deal with issues you apparently don't deal with, that's a reflection on you. If you aren't struggling, or have found effective ways to deal with your struggles, consider yourself fortunate and either share your strategies or move on. No one is saying is was "easy" for you, I don't think it's "easy" for anyone. But as I said, someone who has to work harder isn't taking anything away from your accomplishments, nor is it minimizing whatever struggles you did cope with. I think the ability to recognize that someone else's struggles are not a reflection on you, and that life is not a competition, is an important sign of maturity and allows us to deal with each other more empathetically.
6 -
tlflag1620 wrote: »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.
Addiction is irresponsible.
I think here is where the disconnect takes place - you seem to think (for some reason) that admitting or claiming to be an addict somehow absolves a person of any and all responsibility for their choices. It doesn't. Addiction is treatable, if one is responsible enough to admit they have a problem, and motivated enough to get help in changing their behavior. They may have to abstain from the substance/behavior they are addicted to for the rest of their life, but they can become functional (and that's assuming they were ever DISfunctional in the first place; many addicts have productive lives - look at all the people who stand in queue at Starbucks every morning).
Addiction is not limited to drugs that impair cognitive function.
Addicts are not universally desperate criminals.
Addicts can be perfectly functional in their day to day lives - these are the ones that are perhaps hardest to treat because it's harder to convince them they have a problem in the first place.
Addiction and "irresponsibility" (as you are using the term) are one in the same - just as some people can gamble responsibly, or drink responsibly, or even (dare I say it) use recreational drugs responsibly, other people can't. Some people can eat food responsibly, other people can't. That inability to control oneself is what we refer to as addiction. I think people don't like equating out of control eating to "addiction" because of misunderstanding of what addiction really is. In this thread those who have the biggest issue with the idea of food being "addictive" are those who cannot see past the stereotype of the crack *kitten* or the desperate thieving meth head. Those are extreme forms of addiction (and the substances themselves impair judgement). Food, if we are to see it as addictive, would be more in the category of nicotine or caffeine. Smokers and coffee chuggers are mainly harming themselves and given that their vices are legal, widely available, and relatively inexpensive, they aren't likely to resort to criminal acts in getting their fix, tho they might under certain circumstances. I'd say the same about those with similar out of control eating habits.
Well said.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »I DO think it's harder for someone who is dealing with intense sugar cravings than it is for someone who is not. They both have all the normal challenges of staying in a calorie deficit, plus the so called sugar addict is dealing with an added element. One that they often consider to be their biggest challenge.
Yeah but it's the end of the MFP forum world to say someone has a harder time than another person. Bad bad bad!
I think everyone has their own challenges. Some have it easier than others. With the differences in bodies (hormone levels as an example), it is harder and easier for individuals. Uhoh, another end of the world statements.
Lol at "bad bad bad". Guess I should have started with "all things being equal". Certainly I agree that there are other challenges out there that are as bad or worse. I agree on the hormonal stuff, and meds that have been shown to cause weight gain comes to mind, depression and high stress levels etc.
What gets me with the addiction posts specifically, is the posters often assume that being tempted or wanting to eat more than you should = addiction, and other posters who don't claim addiction don't experience this. So why would we get fat? Of course we have temptation and all the rest and messed up eating behaviors often. I just don't think that's addiction or that someone who claims to be "addicted" has it harder than everyone else.
I think focusing on the actual specifics (vs. claiming "oh, can't help it, once I have sugar I lose it, because addict" -- BigSugar made me fat) tends to be extremely illuminating and helpful, as it focuses in on why you are actually overeating, when, in what context, so on. Not eating certain trigger foods (even all aggressively sweet things) can certainly be a part of the solution, depending on context. None of that has to do with addiction, again, however.
I don't think anyone is saying all overweight people are food addicts.
It seems to me that what you are saying -- and correct me if I'm wrong, because I'd like to understand -- is that some people who self identify as addicts have it harder than the rest of us, who don't self identify as addicts. I'd like to know what makes you so sure that it's harder for you just because you use that term for stuff that many of the rest of us also experience, but simply think is quite different from addiction, when the term is correctly used.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »I DO think it's harder for someone who is dealing with intense sugar cravings than it is for someone who is not. They both have all the normal challenges of staying in a calorie deficit, plus the so called sugar addict is dealing with an added element. One that they often consider to be their biggest challenge.
Yeah but it's the end of the MFP forum world to say someone has a harder time than another person. Bad bad bad!
I think everyone has their own challenges. Some have it easier than others. With the differences in bodies (hormone levels as an example), it is harder and easier for individuals. Uhoh, another end of the world statements.
Lol at "bad bad bad". Guess I should have started with "all things being equal". Certainly I agree that there are other challenges out there that are as bad or worse. I agree on the hormonal stuff, and meds that have been shown to cause weight gain comes to mind, depression and high stress levels etc.
What gets me with the addiction posts specifically, is the posters often assume that being tempted or wanting to eat more than you should = addiction, and other posters who don't claim addiction don't experience this. So why would we get fat? Of course we have temptation and all the rest and messed up eating behaviors often. I just don't think that's addiction or that someone who claims to be "addicted" has it harder than everyone else.
I think focusing on the actual specifics (vs. claiming "oh, can't help it, once I have sugar I lose it, because addict" -- BigSugar made me fat) tends to be extremely illuminating and helpful, as it focuses in on why you are actually overeating, when, in what context, so on. Not eating certain trigger foods (even all aggressively sweet things) can certainly be a part of the solution, depending on context. None of that has to do with addiction, again, however.
I'm thrilled that this discussion has moved out of the main forums where it used to pop up all the time. I hope that we, as a community can stick to helpful stuff, like suggesting they avoid aggressively sweet trigger foods, as your example, rather than taking the time to educate them in their misuse of the word "addict" as had been happening for most of the three years I've been here. And that's really all I care about. I'm ambivalent about the actual word "addiction". I see both sides of the argument and actually lean away from calling it addiction, and prefer something that expresses that it is like an addiction. Part of my reasoning is that some of the stuff I read about qualifying for the label "problem drinker" versus "alcoholic" shocked me. I would have considered those "problem drinkers" to be alcoholics. It doesn't matter that my readings were dated (which I think they were), what matters is that there is a committee somewhere deciding what the criteria are for establishing the label "addiction" and it doesn't matter what I think. I was surprised to read the criteria for BED for instance. I have binged plenty in my life, I have definitely had what I thought was a disordered relationship with food at times, but I don't qualify as having BED because I don't meet the criteria for frequency.
Do you have a link for "problem drinker" versus "alcoholic"? Because I can now drink in moderation, I've gotten pushback about the nature of my past relationship with alcohol.
Sorry no link. At this point I'd just have to google.
0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »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.
Addiction is irresponsible.
I think here is where the disconnect takes place - you seem to think (for some reason) that admitting or claiming to be an addict somehow absolves a person of any and all responsibility for their choices. It doesn't.
I don't know where you got that because that's not even close to accurate.
Addicts are fully responsible for their own situations and actions. Absolutely.
I think his perception and mine is that you believe people claim sugar addiction as a way to excuse themselves from taking responsibility. I think you said something to that effect in your first post, but I can't really pull it up on my phone to reference here.
Is that perception incorrect?
ETA: Here it is: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
Many people do. On a regular basis posters on here complain that they can't lose weight because they're addicted to sugar.I read the posts differently. They are asking how others deal with it so they can lose weight. While I am sure I miss lots of posts, I really doubt there many saying "because of my addiction, I have to stay fat".
You seem to have a strong reaction around posts about addiction. Is it possible you are reading stuff in these posts that aren't there because of this bias?
Right, they start a thread because they are struggling and want help. They are not disavowing responsibility.
Or even just want empathy/sympathy and encouragement.
Sorry OP I know we have wandered from your first post. And in fact, to go back to it, there is a chance that you might tip my thinking back to "sugar addiction" being a valid term. If it is the case that you are not an anomaly, and most therapists interpret the DSM definition of addiction as you do, than no further discussion is needed.
0 -
goldthistime wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »I DO think it's harder for someone who is dealing with intense sugar cravings than it is for someone who is not. They both have all the normal challenges of staying in a calorie deficit, plus the so called sugar addict is dealing with an added element. One that they often consider to be their biggest challenge.
I don't. For me a craving is relatively easy to deal with because it's clear and can either be fought or dealt with. If I crave a food I figure out how to satisfy the craving in a healthier way, have a little, or fight it/put it off. What has always been harder for me are other things -- like the mind saying "oh, it doesn't matter" or "I'll do this tonight and then tomorrow will be different." Similarly, with aggressive cravings you can figure out how to satisfy them in some way, but there's also the constant feeling of wanting to eat or the habitual response of wanting to eat with certain triggers (emotional eating).
You can figure out how to deal with this other stuff too, and I have been successfully (and not, from time to time) working on it, but I disagree that it's inherently easier than cravings or that someone who tends to prefer savory foods (me, although I like plenty of sweet things) is somehow more responsible for their weight issues than someone who is a sugar fiend.
NOT saying my stuff is harder, of course, but this idea that some people have a much harder time than others (just because they say they do) is IMO a way of making an excuse.
I think some people do have a harder time -- I think having eating disorder type thinking or long-term messed up ideas about food (vs. logical thinking) or being really wrapped up in the idea that being fat/overeating makes you a failure so you end up with a cycle of shame and depression and the like ALL make it harder. (But that doesn't mean you have a harder time in general than others -- I find it really offputting when people do the "poor me, everyone else has it so easy" stuff.) But usually that has exactly nothing to do with who is claiming addiction and who is not. I've been motivated to reach out to some posters (and seen others I wanted to reach out to but didn't know how to help) who I felt like were really struggling and had a harder time than others (often people who were morbidly obese) and I have a friend in RL in that situation who I wish I knew how to help, but these aren't generally the people I've seen claiming "addiction" (and I don't think that's the issue--it's rarely just sugar, or just some specific food, after all, but maladaptive eating behaviors).
I also think not having experience with eating healthfully at all (the people who seem to never eat vegetables, not to have an idea of what a balanced meal is, who don't cook ever, or ask what to eat if they cut down on sugar, as if dinner normally involved lots of added sugar) can certainly make things harder, but again that's not about addiction. It's about education and developing your palate.
Do you think that people claiming to feel addicted to sugar or addict-like behaviour with sugary treats might indeed be verging on a disorder of some kind? If someone is using the word "addict" to describe their struggle, they are expressing to me that they feel they have a compelling problem. My word "cravings" was probably inadequate.
Most on MFP, no, because when they explain more what they mean it sounds to me like run of the mill temptation of the sort I also dealt with (which can be a struggle but is nothing like addiction in my mind when I compare it to what I understand as addiction). Usually what they seem to mean is (a) feeling out of control around food and in their eating behaviors, such that they intend to eat less regularly than they end up doing, and/or (b) having specific trigger foods that they tend to overeat when they eat them. There's also often an element of feeling stressed or hungry when cutting back (sometimes due to poor food choices or over restriction). And, in fewer instances, there's true bingeing behavior (BED). To my mind, the latter can be considered similar to addiction (although it's a more specific condition, a type of eating disorder, and not related to the properties of the food eaten), but lots of recovering/recovered BED sufferers have told me they don't consider it such, so I don't have strong feelings either way on that.
I keep mentioning all the internet sites (and "sugar detoxes") telling people they are addicts, because I think that's really the overarching issue -- addiction has been defined down to "diagnose" people (not by actual doctors) so as to sell them various fixes. Most of what I see defined as addiction is simply the kinds of things that I think many people who gain weight are dealing with -- not at all like addiction.
I also agree with the point made above about habit being called addiction. The two can and often are interconnected, as habits reinforce addictions, but habit alone explains most of the effects.
For the record, as mentioned above, I do think there are eating addictions, but they are rare. CyberEd who used to post here talked about his experiences, and absolutely I think that was a kind of addiction. That's very different than the daily sugar-related posts that are being discussed. I also think that some people do much better from a satiety standpoint with lower sugar and lower carb diets, for whatever reason. Again, that one is more satiated doing keto or low carb doesn't suggest to me that they were addicted -- addiction isn't hunger.2
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions