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"

Options
12357…12

Replies

  • RobD520
    RobD520 Posts: 420 Member
    Options
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    RobD520 wrote: »
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    RobD520 wrote: »
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    RobD520 wrote: »
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    RobD520 wrote: »
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    moe0303 wrote: »
    I get what the OP is saying. Another way to think about it is this: If an alcoholic is sober and free of any physical dependencies, is it reasonable for them to attempt drinking moderately?

    And the voice of reason cries out that this is a flawed line of reasoning because there is no such thing as an addiction to sugar as a substance!
    If there were such a thing as sugarholism, I would say "Yes! Recovering sugarholics should avoid sugar just like an alcoholic should avoid alcohol."

    But it isn't a thing!!!

    The voice of reason clearly cries out that you are chosing to redefine the term addiction.

    I maintain you either did not read, or you do not understand, or you are chosing to ignore aspects of my original post.

    Again, I read your post thoroughly.

    The only redefining going on is your turning "addiction" into "irresponsibility."
    Addiction doesn't mean "I want this so bad that I'll do it even though it's bad for me."
    Addiction means "I'm going to do this because I can't help it" or "I'm going to do this because it "hurts" not to."

    ad·dic·tion
    əˈdikSH(ə)n/
    noun
    the fact or condition of being addicted to a particular substance, thing, or activity.
    "he committed the theft to finance his drug addiction"

    ad·dict·ed
    əˈdiktəd/
    adjective
    physically and mentally dependent on a particular substance, and unable to stop taking it without incurring adverse effects.
    "she became addicted to alcohol and diet pills"

    This condition does not occur with sugar. Period.

    You totally didn't get it. I wonder if it's worth trying to explain it another way.....

    Is this the dictionary you are quoting?

    Disagreeing with you =\= not getting it

    Where did you receive your clinical training?

    Must I have credentials to disagree with you?

    Well my definitions are not my own. You respond as though I came up with this out of thin air.

    So far what you have offered me seems to be from the dictionary.

    Had I known I could have been trained by Webster's I could have saved thousands.

    Ok, I'll bite.

    Whose are they?

    And if you're insinuating that you've been trained in dealing with addicts after some of the stuff you've said in this thread, rest assured that I ain't buyin it.
    No one, I repeat, no one who has worked with addicts would so flippantly say things like "600 pound people who keep eating even after they're bedridden are devastating to their families too."

    No one who's truly dealt with the effects of real addiction would dare to compare being fat to being addicted.

    I would also add that a behavior can be the result of an addiction process and also be irresponsible. These are not mutually exclusive.
  • Carlos_421
    Carlos_421 Posts: 5,132 Member
    Options
    RobD520 wrote: »
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    RobD520 wrote: »
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    RobD520 wrote: »
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    RobD520 wrote: »
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    RobD520 wrote: »
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    moe0303 wrote: »
    I get what the OP is saying. Another way to think about it is this: If an alcoholic is sober and free of any physical dependencies, is it reasonable for them to attempt drinking moderately?

    And the voice of reason cries out that this is a flawed line of reasoning because there is no such thing as an addiction to sugar as a substance!
    If there were such a thing as sugarholism, I would say "Yes! Recovering sugarholics should avoid sugar just like an alcoholic should avoid alcohol."

    But it isn't a thing!!!

    The voice of reason clearly cries out that you are chosing to redefine the term addiction.

    I maintain you either did not read, or you do not understand, or you are chosing to ignore aspects of my original post.

    Again, I read your post thoroughly.

    The only redefining going on is your turning "addiction" into "irresponsibility."
    Addiction doesn't mean "I want this so bad that I'll do it even though it's bad for me."
    Addiction means "I'm going to do this because I can't help it" or "I'm going to do this because it "hurts" not to."

    ad·dic·tion
    əˈdikSH(ə)n/
    noun
    the fact or condition of being addicted to a particular substance, thing, or activity.
    "he committed the theft to finance his drug addiction"

    ad·dict·ed
    əˈdiktəd/
    adjective
    physically and mentally dependent on a particular substance, and unable to stop taking it without incurring adverse effects.
    "she became addicted to alcohol and diet pills"

    This condition does not occur with sugar. Period.

    You totally didn't get it. I wonder if it's worth trying to explain it another way.....

    Is this the dictionary you are quoting?

    Disagreeing with you =\= not getting it

    Where did you receive your clinical training?

    Must I have credentials to disagree with you?

    Well my definitions are not my own. You respond as though I came up with this out of thin air.

    So far what you have offered me seems to be from the dictionary.

    Had I known I could have been trained by Webster's I could have saved thousands.

    Ok, I'll bite.

    Whose are they?

    And if you're insinuating that you've been trained in dealing with addicts after some of the stuff you've said in this thread, rest assured that I ain't buyin it.
    No one, I repeat, no one who has worked with addicts would so flippantly say things like "600 pound people who keep eating even after they're bedridden are devastating to their families too."

    No one who's truly dealt with the effects of real addiction would dare to compare being fat to being addicted.

    I have said repeatedly in this thread that there are some big differences between drug addiction and things like food or gambling addiction. You chose to pretend I never made those statements.

    My primary expertise is in severe psychiatric disorders, and in people with "dual diagnosis" (i.e. mental illness plus substance abuse). I worked clinically for 15 years, and was clinical director of a partial hospitalization program for 7 years. I worked with many people with severe drug issues.

    If you chose not to believe my experience, I have no response. Someone could easily invent credentials on a forum like this. I haven't done so; but I simply can't prove it to the satisfaction of a skeptic.

    The 600 pound bedridden adult can no longer work or do anything productive for their family. He or she accrued huge medical bills, and can offer no income. If I were to behave like this; my family would suffer immensely. This was my point; and it is valid.

    The definitions I provided come from the U.S. NIH National Institute on Drug Abuse, and are consistent with what I learned in school and in the clinic. I did not invent them.

    Then forgive me for misinterpreting you when I illustrated the difference between eating cookies when you know it will make you fat (which fits your definition of addiction) and stealing from family and you said:
    RobD520 wrote: »
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    @lemurcat12 hit on a valid point. There's a biiiiiiiig difference between "I'm craving these cookies so much that I'm going to eat them even though they will make me fat" and "I'm craving cookies so badly that I'm willing to steal from family members, abandon relationships and sell my body for a hit of tollhouse."

    I woul argue that the 600 pound person who persists in overeating despite being bedridden fits your definition. In extreme examples, people have devistated their families.

    But the degree of damage you describe is NOT required for something to be a clinical addiction.

    As someone who has dealt with the effects of addiction in my own family, I find the insinuation that obesity can be as destructive as drug addiction to be offensive.
    An obese mom may not be able to play on the swings or live a full life but at least her kids can know she loves them. Too many kids of addicts don't have that luxury.

    I don't doubt you on your profession. However, that doesn't change the fact that there are examples of things which are clearly not addictions that fit your definition.

    And all that aside, I still maintain, and this thread has still not demonstrated otherwise, that sugar, as a substance, is not addictive.
    Thus, I again make the claim you decried in your OP: Sugar addiction is not a thing.
  • moe0303
    moe0303 Posts: 934 Member
    Options
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    moe0303 wrote: »
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    moe0303 wrote: »
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    RobD520 wrote: »
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    moe0303 wrote: »
    I get what the OP is saying. Another way to think about it is this: If an alcoholic is sober and free of any physical dependencies, is it reasonable for them to attempt drinking moderately?

    And the voice of reason cries out that this is a flawed line of reasoning because there is no such thing as an addiction to sugar as a substance!
    If there were such a thing as sugarholism, I would say "Yes! Recovering sugarholics should avoid sugar just like an alcoholic should avoid alcohol."

    But it isn't a thing!!!

    The voice of reason clearly cries out that you are chosing to redefine the term addiction.

    I maintain you either did not read, or you do not understand, or you are chosing to ignore aspects of my original post.

    Again, I read your post thoroughly.

    The only redefining going on is your turning "addiction" into "irresponsibility."
    Addiction doesn't mean "I want this so bad that I'll do it even though it's bad for me."
    Addiction means "I'm going to do this because I can't help it" or "I'm going to do this because it "hurts" not to."

    ad·dic·tion
    əˈdikSH(ə)n/
    noun
    the fact or condition of being addicted to a particular substance, thing, or activity.
    "he committed the theft to finance his drug addiction"

    ad·dict·ed
    əˈdiktəd/
    adjective
    physically and mentally dependent on a particular substance, and unable to stop taking it without incurring adverse effects.
    "she became addicted to alcohol and diet pills"

    This condition does not occur with sugar. Period.

    Nor does it occur with any behaviors...which you concluded earlier could be addictive.

    ETA: There are several sources which define those terms differently.

    Also, I do not think admitting to an addiction is a form of irresponsibility. In fact, I think it is the beginning of taking responsibility for individuals who are truly addicted.

    Actually, it does occur with certain behaviors which is why I called that out in my first post.

    I didn't say that it is irresponsible to admit an addiction. I was contesting the OP's assertion that addiction is defined as craving "something so strongly that they consume the substance, or repeat the behavior, even when the substance or behavior is doing substantial harm."

    That is not addiction. It is irresponsibility.

    Addiction is not just engaging in something regardless of consequences. It is engaging in something because they can't help it whether due to dependency, phsychological disorder, etc.

    What substance are compulsive gamblers addicted to, and are we sure that those claiming addiction to sugar are not exposed to that same substance? Are compulsive gamblers just irresponsible?

    Not to sound like the OP but did you even read what I said?
    I said that addiction does occur with certain behaviors. Gamblers are addicted to gambling.

    The definition you posted states, "physically and mentally dependent" I was acknowledging that sugar carries no physical dependence, the same way that behaviors would carry no physical dependence... Unless you're talking about dopamine or other physiological responses in which case the same has been found to affect many things including sugar laden foods.
  • snickerscharlie
    snickerscharlie Posts: 8,578 Member
    Options
    shell1005 wrote: »
    RobD520 wrote: »
    makingmark wrote: »
    mskessler89 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    mskessler89 wrote: »
    @msemotan I think a lot of people who start threads like that do so with the same intent as you - trying to be silly/funny /witty/generally make light of the situation while reaching out for strategies on how to limit their sugar consumption.

    Yeah, I agree with this, and don't want to seem like some humorless word police. When this is the intent I don't usually say anything and just give strategies, since I know what the person means and I understand the non-serious use of the term or the frustration being expressed.

    What bugs me (although I try to not argue, just disagree) are things where it's clear the direct comparison is intended or, especially, where it's asserted it's just like heroin (or whatever) or often "even worse than any other addiction, since you can't stop eating food." Yeah, it's just not.

    Ugh, tell me about it. I know a cocaine addict who's nearly been busted on airlines twice traveling with the stuff, but he keeps doing it because he can't imagine going a whole trip without it. Let me know the next time someone risks arrest because they can't go a few days without a brownie.

    If brownies were illegal there would be a huge number of arrests I am sure. Not a valid argument

    Exactly.

    Cigarettes are addicting; but people don't steal from there family etc...to engage in this addiction.

    Yes they do.

    Absolutely yes!
  • moe0303
    moe0303 Posts: 934 Member
    Options
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    moe0303 wrote: »
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    moe0303 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!!!
    But if alcohol is an addictive substance shouldn't everybody avoid it? If the physical dependency is gone, shouldn't they be able to moderate?

    Dependency and addiction are different, as discussed in the first thread.

    One can become physically dependent on alcohol, but that's really not the main thing with alcohol addiction.
    I agree.
  • Carlos_421
    Carlos_421 Posts: 5,132 Member
    Options
    tlflag1620 wrote: »
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    moe0303 wrote: »
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    RobD520 wrote: »
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    moe0303 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.
  • moe0303
    moe0303 Posts: 934 Member
    edited May 2016
    Options
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    tlflag1620 wrote: »
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    moe0303 wrote: »
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    RobD520 wrote: »
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    moe0303 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
  • tlflag1620
    tlflag1620 Posts: 1,358 Member
    Options
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    tlflag1620 wrote: »
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    moe0303 wrote: »
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    RobD520 wrote: »
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    moe0303 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.
  • Carlos_421
    Carlos_421 Posts: 5,132 Member
    Options
    moe0303 wrote: »
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    tlflag1620 wrote: »
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    moe0303 wrote: »
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    RobD520 wrote: »
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    moe0303 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.
  • Carlos_421
    Carlos_421 Posts: 5,132 Member
    Options
    tlflag1620 wrote: »
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    tlflag1620 wrote: »
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    moe0303 wrote: »
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    RobD520 wrote: »
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    moe0303 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.
  • moe0303
    moe0303 Posts: 934 Member
    Options
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    moe0303 wrote: »
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    tlflag1620 wrote: »
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    moe0303 wrote: »
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    RobD520 wrote: »
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    moe0303 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 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."

    I could conceive a situation in which someone might claim that their path is more difficult than others, and that would be inconsiderate.

  • Carlos_421
    Carlos_421 Posts: 5,132 Member
    Options
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    100df wrote: »
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    moe0303 wrote: »
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    tlflag1620 wrote: »
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    moe0303 wrote: »
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    RobD520 wrote: »
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    moe0303 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.
  • goldthistime
    goldthistime Posts: 3,214 Member
    Options
    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.

Categories