You are not just "weak" or "lazy". Food can be an ADDICTION.

1…567810

Replies

  • CurlyCockney
    CurlyCockney Posts: 1,394 Member
    Isabelle2222 wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    Isabelle2222 wrote: »
    Oh, these threads ...

    So that's all there is to it - willpower and "eat in moderation" is all the world need?

    Some day I hope someone will stick its nose away from the proverbial tree and explain, from a historical and anthropological standpoint, the sudden GLOBAL epidemic of "lack of willpower" and "failure to eat in moderation".

    It isn't a sudden thing... (well I guess if we are looking at the totality of time that humans have been on the planet the last 50 years or so could be considered sudden) but I'm interested in your theories as to what's causing the obesity epidemic.

    I don't have a theory. I am a lawyer, not a scientist.
    I do have a bachelors' degree in history, and that's why I tend to examine things under a historical or long term perspective.

    Anyhow. I don't have a theory, but I would expect that amongst all of those who believe that that the sole cause of obesity is lack of willpower, could explain why suddenly, humans are losing their willpower.

    As far as I know, this is unprecedented in history, and quite frankly the "we just became lazy and glutton" theory does not fly with me.

    But almost everyone here never raise that issue : why NOW in our history?

    Oh I've got a theory on that, based on nothing scientific whatsoever! My theory is that more of us have the means to overeat. We have easy access to foods and the pounds/dollars in our pocket to buy it. Couple that with my other non-scientific theory that we all think we have the "right" to do things (but seldom take the responsibility that goes with those rights) and you'll find us in MaccieD's asking to be supersized, just because we can!

    N.B: As stated, none of this is scientific. Other theories may apply. You may lose your home if you do not keep up payments on it. Proof of posting is not accepted as proof of delivery. YaddaYaddaYadda.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    We were talking about the same thing in a thread over in Health & Fitness Debate (the one on a NYT article). My theory is that it's environment. For example, one didn't need "willpower" to get in activity when it was a normal part of one's day. Just living in a city I get in a lot more walking than someone who lives the same life as me but drives to work and to the store and so on, and add to this that jobs were a lot more active, on average, people had to move more to do many household chores. The changes with food are more significant -- customs have (sadly) changed even since I was a kid in the '80s in terms of what's commonplace with eating between meals, eating takeout or fast food really regularly vs. as a special occasion, not sitting down and eating a homecooked meal with the family. In some subcultures or groups people live more as I remember (this actually is the case for most of my friends, neighbors, and co-workers) and obesity seems to be relatively rare in these groups, especially for kids. (The same foods were basically available back then, so there would be no reason people would be "addicted" to fast food now, not then, even if that physically made a bit of sense, which it does not.)

    The availability of food has increased and cost has gone down, especially in terms of time. For example, I eat less when I limit myself to home cooked/whole foods, not because I can't easily create meals just as caloric or tastier to my own taste, but because then I have much more trouble eating outside of meal times, and I am forced to put more thought into what I consume (although I know people who cook this way and do create high cal meals -- I used to, though not to the extreme I'm thinking of). It's really not true that food has been abundant for most for more than a century (ironically health improved during rationing during WW2 in the UK, for example), but also choice and timing of food being available has increased a ton. Being able to grab something whenever the urge hits vs. having to wait for meal time or prepare it, and having so many options all increases the temptation to eat. This is not because of the food being "addictive" or packaged food having special ingredients -- the availability of interesting and quality home-cooked or restaurant cooked from whole foods is much greater for me now than when I was a kid: I can order good quality ethnic foods of all sorts (sorts I hadn't heard of as a kid), go out to many more restaurants, go to any grocery store and get a much greater variety of foods and ingredients, including whole foods, food is generally cheaper as a percentage of income, and the cookbooks commonly available have a much greater range of options and cuisines (even without the internet). We have lots more food porn available to us.

    Environments and culture has changed a lot (culture and scarcity traditionally regulated how much we ate), but humans haven't. What this means is that for many or most of us those old natural desires to eat food when it's available and looks good are there. The more it's around and on offer and there's no reason not to eat, we want to and often do. Brian Wansink's books talk about us being faced with some crazy number of choices over whether to eat or not during a day. Again, I don't think this was the case even in the '80s to this degree, and of course it affects us unless to figure out a way to deal with it (which I think we can).

    IMO, claiming the only answers are "we have weak willpower" or "we are addicted" shows a failure of imagination and observation.

    (We may well have weak willpower commonly, depending on what one thinks of human willpower, but I would agree that it hasn't changed.)
  • leanjogreen18
    leanjogreen18 Posts: 2,492 Member
    I'm thinking when I grew up in the 70's there was not a fast food place on every corner, we went out to eat on special occasions and the food portions are huge now. Eating out is cheap, social and its generally accepted eating out breakfast, lunch and dinner. I think that has something to do with the gradual rate of obesity.

    Now that we have an obesity problem...

    Add to that education on weight loss/management is being debated try this, no don't do that its bad for you. The "experts" rarely agree and if you do find success losing weight there is not much education on HOW to keep it off.
  • Christine_72
    Christine_72 Posts: 16,049 Member
    johunt615 wrote: »
    I'm thinking when I grew up in the 70's there was not a fast food place on every corner, we went out to eat on special occasions and the food portions are huge now. Eating out is cheap, social and its generally accepted eating out breakfast, lunch and dinner. I think that has something to do with the gradual rate of obesity.

    Now that we have an obesity problem...

    Add to that education on weight loss/management is being debated try this, no don't do that its bad for you. The "experts" rarely agree and if you do find success losing weight there is not much education on HOW to keep it off.

    There was one Hungry Jacks (Burger king) about 30 minutes away from my house when i was a kid, and no Mcdonalds in Australia back then. Take away nights were a very special event, maybe once or twice a month. No such things as microwave meals, and dessert was reserved for when we had visitors. No video games, play stations or mobile phones, we walked or rode our bikes everywhere. There's no way my parents would drive me to a friends place, I had to walk or ride there myself. I can remember maybe 2 overweight kids in school, they were definitely not the norm.
  • paperpudding
    paperpudding Posts: 9,311 Member
    Isabelle2222 wrote: »
    paperpudding wrote: »
    We'll it is not quite global - I doubt many people in Ethiopia have been hit by it.

    I would say this relatively recent incidence of widespread obesity relates to more availability of food and availability of non movement ( cats, office jobs etc)

    Most people in history in most of the world didn't over eat because there wasnt a surplus of food.
    And they didn't under exercise because there was no non exercise way of doing things.

    Hum ... But food have been abundant for most middle and upper class citizens in the USA and Canada for more than a century.

    In any event, I would like to see an actual study to explain why people have a decrease in lack of willpower when it comes to EATING and WORKING OUT specifically. Because really, have we observed (as in: scientifically documented) the same laziness at work, or in school, or in other human endeavours?

    Come on, be nice: someone tell me I am not the only one who wonders! ;-)

    Again, this is just a plea for keeping an open mind on the subject. I think it's really interesting. It's nature and social science, not ideology!

    I don't think people have any more or less will power than before or are more or less lazy than before.
    I think your question is coming from a false premise.

    But I do think we, as people of the western world collectively, have more access to more food, especially easy to eat ready food and high calorie foods and drinks
    And have a more sedentary life style - office jobs, indoor pursuits, apartment living, labour saving devices and ready transport (CARS !!!!! )

    In short we eat more and move less because we can and our lifestyle tends to this.

    When people were on rationed food and didn't have take aways and few people had their own CARS and most people lived in houses with backyards and did labour intensive activities because there were no computers, washing machines, vacuum cleaners etc - their lifestyle tended to make them eat at maitenance.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    johunt615 wrote: »
    I'm thinking when I grew up in the 70's there was not a fast food place on every corner, we went out to eat on special occasions and the food portions are huge now. Eating out is cheap, social and its generally accepted eating out breakfast, lunch and dinner. I think that has something to do with the gradual rate of obesity.

    Now that we have an obesity problem...

    Add to that education on weight loss/management is being debated try this, no don't do that its bad for you. The "experts" rarely agree and if you do find success losing weight there is not much education on HOW to keep it off.

    McD's et al were just as convenient when I was a kid as now. It was also cheap. The typical meals that people ordered were smaller in some ways (fries have increased a lot in size, from what I've seen), but already adults would get a Quarter Pounder or the like and leave the plain burger and small fries for the kids. (But I also recall it being seen mainly as a kids restaurant that adults went to because kids liked it, often with large groups.)

    I would agree that the prevailing customs were that it was an occasional thing (and that eating out in general was, same with picking up takeout of other sorts, although this obviously didn't preclude people who had to eat out a lot due to their jobs, like those who traveled a lot or had to entertain a lot). I actually DON'T think eating out for all meals is generally accepted now, especially not with kids -- as I've noted, what I see in my neighborhood and among my co-workers and former co-workers is that with kids it's still considered an occasional thing and there is focus on making sure the kids eat healthy meals (even more so than when I was a kid). But these are social groups in which obesity, especially childhood obesity, is quite rare, and I am sure customs are different in some other groups. I've been honestly shocked at the number of people on MFP who claim not to eat home-cooked meals for the most part or to have grown up eating only junk food (their words) or going to McD's all the time or never to have eaten veg. I'm sure there was some of this when I was a kid too, but it does seem more prevalent, I think is part of the cultural changes (NOT addiction), and seems to not be uniformly the case throughout the various subgroups/subcultures in the US, IMO.

    I think portions in general are somewhat larger, which probably affects what people think of as normal portions. I'm thinking as much of things like what a bagel is if you get one, what a normal size coffee is, what serving sizes are in the store as restaurants, where I think there's more variation than people allow. Cheaper restaurants tend to have larger portions than they used to, definitely, though, and the US has always tended to be a country that focuses more on supposed value when it comes to food than anything else, on average (thus the popularity of free refills, all you can eat, buy one get one free, eat the whole giant steak and get it free, etc.).

    I actually do think that if people are honest with themselves they know perfectly well what the basics of what to do to lose weight are. They largely don't want to do those things and are hoping there's an easier way, and that's why there's such a market for all the scams and woo (and IMO also the addiction idea, as they hope that if they do some diet, like juicing or sugar detox or many others they will magically never want to overeat again, no muss, no fuss).
  • J72FIT
    J72FIT Posts: 6,014 Member
    Isabelle2222 wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    Isabelle2222 wrote: »
    Oh, these threads ...

    So that's all there is to it - willpower and "eat in moderation" is all the world need?

    Some day I hope someone will stick its nose away from the proverbial tree and explain, from a historical and anthropological standpoint, the sudden GLOBAL epidemic of "lack of willpower" and "failure to eat in moderation".

    It isn't a sudden thing... (well I guess if we are looking at the totality of time that humans have been on the planet the last 50 years or so could be considered sudden) but I'm interested in your theories as to what's causing the obesity epidemic.

    I don't have a theory. I am a lawyer, not a scientist.
    I do have a bachelors' degree in history, and that's why I tend to examine things under a historical or long term perspective.

    Anyhow. I don't have a theory, but I would expect that amongst all of those who believe that that the sole cause of obesity is lack of willpower, could explain why suddenly, humans are losing their willpower.

    As far as I know, this is unprecedented in history, and quite frankly the "we just became lazy and glutton" theory does not fly with me.

    But almost everyone here never raise that issue : why NOW in our history?

    Our willpower has not changed, I believe, IMO, the environment around us has changed so much (conveniences have made it easy to eat too much and move too little) that our willpower is being tested more and more then in the past...
  • TR0berts
    TR0berts Posts: 7,739 Member
    J72FIT wrote: »
    Isabelle2222 wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    Isabelle2222 wrote: »
    Oh, these threads ...

    So that's all there is to it - willpower and "eat in moderation" is all the world need?

    Some day I hope someone will stick its nose away from the proverbial tree and explain, from a historical and anthropological standpoint, the sudden GLOBAL epidemic of "lack of willpower" and "failure to eat in moderation".

    It isn't a sudden thing... (well I guess if we are looking at the totality of time that humans have been on the planet the last 50 years or so could be considered sudden) but I'm interested in your theories as to what's causing the obesity epidemic.

    I don't have a theory. I am a lawyer, not a scientist.
    I do have a bachelors' degree in history, and that's why I tend to examine things under a historical or long term perspective.

    Anyhow. I don't have a theory, but I would expect that amongst all of those who believe that that the sole cause of obesity is lack of willpower, could explain why suddenly, humans are losing their willpower.

    As far as I know, this is unprecedented in history, and quite frankly the "we just became lazy and glutton" theory does not fly with me.

    But almost everyone here never raise that issue : why NOW in our history?

    Our willpower has not changed, I believe, IMO, the environment around us has changed so much (conveniences have made it easy to eat too much and move too little) that our willpower is being tested more and more then in the past...

    That right there is, IMHO, where the "willpower" discussion really comes into play. It's not that "willpower" has changed. Rather, it's how often and/or how much willpower is needed now that things are (generally) so much easier and/or use less energy on our parts.
  • quiksylver296
    quiksylver296 Posts: 28,439 Member
    Christine_72 wrote: »
    johunt615 wrote: »
    I'm thinking when I grew up in the 70's there was not a fast food place on every corner, we went out to eat on special occasions and the food portions are huge now. Eating out is cheap, social and its generally accepted eating out breakfast, lunch and dinner. I think that has something to do with the gradual rate of obesity.

    Now that we have an obesity problem...

    Add to that education on weight loss/management is being debated try this, no don't do that its bad for you. The "experts" rarely agree and if you do find success losing weight there is not much education on HOW to keep it off.

    There was one Hungry Jacks (Burger king) about 30 minutes away from my house when i was a kid, and no Mcdonalds in Australia back then. Take away nights were a very special event, maybe once or twice a month. No such things as microwave meals, and dessert was reserved for when we had visitors. No video games, play stations or mobile phones, we walked or rode our bikes everywhere. There's no way my parents would drive me to a friends place, I had to walk or ride there myself. I can remember maybe 2 overweight kids in school, they were definitely not the norm.

    I grew up the same way, in farmland USA.
  • Treece68
    Treece68 Posts: 780 Member
    Verity1111 wrote: »
    usmcmp wrote: »
    I'm guessing this is a response to another thread, but I'm also going to go out on a limb and say you didn't read his thread. Sugar and other junk foods do have an impact on the reward centers of the brain similar to snorting cocaine, petting a puppy, kissing someone you love, and stubbing your toe. It's the pain and pleasure area of the brain and a strong history of avoiding starvation has taught our ancestors brains that eating is good.

    It doesn't matter. It goes further than that as well. And no it isn't only about other threads. There is something personal about it as I just added. I have a friend who's about 400lbs and was 700lbs. And he had asked more than once politely for his friends to not bring food to his house. His friends would come over bring alcohol and order pizza around this man who is on oxygen. Now this is an extreme example, but it makes the same point. You can handle yourself, fine, but some people can not say no and if they ask you to not tempt them or bring it around them - don't. It's that simple.

    Then he should not ask them to his house. It is unfair that he should have to do that but sometimes you have to take the responsibility on yourself.
  • snickerscharlie
    snickerscharlie Posts: 8,578 Member
    nutmegoreo wrote: »
    This is what mine does:

    https://youtu.be/POS3JM5R_l0

    It could actually increase your workout, through added resistance. Although I wouldn't feel right about dragging him behind me on a hilly run.

    What a drag!
  • chocolate_owl
    chocolate_owl Posts: 1,695 Member
    snickerscharlie wrote: »
    Do I think individual foods like sugar are addictive? Like cocaine? No. Hell no.

    I *do* think that people can become addicted to the behavior of eating, just like someone can become addicted to the behavior of gambling.

    But individual foods and physical addiction? Nope.

    This, exactly this. There are also many degrees of unhealthy behavior and compulsion around food before you get into full-blown eating addiction.
  • fishshark
    fishshark Posts: 1,886 Member
    newmeadow wrote: »
    markrgeary1 wrote: »
    My nephew is a drug addict. He's doing 5 years in state prison for robbery to support his addiction. How's is that like eating too many Milky Way bars?


    It's like this.

    People who eat too much food destroy themselves and isolate themselves in exchange for the pleasure that suicidal eating gives them.

    They eat themselves into a miserable state of existence to the point where they can no longer live independently. They move to nursing homes. They go to hospitals and have their toes and limbs surgically removed due to gangrene onset from diabetic complications. They continue to eat bags of Milky Ways kept at their bedside at the hospital, post surgery, brought in by friends and family members because they get on the phone and beg and cry for candy, cookies, and chips. They steal food from roommates when they go on secretive binges and destroy friendships this way. They isolate with food and ignore their young children for hours at a time. They can't play with their kids. It's difficult for them to be intimate with their spouse. It often becomes impossible as the weight piles on, along with the destructive eating. They spend impossible amounts of money on food, money that could and should go to a down payment on a house or a car. They become increasingly socially and financially marginalized as the suicidal eating continues. They become unable to work anymore. You get the picture.

    They do not viciously and violently intimidate people to get food. They do not physically assault people and worse, to get food. They do not steal the identities of family members and then open credit cards with $5,000 credit limits and then systematically withdraw that cash from ATMs to get food. (I'm not saying your nephew did any of these things. But this is common behavior for intensely addicted, long term drug users in general.) Aside from stealing food from roommates, suicidal eaters generally don't steal.

    I'd spend social time with an end-stage morbidly obese individual any day. They can always visit my home and will be welcomed with open arms. I will visit their homes, overlook the unsanitary conditions if necessary, for the pleasure of talking with them and helping them any way I can. Which usually just involves being a friend to them, not preaching to them or offering unsolicited advice.

    I will not be in the same room with a criminal drug addict or have anything to do with such an individual. I don't have the same concerns about suicidal eaters despite the fact they are both compelled to do destructive things in the pursuit of pleasure.

    But no, no. Never call suicidal eaters "addicts" on MFP. Because they just aren't. Only the esteemed meth heads, whiskey drinkers and heroin users can be addicts. People who eat themselves to death, and isolated misery before death occurs, are just lacking in self control. They are worthy of nothing more than kitty gifs and inside jokes. Even from the very people who were once 100+ pounds overweight themselves, here at MFP. Go figure.

    its not about not calling them that on here and no one is making a joke about addiction. My dad is a psychologist who has worked primarily with addictions his entire career. Not many consider food addiction in the same spectrum of drug addiction. As many have stated its more of a behavioral "addiction". If its an addiction then anything that releases endorphins would be an addiction in the same spectrum of substance. it doesnt matter how many times someone says i know my friend was addicted to pizza and became obese, it doesnt change the fact that its NOT the same. 99.9% of the people on this thread have no business classifying it as such. Just because someone decided to eat too much be it emotional eating or lack of self control... how many people do you know stealing, hurting, or killing people... over dosing and dying.. or living their lives in prison because they just needed to get that fix of sugar. honestly this thread should be closed because its disrespectful and plain annoying to those who suffer from real addictions.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    newmeadow wrote: »
    People who eat too much food destroy themselves and isolate themselves in exchange for the pleasure that suicidal eating gives them.

    I absolutely agree that some do. I'd consider this eating addiction, or maybe a form of ED or compulsive eating. It seems like addiction to me, anyway.

    I DON'T think this is necessary before someone becomes overweight or that most overweight or obese people in our society (which environmentally makes obesity pretty easy) are addicted. Personally, I had a bad or maladjusted habit of emotional eating (which is not unrelated to how I used to abuse alcohol, but not really the same thing IMO, not for me--not talking about someone isolated and 700 lbs or continuing to abuse food despite uncontrolled diabetes, even), and I just like food (or sometimes don't like thinking about how much I'm eating).

    Nor do I think it's the only reason someone may feel out of control about food or frustrated that they keep overeating even though they intend not to (I don't think it's willpower either, I think it's usually structure and fixing the environment and having a plan to deal with long vs short term pleasures). I also don't think it's easy. I expect I will struggle with weight or with not gaining to some extent always.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    newmeadow wrote: »
    To this day, if I ever reveal to someone I Used To Drink Alcohol But I Haven't Had A Drop Since The Year 2000 - the response I get is a quiet, sincere and earnest You Had A Problem With That? And if I answer Yeah, I get the supportive acknowledgment with a somber, respectful and reverent head nod.

    If I say I have a problem with food and eating (which is obvious since I weigh 245 pounds at 5'5") I'll typically get an uncomfortable glance followed with "Ah, why don't you go on a diet? Heh, heh. You'd look hot in a pair of tight pants if you were a size 8".

    Interesting, and not entirely my experience. I think I was always more comfortable if people thought my failures were a result of choice on my part than simple weakness. The latter felt like being a loser, not normal, flawed in some greater way (but of course we are all flawed, so I admit this is me being stupid).

    But my reaction to being fat was to make it clear I didn't care, ha, ha, I knew I was fat but didn't bother me. So long as people saw it as something I was choosing in some sense (if only because I didn't care to limit my eating or spend as much time as maybe I should exercising), then it was okay.

    If I could have played off being a drunk the same way (heh, sometimes I just like to get crazy, even if I humiliate myself and annoy people or endanger my health) I think I would have preferred it. Goodness knows I could in college, but afterwards you get the concerned comments or just know that if people found out what they'd think (and I would have thought the same, since I did about various relatives). Also, I had contempt for my father when growing up for the same thing, so had contempt for myself, much harder to say "ha, ha, no big deal." I knew that it made me a loser in much more of a way.

    Even after I quit, I never minded people knowing I didn't drink (lots of people don't drink). I really, really minded people knowing (or believing) that I couldn't drink, that there was something wrong with me so that I lacked control, and thought this meant that they likely figured that I might be untrustworthy, since you never know, people often relapse. (Time has helped with this, and just me becoming less of a neurotic, believe it or not, but for me the social stigma was much, much stronger. Probably weird since I know lots of former drunks and people don't seem to think less of them and I don't -- but most of them are not exactly running around announcing it to everyone and acting like it's a big thing.)

    I also think that within addiction groups and so on (and I have really mixed feelings about these -- not so negative as yours, but still) there's a pretty good understanding of all the negative qualities that go along with addiction that I really don't think have a thing to do with the reasons most are overweight or obese. I think working on these qualities is a good thing that can happen with some recovery efforts. I also don't think that having a physical predilection for addiction or being an addict means that you are without responsibility for what you do, certainly have not sensed that from society (or ever felt that myself, although in some cases I just felt really sorry for the person, it is true), and certainly don't think it means it's not my choice whether I pick up a drink or not. I do think comparing the mindset where you would basically give up everything else you used to care about in exchange for continuing with the addiction (or thinking there is absolutely nothing else worth living for if you can't have that) to a desire to keep eating a pizza because it tastes so ridiculously good or even to have a cupcake because it's been a bad day and you know it will be delicious is a comparison that seems really off. Comparing the former and true compulsive eating or bingeing, yeah, I think it seems analogous, at least to some extent and sometimes to a very great extent (I saw an interview of a morbidly obese woman eating herself to death and it seemed to me exactly the same).
  • Isabelle2222
    Isabelle2222 Posts: 12 Member
    stevencloser wrote: »
    Isabelle2222 wrote: »
    paperpudding wrote: »
    We'll it is not quite global - I doubt many people in Ethiopia have been hit by it.

    I would say this relatively recent incidence of widespread obesity relates to more availability of food and availability of non movement ( cats, office jobs etc)

    Most people in history in most of the world didn't over eat because there wasnt a surplus of food.
    And they didn't under exercise because there was no non exercise way of doing things.

    Hum ... But food have been abundant for most middle and upper class citizens in the USA and Canada for more than a century.

    In any event, I would like to see an actual study to explain why people have a decrease in lack of willpower when it comes to EATING and WORKING OUT specifically. Because really, have we observed (as in: scientifically documented) the same laziness at work, or in school, or in other human endeavours?

    Come on, be nice: someone tell me I am not the only one who wonders! ;-)

    Again, this is just a plea for keeping an open mind on the subject. I think it's really interesting. It's nature and social science, not ideology!

    Abundant food for more than a century? The same century that had the great depression and 2 world wars? Are we living on the same planet?

    Yes. There was plenty of food or most people, most of the time, to get fat if they wanted. And as a matter of fact, many did.
  • Isabelle2222
    Isabelle2222 Posts: 12 Member
    snickerscharlie wrote: »
    Do I think individual foods like sugar are addictive? Like cocaine? No. Hell no.

    I *do* think that people can become addicted to the behavior of eating, just like someone can become addicted to the behavior of gambling.

    But individual foods and physical addiction? Nope.

    Excellent point. We should all should keep in mind that on boards or social media in general, we tend to take shortcuts when we write. Heck, we're not writing a master thesis here.

    Therefore when someone says: "I am addicted to sugar" they may meaning "sugar acts like heroin on my body", BUT they may be saying "I am addicted to eating sugar" or something like that. It's just a shortcut that I use myself at times.

    The only way for me to avoid bingeing (as in over 5000+ in one sitting several times a week) is to reduce carbs drastically. Not only I do not binge anymore, but I don't overeat. I have no idea why and how. I wish I knew exactly what is the effect of sugar on my system - brain and all. Even my doctor is not sure, and he admits that there is a lot of controversy in the field, but that the research is ongoing.

    So until science comes with satisfying answers, let's be nice to each other.

    Because you know, Santa is taking notes.
  • leanjogreen18
    leanjogreen18 Posts: 2,492 Member
    I will say one definition of an addict that was taught in alanon was:

    Any behavior that one continues to do that is harmful to themselves and/or others. (Its been years so paraphrasing)

    If one accepts this definition then yes someone can be addicted to sugar or food.

    BUT even with chemical addiction family members of the addict are told not to feel sorry for them, not to cater to them and ESPECIALLY not to enable them and one way to enable them is defending them and making excuses (secrets keep you sick). They are told that IF they chose to drink around the addict it's the addicts choice to stay sober and not the family members.

    The addict is taught they are selfish, it's 100% their responsibility to stay clean and sober, no EXCUSES are allowed, if its a 12 step they have to make amends to those they've wronged, it's no cakewalk let me tell you. It's 100% tough love. And it's shear will power (a mind made up) that keeps them sober. (Yes I realize some relapse but the same above applies). Even the disputed "its a disease" is not an allowable excuse to drink.

    So if someone feels like they are addicted to food/sugar I respectfully say you can't use it as an excuse and it's not as simple as saying I'm addicted so I can't help it. You got to do some and listen to some tough love to handle it.
  • smantha32
    smantha32 Posts: 6,990 Member
    Christine_72 wrote: »
    We used to plop my cat in a stroller when we took the dogs for a walk, he loved it and sat there perfectly, or we'd put a leash on his collar and then hook it up to one of the dogs collars, and he's toddle along next to them.

    He was one a million, unfortunately a huge brown snake killed him :(

    :(

  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    Isabelle2222 wrote: »
    stevencloser wrote: »
    Isabelle2222 wrote: »
    paperpudding wrote: »
    We'll it is not quite global - I doubt many people in Ethiopia have been hit by it.

    I would say this relatively recent incidence of widespread obesity relates to more availability of food and availability of non movement ( cats, office jobs etc)

    Most people in history in most of the world didn't over eat because there wasnt a surplus of food.
    And they didn't under exercise because there was no non exercise way of doing things.

    Hum ... But food have been abundant for most middle and upper class citizens in the USA and Canada for more than a century.

    In any event, I would like to see an actual study to explain why people have a decrease in lack of willpower when it comes to EATING and WORKING OUT specifically. Because really, have we observed (as in: scientifically documented) the same laziness at work, or in school, or in other human endeavours?

    Come on, be nice: someone tell me I am not the only one who wonders! ;-)

    Again, this is just a plea for keeping an open mind on the subject. I think it's really interesting. It's nature and social science, not ideology!

    Abundant food for more than a century? The same century that had the great depression and 2 world wars? Are we living on the same planet?

    Yes. There was plenty of food or most people, most of the time, to get fat if they wanted. And as a matter of fact, many did.

    So you're saying even in the first half of the 20th century, people had so much food as many people as today could've gotten overweight and obese, but they didn't, am I reading that right?
  • Isabelle2222
    Isabelle2222 Posts: 12 Member
    stevencloser wrote: »
    Isabelle2222 wrote: »
    stevencloser wrote: »
    Isabelle2222 wrote: »
    paperpudding wrote: »
    We'll it is not quite global - I doubt many people in Ethiopia have been hit by it.

    I would say this relatively recent incidence of widespread obesity relates to more availability of food and availability of non movement ( cats, office jobs etc)

    Most people in history in most of the world didn't over eat because there wasnt a surplus of food.
    And they didn't under exercise because there was no non exercise way of doing things.

    Hum ... But food have been abundant for most middle and upper class citizens in the USA and Canada for more than a century.

    In any event, I would like to see an actual study to explain why people have a decrease in lack of willpower when it comes to EATING and WORKING OUT specifically. Because really, have we observed (as in: scientifically documented) the same laziness at work, or in school, or in other human endeavours?

    Come on, be nice: someone tell me I am not the only one who wonders! ;-)

    Again, this is just a plea for keeping an open mind on the subject. I think it's really interesting. It's nature and social science, not ideology!

    Abundant food for more than a century? The same century that had the great depression and 2 world wars? Are we living on the same planet?

    Yes. There was plenty of food or most people, most of the time, to get fat if they wanted. And as a matter of fact, many did.

    So you're saying even in the first half of the 20th century, people had so much food as many people as today could've gotten overweight and obese, but they didn't, am I reading that right?

    Yes. But to be more specific, I wrote : " ... food have been abundant for most middle and upper class citizens in the USA and Canada".
  • paperpudding
    paperpudding Posts: 9,311 Member
    I think food has gradually become more accessible to more people in the western world over the last 70 years or so , ie since the end of WW2. Especially commercially prepared and takeaway food - so 'less effort required' food
    And that sort of food tends to be calorie dense.

    At the same time car ownership has gradually increased as have the incidence of labour saving devices - washing machines, vaccuum cleaners etc. and improved public transport.
    and more people live in apartments or properties with less outdoor space.
    And more people have sedentary jobs
    And sedentary pursuits like watching TV, computer games, play stations etc

    None of this happened suddenly but incrementally over the last 70 years or so and as a result people, on average, eat more and move less.
    One has to make a conscious decision to do otherwise, rather than have it occur 'naturally' as part of regular lifestyle, as happened in the past.

This discussion has been closed.

Categories