You are not just "weak" or "lazy". Food can be an ADDICTION.
Options
Replies
-
Not a drug. It's hyper palatable and easy to consume. But unlike another drugs, sugar is NEEDED in the body to create glycogen.Puppybear1 wrote: »Sugar is a drug. And just like alcoholics, some people have genetic predispositions for addiction, ie - diabetics. I have been preaching this topic for a week and fending off the shade I get for comparing sugar to drugs, but it IS a drug, or food companies wouldn't put it in practically everything! Kudos to the Enlightened!
If people can't handle not eating it all the time, that's a habitual issue, not a drug addiction issue.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
9 -
Not having control of eating is a habitual issue and not a physical addiction issue. Honestly, if someone asks you over and have nothing but "healthy" food to eat, that'd get old real fast. Same with not being able to go out with that friend to restaurants because they have an issue with food.
My personal opinion as a trainer is that everyone is RESPONSIBLE for themselves. Don't put the onus of an eating issue on friends or family. Learn a behavior that keeps one from overeating. Behaviors can be changed.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition 10 -
and let's not forget the other factors involved... remember the girl who is constantly intensely hungry because of a medical condition? http://abcnews.go.com/2020/video/2020-rare-condition-makes-kids-intensely-hungry-247-25005190
she is gaining weight on 900 calories a day.
She has been so desperate she ate dog food.0 -
...But my original point was that a lot of people on here don't consider the fact that many people do look at food this way and they just like to definitively say to others "there are no bad foods, eat what you want." Which, in my opinion is wrong, because it's not helpful to people that can't eat that way because moderation and self control with certain foods is not everyone's strong point.
I can agree with that, especially the last sentence. The disconnect for me is the jump from there to "sugar is addictive".
I'm one who doesn't consider foods "good" and "bad". I look at the overall context of the diet. With that said, there are people (such as my wife) who cannot exercise moderation and self-control with certain foods, so for them those foods are "bad". But that still doesn't make them universally "bad", it makes them contextually "bad". There are plenty of people who are perfectly capable of control and can enjoy treat foods in moderation.
I feel like the bolded statement is the crux of the entire argument. Thank you for stating it so succinctly. There are those who seem to want to assign a universal moral value to foods as "good" or "bad," then there are those who argue that, "X food is bad FOR ME."
And yes, I was addressing two entirely separate elements within the thread.3 -
The thread that prompted this involved a woman asking how she could assert her boundaries with her husband who thought she was ungrateful, because he gave her a box of chocolates, her favorite treat, and she ended up eating a lot of them. She was told she should be grateful and thank him and show willpower.jennifer_417 wrote: »...But my original point was that a lot of people on here don't consider the fact that many people do look at food this way and they just like to definitively say to others "there are no bad foods, eat what you want." Which, in my opinion is wrong, because it's not helpful to people that can't eat that way because moderation and self control with certain foods is not everyone's strong point.
I can agree with that, especially the last sentence. The disconnect for me is the jump from there to "sugar is addictive".
I'm one who doesn't consider foods "good" and "bad". I look at the overall context of the diet. With that said, there are people (such as my wife) who cannot exercise moderation and self-control with certain foods, so for them those foods are "bad". But that still doesn't make them universally "bad", it makes them contextually "bad". There are plenty of people who are perfectly capable of control and can enjoy treat foods in moderation.
I feel like the bolded statement is the crux of the entire argument. Thank you for stating it so succinctly. There are those who seem to want to assign a universal moral value to foods as "good" or "bad," then there are those who argue that, "X food is bad FOR ME."
And yes, I was addressing two entirely separate elements within the thread.
0 -
Many many people who are addicted to drugs and alcohol which cause physical symptoms of withdrawal are able to resist their drug of choice. Please people give them some credit.
5 -
I love it (not) how everybody has to be a martyr these days and how insulting they can be to others, by trying to make comparisons of different situations.
If one loves cookies and fries, this does not mean they have a right to compare themselves to drug addicts and alcoholics, because it mocks their struggles and shows a complete luck of empathy. If one has a husband who offers them a chocolate, this does not make their situation dramatic, and thinking how awful this husband is means they have zero empathy for people in really bad domestic situations.
We all have things we cannot resist, or things we are lazy about, from not having the will power or the desire to make the sacrifices to work hard enough to get a scholarship or save money to get a car to not being able to exercise or resist soda. It is part of being human, it does not give as a right to be so selfish to need to compare ourselves with people with problems we cannot even grasp.
A fat person calling himself a drug addict does not help people sympathise, it makes this person sound selfish and without compassion.
A woman whining how her husband bringing gifts is abusing her, she is not presenting a good excuse about her weight, she is disrespectful of families where there are is real abuse going on.
There is a thing called personal responsibility. Whining and making dramatic statements is not part of this.28 -
Talk to any addict, they are taught that using/not using is their choice, their responsibility no one else's. Addicts are taught in rehab that they are selfish for using, they are basically torn down emotionally, I personally know this from being a family member of an addict many years ago. And unless things have changed since then the addict has sole responsibility for what they chose to do. Please anyone with recent addictions/rehab correct me if I'm wrong and things have changed.
Having said all that, I feel for people who struggle so much so that I would be an enabler if it weren't for alanon helping me.
1 -
I love it (not) how everybody has to be a martyr these days and how insulting they can be to others, by trying to make comparisons of different situations.
If one loves cookies and fries, this does not mean they have a right to compare themselves to drug addicts and alcoholics, because it mocks their struggles and shows a complete luck of empathy. If one has a husband who offers them a chocolate, this does not make their situation dramatic, and thinking how awful this husband is means they have zero empathy for people in really bad domestic situations.
We all have things we cannot resist, or things we are lazy about, from not having the will power or the desire to make the sacrifices to work hard enough to get a scholarship or save money to get a car to not being able to exercise or resist soda. It is part of being human, it does not give as a right to be so selfish to need to compare ourselves with people with problems we cannot even grasp.
A fat person calling himself a drug addict does not help people sympathise, it makes this person sound selfish and without compassion.
A woman whining how her husband bringing gifts is abusing her, she is not presenting a good excuse about her weight, she is disrespectful of families where there are is real abuse going on.
There is a thing called personal responsibility. Whining and making dramatic statements is not part of this.
Awesome post1 -
DisruptedMatrix wrote: »
its still not the same as being dependent on a substance. Not choosing to over eat is not the same as having a dependency on substance.DisruptedMatrix wrote: »and let's not forget the other factors involved... remember the girl who is constantly intensely hungry because of a medical condition? http://abcnews.go.com/2020/video/2020-rare-condition-makes-kids-intensely-hungry-247-25005190
she is gaining weight on 900 calories a day.
She has been so desperate she ate dog food.
you cant ever bring up rare conditions when they have no bearings on the general public and the general topic of eating. There are many diseases and conditions out there this is a conversation about food being addictive or not. At the end of the day this is a conversation on if food causes the same dependency as substances which it doesn't.
I gained weight because i chose too. I ate the extra chips and cookies because i wanted too not because i was addicted. I ate when i wasnt hungry because i was bored not because i needed to. I ate past the threshold of full because i wanted too not because i was addicted and needed too. Eating is pleasurable.. eating takes up time.. eating is comforting. It is not the same as an addictive substance. it may seem that way because our body will always need nutrients and we will always need to eat. Its another excuse for the choices those make.
edit- if you have never delt with REAL addiction be it you or a loved one it IS laughable when people say things like its the same as a drug.9 -
DisruptedMatrix wrote: »
As I said, I'm a drug addict. I find the claim of "sugar is addictive" when many of the addiction criteria aren't met. Food tastes good. Sweet food tastes better. Doesn't make food or sugar addictive. I use my own behavior to check addiction:
1. Would you break the law to get your fix?
2. Would anything with a similar drug profile work to give you your fix?
You also miss the big point of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. Yeah, people eat themselves to death and/or to the point of self-immobilization. Doesn't make sugar addictive.
At one point, I thought I was a food addict. Then I realized, after a lot of self-examination, that my overeating was me covering for other mental and emotional problems in my life. When I dealt with the problems, oh lookie-lookie, my "food addiction" went away.19 -
DisruptedMatrix wrote: »
The thread that prompted this involved a woman asking how she could assert her boundaries with her husband who thought she was ungrateful, because he gave her a box of chocolates, her favorite treat, and she ended up eating a lot of them. She was told she should be grateful and thank him and show willpower.jennifer_417 wrote: »...But my original point was that a lot of people on here don't consider the fact that many people do look at food this way and they just like to definitively say to others "there are no bad foods, eat what you want." Which, in my opinion is wrong, because it's not helpful to people that can't eat that way because moderation and self control with certain foods is not everyone's strong point.
I can agree with that, especially the last sentence. The disconnect for me is the jump from there to "sugar is addictive".
I'm one who doesn't consider foods "good" and "bad". I look at the overall context of the diet. With that said, there are people (such as my wife) who cannot exercise moderation and self-control with certain foods, so for them those foods are "bad". But that still doesn't make them universally "bad", it makes them contextually "bad". There are plenty of people who are perfectly capable of control and can enjoy treat foods in moderation.
I feel like the bolded statement is the crux of the entire argument. Thank you for stating it so succinctly. There are those who seem to want to assign a universal moral value to foods as "good" or "bad," then there are those who argue that, "X food is bad FOR ME."
And yes, I was addressing two entirely separate elements within the thread.
She should. You have a lot to learn, grasshopper.
The younger generation today is obsessed with the idea of being "triggered" and having the world creating safe spaces for them.
Let me share a story with you.
In 1980, on my way to school, cutting through a patch of woods, I was stranger raped.
For years after that, many things triggered me. Being approached from behind, gas station attendants, the smell of dirt, the sight of woods in tv shows.
It didn't take me too long to realize that the world wasn't going to change to accommodate me and that by expecting it to, I was giving my perpetrator power to continue to vicitimize me. I didn't want to be a perpetual victim. I wanted to be a victor.
It took a long while, but eventually, I got over it.
I'm still not cool with being approached from behind sometimes, or with hands on my neck, but I for damned sure love trees and the smell of dirt now.
Haha sucker, I won.
That woman can conquer over what defeats her and come out the other side a better person.31 -
Your strength of character and ability to self-analyse is impressive @GottaBurnEmAll ..I'm grateful to have you as a friend
I think that society is screwing with psyches in creating "triggers", victimhood, lack of personal responsibility and political correctness as a series of excuses
Then again this is the way of the world and always has been
"The young people of today think of nothing but themselves. They have no reverence for parents or old age. They are impatient of all restraint. They talk as if they knew everything, and what passes for wisdom with us is foolishness with them."
(From a sermon preached by Peter the Hermit in A.D. 1274)
'The children now love luxury; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are tyrants, not servants of the households. They no longer rise when their elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize over their teachers.'
( attributed to SOCRATES )10 -
]The younger generation today is obsessed with the idea of being "triggered" and having the world creating safe spaces for them
I understand this but they can't take the blame all by themselves. surely the older generation around them have helped create this. Over protecting child to protect them from what might happen etc
BTW. When we are saying younger generation what age are we talking out of curiosity1 -
DisruptedMatrix wrote: »and let's not forget the other factors involved... remember the girl who is constantly intensely hungry because of a medical condition? http://abcnews.go.com/2020/video/2020-rare-condition-makes-kids-intensely-hungry-247-25005190
she is gaining weight on 900 calories a day.
She has been so desperate she ate dog food.
Not sure what a so-called "bizarre medical mystery" has to do with the topic at hand? <confused>2 -
DisruptedMatrix wrote: »
The thread that prompted this involved a woman asking how she could assert her boundaries with her husband who thought she was ungrateful, because he gave her a box of chocolates, her favorite treat, and she ended up eating a lot of them. She was told she should be grateful and thank him and show willpower.jennifer_417 wrote: »...But my original point was that a lot of people on here don't consider the fact that many people do look at food this way and they just like to definitively say to others "there are no bad foods, eat what you want." Which, in my opinion is wrong, because it's not helpful to people that can't eat that way because moderation and self control with certain foods is not everyone's strong point.
I can agree with that, especially the last sentence. The disconnect for me is the jump from there to "sugar is addictive".
I'm one who doesn't consider foods "good" and "bad". I look at the overall context of the diet. With that said, there are people (such as my wife) who cannot exercise moderation and self-control with certain foods, so for them those foods are "bad". But that still doesn't make them universally "bad", it makes them contextually "bad". There are plenty of people who are perfectly capable of control and can enjoy treat foods in moderation.
I feel like the bolded statement is the crux of the entire argument. Thank you for stating it so succinctly. There are those who seem to want to assign a universal moral value to foods as "good" or "bad," then there are those who argue that, "X food is bad FOR ME."
And yes, I was addressing two entirely separate elements within the thread.
No, she was mostly told that she needed to communicate with him, because how was he supposed to know the gift would not be appreciated (she also seemed upset about her 90-something year old mother in law baking for her).
Others jumped in and said the husband was a jerk and saboteur and that it was like bringing heroin to a heroin addict which is what started this ridiculous thread of the conversation.
I totally agree that if someone doesn't want food gifts and tells others that (which OP had not), that it is polite and appropriate to respect that.
However, if you find yourself saying that you overeat because someone else made you or the food made you, there's something wrong with your ability to take proper responsibility.
This isn't about moderation vs. abstinence -- I think there are no bad foods, but that there may well be foods that it is better for a particular individual to avoid for a while or not have in her house, etc. (this is more of an issue if people are sharing a house -- I think having "my food" and "your food" can work as it has for me). Obviously bringing food to someone's house not yours against their specific requests or badgering them to eat foods they have expressed desire not to eat is weird and rude and IME doesn't actually happen. If it did I'd stop being friends with those people because they are weird and rude (parents who do this, eh, family sometimes lack boundaries and it takes more work, yeah).
And I happen to agree with BurnEm that if someone gets to 700 lbs there is some kind of compulsive eating or ED going on, and that eating addiction might be the right word. I don't think it's addiction to specific foods, but that they would be easily substitutable, because -- and this is the scientific issue -- individual foods that people feel a lack of control around often are physically the same as other foods. They taste different, though -- people are being driven by the fact they enjoy the taste.
The research on "food addiction" isn't that some people might have an innate physical addiction to a specific kind of pizza or McD's. It's that we all have reactions to highly-palatable foods (based in our evolutionary liking for high calorie sources of food like fat and sugar), and that some develop habits of hedonic eating that become like an addiction (not for specific foods, but for highly palatable foods in general). I don't think that's the right way to think of it, but of course I think hedonic eating is a thing -- it's been my biggest struggle, although not mostly with the kinds of foods that so many here like to blame (I dislike most packaged junk foods and fast food, don't get the argument that that's harder to resist, it's just super available if you happen to like it).6 -
And unless things have changed since then the addict has sole responsibility for what they chose to do. Please anyone with recent addictions/rehab correct me if I'm wrong and things have changed.
This is absolutely correct, and why I find it so bizarre that those arguing for food addiction here want to use that as a reason to say people should be able to blame others or a situation or temptation for their choices to eat.4 -
You, and your friend, seem to have a victim mindset. If your friend asked his "friends" not to order pizza or drink at his house, and they didn't listen, they aren't really his friends. Your friend needs to have the cahunas not to bother with them anymore. If he doesn't, and he sits there feeling sorry for himself, or worse, eating and drinking all that evil food, then he's a victim.
Realistically, most people would start to avoid him anyways, as HE seems to expect everyone to adhere to his own new way of eating/drinking.7 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »DisruptedMatrix wrote: »
The thread that prompted this involved a woman asking how she could assert her boundaries with her husband who thought she was ungrateful, because he gave her a box of chocolates, her favorite treat, and she ended up eating a lot of them. She was told she should be grateful and thank him and show willpower.jennifer_417 wrote: »...But my original point was that a lot of people on here don't consider the fact that many people do look at food this way and they just like to definitively say to others "there are no bad foods, eat what you want." Which, in my opinion is wrong, because it's not helpful to people that can't eat that way because moderation and self control with certain foods is not everyone's strong point.
I can agree with that, especially the last sentence. The disconnect for me is the jump from there to "sugar is addictive".
I'm one who doesn't consider foods "good" and "bad". I look at the overall context of the diet. With that said, there are people (such as my wife) who cannot exercise moderation and self-control with certain foods, so for them those foods are "bad". But that still doesn't make them universally "bad", it makes them contextually "bad". There are plenty of people who are perfectly capable of control and can enjoy treat foods in moderation.
I feel like the bolded statement is the crux of the entire argument. Thank you for stating it so succinctly. There are those who seem to want to assign a universal moral value to foods as "good" or "bad," then there are those who argue that, "X food is bad FOR ME."
And yes, I was addressing two entirely separate elements within the thread.
She should. You have a lot to learn, grasshopper.
The younger generation today is obsessed with the idea of being "triggered" and having the world creating safe spaces for them.
Let me share a story with you.
In 1980, on my way to school, cutting through a patch of woods, I was stranger raped.
For years after that, many things triggered me. Being approached from behind, gas station attendants, the smell of dirt, the sight of woods in tv shows.
It didn't take me too long to realize that the world wasn't going to change to accommodate me and that by expecting it to, I was giving my perpetrator power to continue to vicitimize me. I didn't want to be a perpetual victim. I wanted to be a victor.
It took a long while, but eventually, I got over it.
I'm still not cool with being approached from behind sometimes, or with hands on my neck, but I for damned sure love trees and the smell of dirt now.
Haha sucker, I won.
That woman can conquer over what defeats her and come out the other side a better person.
No victims here! YOU are inspiring, chickie!!
5 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »This isn't about moderation vs. abstinence -- I think there are no bad foods, but that there may well be foods that it is better for a particular individual to avoid for a while or not have in her house, etc. (this is more of an issue if people are sharing a house -- I think having "my food" and "your food" can work as it has for me). Obviously bringing food to someone's house not yours against their specific requests or badgering them to eat foods they have expressed desire not to eat is weird and rude and IME doesn't actually happen. If it did I'd stop being friends with those people because they are weird and rude (parents who do this, eh, family sometimes lack boundaries and it takes more work, yeah).
All of this.
And I suspect the story this thread is supposedly based off of - the obese guy with horribly 'abusive' friends - lacks credibility or accountability. Or both.
Just not buying the addicted victim premise here.5
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 920 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions