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.
Addicted to sugar DEBATE
Options
Replies
-
Carlos_421 wrote: »
The physical symptoms are likely due to an electrolyte balance which is quite common when an individual drastically reduces carb intake. These are not withdrawal symptoms due to a physical addiction to sugar. Sugar is not a physically addictive substance.Sisepuede422 wrote: »It feels like an addiction. I feel physically and psychologically sick if I don't eat something loaded with sugar. I'm like a junkie.
Those addictions are behavioral, not physical. I won't contest that there are behavioral addictions to eating. However, an eating addiction is no more an addiction to sugar than a gambling addiction is an addiction to poker chips. The eating/gambling behavior is where the addiction lies, not the sugar/chips.If people can be addicted to gambling, sex, drugs, etc, why is it so hard to accept that someone can be addicted to consuming sugar? They all cause reactions inside the body that release hormones that make us feel good, therefore we keep going back to that thing that gives us that feeling. People can be addicted to sugar just like anything else.
Medical professionals don't all agree about sugar not being addictive. The Cleveland Clinic says it is biologically addictive. They are rated one of the best hospitals in the United States. https://health.clevelandclinic.org/2015/05/break-your-sugar-addiction-in-10-days-infographic/
Whether you want to argue about what addiction is or is not, the bottom line is sugar is a huge problem for many people -- some people more than others. Some people can eat sugary food in moderation, other people have a big struggle.
Is that the Cleveland Clinic's official position or is that a blog entry they're hosting featuring the opinion of one of their employees, noted anti-sugar activist Mark Hyman?22 -
@cmriverside I'm glad someone has the same view on this. Having struggled with addiction (and gone to treatment), I know that denying the physiological component of these kinds of things actually makes it harder for us to consciously change our behaviors. If I hadn't been taught about the way my body physically responds when I'm actively engaging in my addiction, I would have continued to beat myself up for not having the willpower to just not give in. Knowing that, yes, there is an actual, tangible thing happening in my body when I do this, and this is why it is so hard to stop, helped me find my resolve to do whatever it takes to not give in. Now I think: "Mind Over Matter." Yes, my biology drives me to want to engage in these addictive things, BUT, I KNOW they aren't good. Maybe it just pisses me off that my body tries really hard to make me give it these things, so, knowing that, when I consciously decide not to, it's like a big f-u to the addiction.
Sorry for the long post. Hopefully the OP will find something helpful among my rambling.
When you went to treatment, did they just suggest you use different forms of what you are addicted to, to help you out? If it was alcohol, did they say hey you're addicted to Jack Daniels, just have a couple beers instead, and you'll kick that habit? If it was drugs, did they say hey, enough with the heroin, just switch to meth, and coke. I'm guessing not. So if these people are so addicted to sugar, why do we tell them to just switch out there candy habit for foods with different types of sugar?
This is the same discussion that you have to have when you're considering Overeaters Anonymous. You can't tell someone to cut out food. There are so many types of food out there that have naturally occurring sugars, and completely cutting it out could be detrimental to their health. You can't tell someone to NEVER eat fruit (hello, mother nature's best source of vitamins!), tomatoes, carrots, potatoes, celery, etc. Pretty much all fruit and vegetables have dietary sugar.
We CAN, however, suggest that you try to eliminate or moderate PROCESSED, ADDED sugar by adding more whole foods to your diet. It's more of a nicotine gum rather than cigarettes approach, if you want to be hyperbolic.
if sugar is addictive then why would you recommend that an addict continue to consume it?
LITERALLY what's the alternative? WHAT would they eat?
Hard core keto, I guess, or carnivore, LOL.
But the fact is that unlike an alcoholic, who WILL abuse other forms of alcohol when just cutting out a particular form (it is so, so common to play this game" "no more hard alcohol," or "only beer, I don't care about beer"), most of the time when someone says they are addicted to "sugar" they don't have an issue with, say, fruit. Or a plain potato, which becomes sugar in the body. And the "sugar" they have an issue with invariably is a tasty treat that more often than not also has fat. So claiming it's about "sugar addiction" seems wrong.
I think debating whether "sugar addiction" is the correct term is kind of pointless, but when people insist it IS a physical addiction exactly like, say, drugs, I think it is worth discussion, especially since the predominant model re drug addiction (and alcohol) is abstinence only. As you note, abstinence from sugar is really, really hard to impossible, but also -- as someone who has struggled with comfort eating that I think mimics addiction in some ways (but is different) -- abstinence from all sugar and everything that becomes sugar is generally completely pointless as it's NOT all things with sugar for most.
And it's often things without sugar (and the studies that push "food addiction" DON'T show a difference between sugar and fat in terms of your brain lighting up with pleasure and all that. I think pizza -- a combination of fat and carb with little sugar -- scored really high on "addictiveness," for example.)10 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »
The physical symptoms are likely due to an electrolyte balance which is quite common when an individual drastically reduces carb intake. These are not withdrawal symptoms due to a physical addiction to sugar. Sugar is not a physically addictive substance.Sisepuede422 wrote: »It feels like an addiction. I feel physically and psychologically sick if I don't eat something loaded with sugar. I'm like a junkie.
Those addictions are behavioral, not physical. I won't contest that there are behavioral addictions to eating. However, an eating addiction is no more an addiction to sugar than a gambling addiction is an addiction to poker chips. The eating/gambling behavior is where the addiction lies, not the sugar/chips.If people can be addicted to gambling, sex, drugs, etc, why is it so hard to accept that someone can be addicted to consuming sugar? They all cause reactions inside the body that release hormones that make us feel good, therefore we keep going back to that thing that gives us that feeling. People can be addicted to sugar just like anything else.
Medical professionals don't all agree about sugar not being addictive. The Cleveland Clinic says it is biologically addictive. They are rated one of the best hospitals in the United States. https://health.clevelandclinic.org/2015/05/break-your-sugar-addiction-in-10-days-infographic/
Whether you want to argue about what addiction is or is not, the bottom line is sugar is a huge problem for many people -- some people more than others. Some people can eat sugary food in moderation, other people have a big struggle.
I was going to bite until I saw "quit gluten and dairy". Then I scrolled down... Mark Hyman. Figures. An anti-vaxxer detox pusher with an agenda and books to sell, and guess what the book is called? “The Blood Sugar Solution: 10-Day Detox Diet”. Yes, I'm going to get my info elsewhere.26 -
Addicted? Not addicted?
5 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »@cmriverside I'm glad someone has the same view on this. Having struggled with addiction (and gone to treatment), I know that denying the physiological component of these kinds of things actually makes it harder for us to consciously change our behaviors. If I hadn't been taught about the way my body physically responds when I'm actively engaging in my addiction, I would have continued to beat myself up for not having the willpower to just not give in. Knowing that, yes, there is an actual, tangible thing happening in my body when I do this, and this is why it is so hard to stop, helped me find my resolve to do whatever it takes to not give in. Now I think: "Mind Over Matter." Yes, my biology drives me to want to engage in these addictive things, BUT, I KNOW they aren't good. Maybe it just pisses me off that my body tries really hard to make me give it these things, so, knowing that, when I consciously decide not to, it's like a big f-u to the addiction.
Sorry for the long post. Hopefully the OP will find something helpful among my rambling.
When you went to treatment, did they just suggest you use different forms of what you are addicted to, to help you out? If it was alcohol, did they say hey you're addicted to Jack Daniels, just have a couple beers instead, and you'll kick that habit? If it was drugs, did they say hey, enough with the heroin, just switch to meth, and coke. I'm guessing not. So if these people are so addicted to sugar, why do we tell them to just switch out there candy habit for foods with different types of sugar?
This is the same discussion that you have to have when you're considering Overeaters Anonymous. You can't tell someone to cut out food. There are so many types of food out there that have naturally occurring sugars, and completely cutting it out could be detrimental to their health. You can't tell someone to NEVER eat fruit (hello, mother nature's best source of vitamins!), tomatoes, carrots, potatoes, celery, etc. Pretty much all fruit and vegetables have dietary sugar.
We CAN, however, suggest that you try to eliminate or moderate PROCESSED, ADDED sugar by adding more whole foods to your diet. It's more of a nicotine gum rather than cigarettes approach, if you want to be hyperbolic.
if sugar is addictive then why would you recommend that an addict continue to consume it?
LITERALLY what's the alternative? WHAT would they eat?
Hard core keto, I guess, or carnivore, LOL.
But the fact is that unlike an alcoholic, who WILL abuse other forms of alcohol when just cutting out a particular form (it is so, so common to play this game" "no more hard alcohol," or "only beer, I don't care about beer"), most of the time when someone says they are addicted to "sugar" they don't have an issue with, say, fruit. Or a plain potato, which becomes sugar in the body. And the "sugar" they have an issue with invariably is a tasty treat that more often than not also has fat. So claiming it's about "sugar addiction" seems wrong.
I think debating whether "sugar addiction" is the correct term is kind of pointless, but when people insist it IS a physical addiction exactly like, say, drugs, I think it is worth discussion, especially since the predominant model re drug addiction (and alcohol) is abstinence only. As you note, abstinence from sugar is really, really hard to impossible, but also -- as someone who has struggled with comfort eating that I think mimics addiction in some ways (but is different) -- abstinence from all sugar and everything that becomes sugar is generally completely pointless as it's NOT all things with sugar for most.
And it's often things without sugar (and the studies that push "food addiction" DON'T show a difference between sugar and fat in terms of your brain lighting up with pleasure and all that. I think pizza -- a combination of fat and carb with little sugar -- scored really high on "addictiveness," for example.)
I don't know if I'm just feeding the trolls, but my teachers have always told me to reason through tough problems.
@ndj1979 says we can't tell "sugar addicts" to moderate sugar consumption. A meat and water diet is basically the only solution!
5 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »@cmriverside I'm glad someone has the same view on this. Having struggled with addiction (and gone to treatment), I know that denying the physiological component of these kinds of things actually makes it harder for us to consciously change our behaviors. If I hadn't been taught about the way my body physically responds when I'm actively engaging in my addiction, I would have continued to beat myself up for not having the willpower to just not give in. Knowing that, yes, there is an actual, tangible thing happening in my body when I do this, and this is why it is so hard to stop, helped me find my resolve to do whatever it takes to not give in. Now I think: "Mind Over Matter." Yes, my biology drives me to want to engage in these addictive things, BUT, I KNOW they aren't good. Maybe it just pisses me off that my body tries really hard to make me give it these things, so, knowing that, when I consciously decide not to, it's like a big f-u to the addiction.
Sorry for the long post. Hopefully the OP will find something helpful among my rambling.
When you went to treatment, did they just suggest you use different forms of what you are addicted to, to help you out? If it was alcohol, did they say hey you're addicted to Jack Daniels, just have a couple beers instead, and you'll kick that habit? If it was drugs, did they say hey, enough with the heroin, just switch to meth, and coke. I'm guessing not. So if these people are so addicted to sugar, why do we tell them to just switch out there candy habit for foods with different types of sugar?
This is the same discussion that you have to have when you're considering Overeaters Anonymous. You can't tell someone to cut out food. There are so many types of food out there that have naturally occurring sugars, and completely cutting it out could be detrimental to their health. You can't tell someone to NEVER eat fruit (hello, mother nature's best source of vitamins!), tomatoes, carrots, potatoes, celery, etc. Pretty much all fruit and vegetables have dietary sugar.
We CAN, however, suggest that you try to eliminate or moderate PROCESSED, ADDED sugar by adding more whole foods to your diet. It's more of a nicotine gum rather than cigarettes approach, if you want to be hyperbolic.
if sugar is addictive then why would you recommend that an addict continue to consume it?
LITERALLY what's the alternative? WHAT would they eat?
Hard core keto, I guess, or carnivore, LOL.
But the fact is that unlike an alcoholic, who WILL abuse other forms of alcohol when just cutting out a particular form (it is so, so common to play this game" "no more hard alcohol," or "only beer, I don't care about beer"), most of the time when someone says they are addicted to "sugar" they don't have an issue with, say, fruit. Or a plain potato, which becomes sugar in the body. And the "sugar" they have an issue with invariably is a tasty treat that more often than not also has fat. So claiming it's about "sugar addiction" seems wrong.
I think debating whether "sugar addiction" is the correct term is kind of pointless, but when people insist it IS a physical addiction exactly like, say, drugs, I think it is worth discussion, especially since the predominant model re drug addiction (and alcohol) is abstinence only. As you note, abstinence from sugar is really, really hard to impossible, but also -- as someone who has struggled with comfort eating that I think mimics addiction in some ways (but is different) -- abstinence from all sugar and everything that becomes sugar is generally completely pointless as it's NOT all things with sugar for most.
And it's often things without sugar (and the studies that push "food addiction" DON'T show a difference between sugar and fat in terms of your brain lighting up with pleasure and all that. I think pizza -- a combination of fat and carb with little sugar -- scored really high on "addictiveness," for example.)
Cheese also scores very high on "addictiveness", no sugar there.5 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »@cmriverside I'm glad someone has the same view on this. Having struggled with addiction (and gone to treatment), I know that denying the physiological component of these kinds of things actually makes it harder for us to consciously change our behaviors. If I hadn't been taught about the way my body physically responds when I'm actively engaging in my addiction, I would have continued to beat myself up for not having the willpower to just not give in. Knowing that, yes, there is an actual, tangible thing happening in my body when I do this, and this is why it is so hard to stop, helped me find my resolve to do whatever it takes to not give in. Now I think: "Mind Over Matter." Yes, my biology drives me to want to engage in these addictive things, BUT, I KNOW they aren't good. Maybe it just pisses me off that my body tries really hard to make me give it these things, so, knowing that, when I consciously decide not to, it's like a big f-u to the addiction.
Sorry for the long post. Hopefully the OP will find something helpful among my rambling.
When you went to treatment, did they just suggest you use different forms of what you are addicted to, to help you out? If it was alcohol, did they say hey you're addicted to Jack Daniels, just have a couple beers instead, and you'll kick that habit? If it was drugs, did they say hey, enough with the heroin, just switch to meth, and coke. I'm guessing not. So if these people are so addicted to sugar, why do we tell them to just switch out there candy habit for foods with different types of sugar?
This is the same discussion that you have to have when you're considering Overeaters Anonymous. You can't tell someone to cut out food. There are so many types of food out there that have naturally occurring sugars, and completely cutting it out could be detrimental to their health. You can't tell someone to NEVER eat fruit (hello, mother nature's best source of vitamins!), tomatoes, carrots, potatoes, celery, etc. Pretty much all fruit and vegetables have dietary sugar.
We CAN, however, suggest that you try to eliminate or moderate PROCESSED, ADDED sugar by adding more whole foods to your diet. It's more of a nicotine gum rather than cigarettes approach, if you want to be hyperbolic.
if sugar is addictive then why would you recommend that an addict continue to consume it?
LITERALLY what's the alternative? WHAT would they eat?
Hard core keto, I guess, or carnivore, LOL.
But the fact is that unlike an alcoholic, who WILL abuse other forms of alcohol when just cutting out a particular form (it is so, so common to play this game" "no more hard alcohol," or "only beer, I don't care about beer"), most of the time when someone says they are addicted to "sugar" they don't have an issue with, say, fruit. Or a plain potato, which becomes sugar in the body. And the "sugar" they have an issue with invariably is a tasty treat that more often than not also has fat. So claiming it's about "sugar addiction" seems wrong.
I think debating whether "sugar addiction" is the correct term is kind of pointless, but when people insist it IS a physical addiction exactly like, say, drugs, I think it is worth discussion, especially since the predominant model re drug addiction (and alcohol) is abstinence only. As you note, abstinence from sugar is really, really hard to impossible, but also -- as someone who has struggled with comfort eating that I think mimics addiction in some ways (but is different) -- abstinence from all sugar and everything that becomes sugar is generally completely pointless as it's NOT all things with sugar for most.
And it's often things without sugar (and the studies that push "food addiction" DON'T show a difference between sugar and fat in terms of your brain lighting up with pleasure and all that. I think pizza -- a combination of fat and carb with little sugar -- scored really high on "addictiveness," for example.)
I don't know if I'm just feeding the trolls, but my teachers have always told me to reason through tough problems.
@ndj1979 says we can't tell "sugar addicts" to moderate sugar consumption. A meat and water diet is basically the only solution!
Unless I'm misunderstanding his position, he's actually arguing that the fact that sugar consumption can and is just moderated (not eliminated) by most people claiming a sugar addiction demonstrates that sugar isn't a real addiction.6 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »@cmriverside I'm glad someone has the same view on this. Having struggled with addiction (and gone to treatment), I know that denying the physiological component of these kinds of things actually makes it harder for us to consciously change our behaviors. If I hadn't been taught about the way my body physically responds when I'm actively engaging in my addiction, I would have continued to beat myself up for not having the willpower to just not give in. Knowing that, yes, there is an actual, tangible thing happening in my body when I do this, and this is why it is so hard to stop, helped me find my resolve to do whatever it takes to not give in. Now I think: "Mind Over Matter." Yes, my biology drives me to want to engage in these addictive things, BUT, I KNOW they aren't good. Maybe it just pisses me off that my body tries really hard to make me give it these things, so, knowing that, when I consciously decide not to, it's like a big f-u to the addiction.
Sorry for the long post. Hopefully the OP will find something helpful among my rambling.
When you went to treatment, did they just suggest you use different forms of what you are addicted to, to help you out? If it was alcohol, did they say hey you're addicted to Jack Daniels, just have a couple beers instead, and you'll kick that habit? If it was drugs, did they say hey, enough with the heroin, just switch to meth, and coke. I'm guessing not. So if these people are so addicted to sugar, why do we tell them to just switch out there candy habit for foods with different types of sugar?
This is the same discussion that you have to have when you're considering Overeaters Anonymous. You can't tell someone to cut out food. There are so many types of food out there that have naturally occurring sugars, and completely cutting it out could be detrimental to their health. You can't tell someone to NEVER eat fruit (hello, mother nature's best source of vitamins!), tomatoes, carrots, potatoes, celery, etc. Pretty much all fruit and vegetables have dietary sugar.
We CAN, however, suggest that you try to eliminate or moderate PROCESSED, ADDED sugar by adding more whole foods to your diet. It's more of a nicotine gum rather than cigarettes approach, if you want to be hyperbolic.
if sugar is addictive then why would you recommend that an addict continue to consume it?
LITERALLY what's the alternative? WHAT would they eat?
Hard core keto, I guess, or carnivore, LOL.
But the fact is that unlike an alcoholic, who WILL abuse other forms of alcohol when just cutting out a particular form (it is so, so common to play this game" "no more hard alcohol," or "only beer, I don't care about beer"), most of the time when someone says they are addicted to "sugar" they don't have an issue with, say, fruit. Or a plain potato, which becomes sugar in the body. And the "sugar" they have an issue with invariably is a tasty treat that more often than not also has fat. So claiming it's about "sugar addiction" seems wrong.
I think debating whether "sugar addiction" is the correct term is kind of pointless, but when people insist it IS a physical addiction exactly like, say, drugs, I think it is worth discussion, especially since the predominant model re drug addiction (and alcohol) is abstinence only. As you note, abstinence from sugar is really, really hard to impossible, but also -- as someone who has struggled with comfort eating that I think mimics addiction in some ways (but is different) -- abstinence from all sugar and everything that becomes sugar is generally completely pointless as it's NOT all things with sugar for most.
And it's often things without sugar (and the studies that push "food addiction" DON'T show a difference between sugar and fat in terms of your brain lighting up with pleasure and all that. I think pizza -- a combination of fat and carb with little sugar -- scored really high on "addictiveness," for example.)
Cheese also scores very high on "addictiveness", no sugar there.
Since this appears to be a pedantic sort of discussion, doesn't lactose count as sugar?9 -
MegaMooseEsq wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »@cmriverside I'm glad someone has the same view on this. Having struggled with addiction (and gone to treatment), I know that denying the physiological component of these kinds of things actually makes it harder for us to consciously change our behaviors. If I hadn't been taught about the way my body physically responds when I'm actively engaging in my addiction, I would have continued to beat myself up for not having the willpower to just not give in. Knowing that, yes, there is an actual, tangible thing happening in my body when I do this, and this is why it is so hard to stop, helped me find my resolve to do whatever it takes to not give in. Now I think: "Mind Over Matter." Yes, my biology drives me to want to engage in these addictive things, BUT, I KNOW they aren't good. Maybe it just pisses me off that my body tries really hard to make me give it these things, so, knowing that, when I consciously decide not to, it's like a big f-u to the addiction.
Sorry for the long post. Hopefully the OP will find something helpful among my rambling.
When you went to treatment, did they just suggest you use different forms of what you are addicted to, to help you out? If it was alcohol, did they say hey you're addicted to Jack Daniels, just have a couple beers instead, and you'll kick that habit? If it was drugs, did they say hey, enough with the heroin, just switch to meth, and coke. I'm guessing not. So if these people are so addicted to sugar, why do we tell them to just switch out there candy habit for foods with different types of sugar?
This is the same discussion that you have to have when you're considering Overeaters Anonymous. You can't tell someone to cut out food. There are so many types of food out there that have naturally occurring sugars, and completely cutting it out could be detrimental to their health. You can't tell someone to NEVER eat fruit (hello, mother nature's best source of vitamins!), tomatoes, carrots, potatoes, celery, etc. Pretty much all fruit and vegetables have dietary sugar.
We CAN, however, suggest that you try to eliminate or moderate PROCESSED, ADDED sugar by adding more whole foods to your diet. It's more of a nicotine gum rather than cigarettes approach, if you want to be hyperbolic.
if sugar is addictive then why would you recommend that an addict continue to consume it?
LITERALLY what's the alternative? WHAT would they eat?
Hard core keto, I guess, or carnivore, LOL.
But the fact is that unlike an alcoholic, who WILL abuse other forms of alcohol when just cutting out a particular form (it is so, so common to play this game" "no more hard alcohol," or "only beer, I don't care about beer"), most of the time when someone says they are addicted to "sugar" they don't have an issue with, say, fruit. Or a plain potato, which becomes sugar in the body. And the "sugar" they have an issue with invariably is a tasty treat that more often than not also has fat. So claiming it's about "sugar addiction" seems wrong.
I think debating whether "sugar addiction" is the correct term is kind of pointless, but when people insist it IS a physical addiction exactly like, say, drugs, I think it is worth discussion, especially since the predominant model re drug addiction (and alcohol) is abstinence only. As you note, abstinence from sugar is really, really hard to impossible, but also -- as someone who has struggled with comfort eating that I think mimics addiction in some ways (but is different) -- abstinence from all sugar and everything that becomes sugar is generally completely pointless as it's NOT all things with sugar for most.
And it's often things without sugar (and the studies that push "food addiction" DON'T show a difference between sugar and fat in terms of your brain lighting up with pleasure and all that. I think pizza -- a combination of fat and carb with little sugar -- scored really high on "addictiveness," for example.)
Cheese also scores very high on "addictiveness", no sugar there.
Since this appears to be a pedantic sort of discussion, doesn't lactose count as sugar?
Oh yes, yes it does. But cheese has only trace amounts of it.. Ugh, nope, cheese is not good.2 -
Does it really matter whether it's a true clinical addiction or only a perceived addiction? Is all this debate over a word help anyone?13
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Does it really matter whether it's a true clinical addiction or only a perceived addiction? Is all this debate over a word help anyone?
But... but... but... this is MFP, it's what we do!11 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Does it really matter whether it's a true clinical addiction or only a perceived addiction? Is all this debate over a word help anyone?
I would offer that understanding whether it's a true physical addition could help at least some people understand that there is a possibility they could eat sugar-containing foods in moderation and they aren't required to eliminate them the way an alcoholic has to eliminate alcohol or a heroin addict has to eliminate heroin.
9 -
janejellyroll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »@cmriverside I'm glad someone has the same view on this. Having struggled with addiction (and gone to treatment), I know that denying the physiological component of these kinds of things actually makes it harder for us to consciously change our behaviors. If I hadn't been taught about the way my body physically responds when I'm actively engaging in my addiction, I would have continued to beat myself up for not having the willpower to just not give in. Knowing that, yes, there is an actual, tangible thing happening in my body when I do this, and this is why it is so hard to stop, helped me find my resolve to do whatever it takes to not give in. Now I think: "Mind Over Matter." Yes, my biology drives me to want to engage in these addictive things, BUT, I KNOW they aren't good. Maybe it just pisses me off that my body tries really hard to make me give it these things, so, knowing that, when I consciously decide not to, it's like a big f-u to the addiction.
Sorry for the long post. Hopefully the OP will find something helpful among my rambling.
When you went to treatment, did they just suggest you use different forms of what you are addicted to, to help you out? If it was alcohol, did they say hey you're addicted to Jack Daniels, just have a couple beers instead, and you'll kick that habit? If it was drugs, did they say hey, enough with the heroin, just switch to meth, and coke. I'm guessing not. So if these people are so addicted to sugar, why do we tell them to just switch out there candy habit for foods with different types of sugar?
This is the same discussion that you have to have when you're considering Overeaters Anonymous. You can't tell someone to cut out food. There are so many types of food out there that have naturally occurring sugars, and completely cutting it out could be detrimental to their health. You can't tell someone to NEVER eat fruit (hello, mother nature's best source of vitamins!), tomatoes, carrots, potatoes, celery, etc. Pretty much all fruit and vegetables have dietary sugar.
We CAN, however, suggest that you try to eliminate or moderate PROCESSED, ADDED sugar by adding more whole foods to your diet. It's more of a nicotine gum rather than cigarettes approach, if you want to be hyperbolic.
if sugar is addictive then why would you recommend that an addict continue to consume it?
LITERALLY what's the alternative? WHAT would they eat?
Hard core keto, I guess, or carnivore, LOL.
But the fact is that unlike an alcoholic, who WILL abuse other forms of alcohol when just cutting out a particular form (it is so, so common to play this game" "no more hard alcohol," or "only beer, I don't care about beer"), most of the time when someone says they are addicted to "sugar" they don't have an issue with, say, fruit. Or a plain potato, which becomes sugar in the body. And the "sugar" they have an issue with invariably is a tasty treat that more often than not also has fat. So claiming it's about "sugar addiction" seems wrong.
I think debating whether "sugar addiction" is the correct term is kind of pointless, but when people insist it IS a physical addiction exactly like, say, drugs, I think it is worth discussion, especially since the predominant model re drug addiction (and alcohol) is abstinence only. As you note, abstinence from sugar is really, really hard to impossible, but also -- as someone who has struggled with comfort eating that I think mimics addiction in some ways (but is different) -- abstinence from all sugar and everything that becomes sugar is generally completely pointless as it's NOT all things with sugar for most.
And it's often things without sugar (and the studies that push "food addiction" DON'T show a difference between sugar and fat in terms of your brain lighting up with pleasure and all that. I think pizza -- a combination of fat and carb with little sugar -- scored really high on "addictiveness," for example.)
I don't know if I'm just feeding the trolls, but my teachers have always told me to reason through tough problems.
@ndj1979 says we can't tell "sugar addicts" to moderate sugar consumption. A meat and water diet is basically the only solution!
Unless I'm misunderstanding his position, he's actually arguing that the fact that sugar consumption can and is just moderated (not eliminated) by most people claiming a sugar addiction demonstrates that sugar isn't a real addiction.
Maybe I just took his reply in context to a post of mine at face value? If that's the case, then I guess I agree?
"if sugar is addictive then why would you recommend that an addict continue to consume it? "
@ndj1979 please confirm.
ETA: I just wanted to use the gif, and think that no one can cut sugar out completely.2 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Does it really matter whether it's a true clinical addiction or only a perceived addiction? Is all this debate over a word help anyone?
It does. Knowing something isn't physically addictive would lead to dealing with the source of the issues OP is experiencing properly (electrolytes, caffeine, stress reduction...etc), and knowing any perceived addiction is likely food-specific and does not reach well into everything sugar would lead to taking actions that are more sustainable (no posts stressing about fruits or anxiety over BBQ).
ETA: Just want to clarify that I personally believe cutting out trigger foods is a completely valid strategy for some people if they feel it's more mentally viable than moderating them (I mean candy is not exactly essential for life if someone would rather not have it). It's just I don't think it's worth it to fall into the trap of extending that ban to foods the person may have no issues with causing unnecessary inconveniences and stress just because they contain an ingredient that has been portrayed as scary and addictive.12 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Does it really matter whether it's a true clinical addiction or only a perceived addiction? Is all this debate over a word help anyone?
I would offer that understanding whether it's a true physical addition could help at least some people understand that there is a possibility they could eat sugar-containing foods in moderation and they aren't required to eliminate them the way an alcoholic has to eliminate alcohol or a heroin addict has to eliminate heroin.
A valid point. But how many pages of arguing back and forth is the average OP likely to read waiting for some actual advice on how to break these cravings, dependence, whatever?5 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Does it really matter whether it's a true clinical addiction or only a perceived addiction? Is all this debate over a word help anyone?
I would offer that understanding whether it's a true physical addition could help at least some people understand that there is a possibility they could eat sugar-containing foods in moderation and they aren't required to eliminate them the way an alcoholic has to eliminate alcohol or a heroin addict has to eliminate heroin.
This. Defining it as an "addiction" means you can't help it - your body is forcing you to eat cookies. I have to never look at a cookie again, this is too hard. People struggle, really physically struggle, with real addictions fr their entire lives. It's scary and tiring just to think about it.
Defining it as "sweet foods are yummy but you can get used to making better choices" is an empowering idea (and it's true). It also takes into consideration the fact that we are not really talking about sugar, we are talking about sweet foods, or added sugar, or some other more defined term.16 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Does it really matter whether it's a true clinical addiction or only a perceived addiction? Is all this debate over a word help anyone?
I would offer that understanding whether it's a true physical addition could help at least some people understand that there is a possibility they could eat sugar-containing foods in moderation and they aren't required to eliminate them the way an alcoholic has to eliminate alcohol or a heroin addict has to eliminate heroin.
A valid point. But how many pages of arguing back and forth is the average OP likely to read waiting for some actual advice on how to break these cravings, dependence, whatever?
That's true. Hopefully they will come back soon with more detail before the thread goes out of control!0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Does it really matter whether it's a true clinical addiction or only a perceived addiction? Is all this debate over a word help anyone?
I would offer that understanding whether it's a true physical addition could help at least some people understand that there is a possibility they could eat sugar-containing foods in moderation and they aren't required to eliminate them the way an alcoholic has to eliminate alcohol or a heroin addict has to eliminate heroin.
A valid point. But how many pages of arguing back and forth is the average OP likely to read waiting for some actual advice on how to break these cravings, dependence, whatever?
If I felt like I was addicted to something and asked for help, I'd be willing to read several pages of discussion.11 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Does it really matter whether it's a true clinical addiction or only a perceived addiction? Is all this debate over a word help anyone?
I would offer that understanding whether it's a true physical addition could help at least some people understand that there is a possibility they could eat sugar-containing foods in moderation and they aren't required to eliminate them the way an alcoholic has to eliminate alcohol or a heroin addict has to eliminate heroin.
A valid point. But how many pages of arguing back and forth is the average OP likely to read waiting for some actual advice on how to break these cravings, dependence, whatever?
If I felt like I was addicted to something and asked for help, I'd be willing to read several pages of discussion.
4
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K 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
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 912 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions