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
Replies
-
kshama2001 wrote: »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.What is gained by this?
Is there a "Hey I'm addicted too?" trophy the rest of us aren't aware of?
I think her point was that being pedantic about sugar addiction isn't helpful, plus since there is behavioral addiction, why bother insisting that sugar is not physically addictive. Something doesn't need to be physically addictive to be a problem - for example, gambling.
What IS helpful is suggesting strategies for changing behavior.
1. Desire to change behavior leading to a better outcome.
2. Identify "bad" behavior.
3. Replace "bad" behavior with "good" behavior.
4. Establish benchmarks to ensure success.
5. Conduct effectiveness check.
Identifying the behavior as addictive is a pointless exercise.7 -
Someone a few pages back said about how you won't tell an alcohol addict to trade Jack Daniels for beer. I think in most cases the trade off can be something different. Most ex-smokers trade nicotine for food/sugar (not alcohol as the two generally go hand-in-hand). I think if you have an addictive personality you can be addicted to anything. Be it sugar/shopping/gambling/nicotine/alcohol/adrenaline (base-jumping anyone?). You hear of wealthy people being caught stealing because of the adrenaline kick they get.
I have seen addicts be treated with methadone so yes there is sometimes that trade offs happen...but I agree with the above sort of.
You see this a lot with the hard core gym goers who gave up drinking/drugs and are now on their health kick.
Great for them to be off the drugs and/or drink but they go overboard with their next "thing" too...
but I don't think going overboard is the same as addicted.
Addiction is defined as 2 :compulsive need for and use of a habit-forming substance (such as heroin, nicotine, or alcohol) characterized by tolerance and by well-defined physiological symptoms upon withdrawal; broadly :persistent compulsive use of a substance known by the user to be harmful
another definition is to be enthusiastically devoted to a particular thing or activity....but is that "true" addiction.
I think the term addiction is overused similiarly to stalker....people joke oh he stalked me for about a week but then let it go...and in this sense it's I am addicted to sugar when it's really you just like it a lot.
Bingo.
Also, with methodone...from what I've seen, it's not effective for helping addicts beat their addictions. Might help a heroin addict get weaned down to meth...but not off of drugs. That's all still being debated elsewhere though and is a whole different conversation.5 -
kshama2001 wrote: »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.What is gained by this?
Is there a "Hey I'm addicted too?" trophy the rest of us aren't aware of?
I think her point was that being pedantic about sugar addiction isn't helpful, plus since there is behavioral addiction, why bother insisting that sugar is not physically addictive. Something doesn't need to be physically addictive to be a problem - for example, gambling.
What IS helpful is suggesting strategies for changing behavior.
1. Desire to change behavior leading to a better outcome.
2. Identify "bad" behavior.
3. Replace "bad" behavior with "good" behavior.
4. Establish benchmarks to ensure success.
5. Conduct effectiveness check.
Identifying the behavior as addictive is a pointless exercise.
Except that when a physical addiction is at play, number 3 doesn't just happen.1 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »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.What is gained by this?
Is there a "Hey I'm addicted too?" trophy the rest of us aren't aware of?
I think her point was that being pedantic about sugar addiction isn't helpful, plus since there is behavioral addiction, why bother insisting that sugar is not physically addictive. Something doesn't need to be physically addictive to be a problem - for example, gambling.
What IS helpful is suggesting strategies for changing behavior.
1. Desire to change behavior leading to a better outcome.
2. Identify "bad" behavior.
3. Replace "bad" behavior with "good" behavior.
4. Establish benchmarks to ensure success.
5. Conduct effectiveness check.
Identifying the behavior as addictive is a pointless exercise.
Except that when a physical addiction is at play, number 3 doesn't just happen.
Precisely, which is why I would never legitimize sugar addiction. In all other forms of physical addiction there is a clear and objective lack of conscious/controlled thought.
5 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Someone a few pages back said about how you won't tell an alcohol addict to trade Jack Daniels for beer. I think in most cases the trade off can be something different. Most ex-smokers trade nicotine for food/sugar (not alcohol as the two generally go hand-in-hand). I think if you have an addictive personality you can be addicted to anything. Be it sugar/shopping/gambling/nicotine/alcohol/adrenaline (base-jumping anyone?). You hear of wealthy people being caught stealing because of the adrenaline kick they get.
I have seen addicts be treated with methadone so yes there is sometimes that trade offs happen...but I agree with the above sort of.
You see this a lot with the hard core gym goers who gave up drinking/drugs and are now on their health kick.
Great for them to be off the drugs and/or drink but they go overboard with their next "thing" too...
but I don't think going overboard is the same as addicted.
Addiction is defined as 2 :compulsive need for and use of a habit-forming substance (such as heroin, nicotine, or alcohol) characterized by tolerance and by well-defined physiological symptoms upon withdrawal; broadly :persistent compulsive use of a substance known by the user to be harmful
another definition is to be enthusiastically devoted to a particular thing or activity....but is that "true" addiction.
I think the term addiction is overused similiarly to stalker....people joke oh he stalked me for about a week but then let it go...and in this sense it's I am addicted to sugar when it's really you just like it a lot.
Bingo.
Also, with methodone...from what I've seen, it's not effective for helping addicts beat their addictions. Might help a heroin addict get weaned down to meth...but not off of drugs. That's all still being debated elsewhere though and is a whole different conversation.
I think of it more as treatment to help manage an addiction. I have a family member that takes it. Yeah, she's still addicted -- but the positive change in her life has been remarkable.2 -
Study after study has proven that sugar lights up the same part of the brain as drugs. The reward center.
The only reason you aren't killing to get it is because it's so easily available.
17 -
LiveLoveFitFab wrote: »Study after study has proven that sugar lights up the same part of the brain as drugs. The reward center.
The only reason you aren't killing to get it is because it's so easily available.
And isn't that also the same reward center that lights up when you pet a puppy?15 -
It's the dopamine response that is triggered, which is now recognized as the anticipation hormone, not the reward hormone. That is, we get all excited at the opportunity. The dopamine is released whether the reward comes through or not.
Being on a structured diet before I found out I care a great deal about the texture of foods. When I was craving crispy toast, a crunchy carrot would not do. I was wanting all the tastes and textures surrounding my food of choice.4 -
LiveLoveFitFab wrote: »Study after study has proven that sugar lights up the same part of the brain as drugs. The reward center.
The only reason you aren't killing to get it is because it's so easily available.
This is ludicrous.13 -
I don't see what the naysayers gain from invalidating the experiences of many people. If it doesn't affect you, why do you feel a need to just flat out shout down the ones for whom this is an issue?
Probably most of you naysayers either have never been addicted or you don't believe in addiction in general (unless it ends in death or intervention) or you won't admit that your little love-affair with alcohol really and truly was (is) alcoholism. That would require a truth you don't want to face, I'm guessing. Or it is a spectrum, both in levels of need and in recovery: which is what I believe. Some go further down the rabbit hole before they stop digging. Some continue to dig themselves into a 600 pound life. Some get a handle on it earlier or with greater resolve.
In essence, addiction is a self-diagnosis unless and until it starts to affect the other people in the world. So all the overweight people who have developed this issue need help, right? Some of them will quit on their own, some will be able to moderate, some will need therapy/medication/12 Step/rehab/whatevers. Invalidating their need for any understanding, empathy and/or treatment isn't the answer - of that much I am certain. Yes, it's an inside job. Maybe you all could develop that side of you which is kinder and more understanding. It's not a weakness.
I spent my childhood being invalidated by a crazy mother. Ya'll don't scare me, but this is all very familiar. I recognize the dismissive tone of your approach, and it is not a compassionate response.
I just don't see how it's helpful to anyone to invalidate their experience, when it is a common problem.22 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »...and I finished off the Little Debbies.
But now I'll be up until 1AM with all this zippity doo dah extra energy. 
LOL! Can you get some housework done? Thats usually what i do
Thank you for posting what you have in this thread. What still leaves me wondering though, is at least in my recollection you are literally the only poster who has said that you would eat straight sugar or large amounts of fruits.
So perhaps an actual sugar addiction is a real but rare thing that is being co-opted by anti-sugar mania? Most people who talk about it say they got over their addiction by switching to fruits, or honey, or something else they consider "healthy". Honestly if everyone's situation sounded as you described, I would probably have a different opinion on the issue.
I've done that too but I don't like fruit a lot. I would eat a lot of grapes, pineapple or dried fruit. Lots of dried fruit - like a soup bowl of raisins... maybe with a bit of cereal. I've "overdosed" on dried prunes and apricots when that was all I had. So not good.
When I had fruit, I just wanted more sugars. I was not satiated. If I have my sugars, I NEVER say "that was enough because I had my little bit".
I thought I recalled you posting recently that you eat berries on occasion since going keto. I'm confused now if this is your experience with fruit.
I have problems with sugar, and I generally abstain but I do eat the occasional berry and veggies. Not a lot. I find I hit a point where it triggers hunger in me and the tendency to overeat. It may cause me to want more but it is still mild.
Sort of like my mother who quit smoking 20+years ago but still has a cigarello on special occasions. It may cause her to want more cigarettes a bit more, but it is not enough to lead to a loss of control like a hard drug would - and I am not comparing sugar to hard drug addiction.3 -
LiveLoveFitFab wrote: »Study after study has proven that sugar lights up the same part of the brain as drugs. The reward center.
The only reason you aren't killing to get it is because it's so easily available.
Sugar hails a taxi. Drugs hijack the vehicle and take it on a wild joy ride before crashing it into a telephone pole.
It's not the "lighting up of the pleasure center in the brain" that causes addiction. It's the hijacking of that part of the brain so that it becomes dependent on more of the drug in order to function.10 -
cmriverside wrote: »I don't see what the naysayers gain from invalidating the experiences of many people. If it doesn't affect you, why do you feel a need to just flat out shout down the ones for whom this is an issue?
Probably most of you naysayers either have never been addicted or you don't believe in addiction in general (unless it ends in death or intervention) or you won't admit that your little love-affair with alcohol really and truly was (is) alcoholism. That would require a truth you don't want to face, I'm guessing. Or it is a spectrum, both in levels of need and in recovery: which is what I believe. Some go further down the rabbit hole before they stop digging. Some continue to dig themselves into a 600 pound life. Some get a handle on it earlier or with greater resolve.
In essence, addiction is a self-diagnosis unless and until it starts to affect the other people in the world. So all the overweight people who have developed this issue need help, right? Some of them will quit on their own, some will be able to moderate, some will need therapy/medication/12 Step/rehab/whatevers. Invalidating their need for any understanding, empathy and/or treatment isn't the answer - of that much I am certain. Yes, it's an inside job. Maybe you all could develop that side of you which is kinder and more understanding. It's not a weakness.
I spent my childhood being invalidated by a crazy mother. Ya'll don't scare me, but this is all very familiar. I recognize the dismissive tone of your approach, and it is not a compassionate response.
I just don't see how it's helpful to anyone to invalidate their experience, when it is a common problem.
In my field of work we have a saying, "Make sure you know the real problem before you start throwing solutions at it."
An actual addiction requires a different approach to recovery than bad habits, poor self control, etc.
Also, no one is trying to scare you but thanks anyway for attempting to use an appeal to emotions to invalidate our claims on the topic of sugar addiction.14 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »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.What is gained by this?
Is there a "Hey I'm addicted too?" trophy the rest of us aren't aware of?
I think her point was that being pedantic about sugar addiction isn't helpful, plus since there is behavioral addiction, why bother insisting that sugar is not physically addictive. Something doesn't need to be physically addictive to be a problem - for example, gambling.
What IS helpful is suggesting strategies for changing behavior.
1. Desire to change behavior leading to a better outcome.
2. Identify "bad" behavior.
3. Replace "bad" behavior with "good" behavior.
4. Establish benchmarks to ensure success.
5. Conduct effectiveness check.
Identifying the behavior as addictive is a pointless exercise.
Except that when a physical addiction is at play, number 3 doesn't just happen.
Precisely, which is why I would never legitimize sugar addiction. In all other forms of physical addiction there is a clear and objective lack of conscious/controlled thought.
Except the initial thought. And all those thoughts that occur before the individual becomes "physically" addicted, which does not happen overnight.
The decision to initially ingest something (through whatever route) that has the potential to be "physically" addictive is 100% voluntary. Funny how that's almost never mentioned in "debates" such as these.
except when it does.2 -
cmriverside wrote: »I don't see what the naysayers gain from invalidating the experiences of many people. If it doesn't affect you, why do you feel a need to just flat out shout down the ones for whom this is an issue?
Probably most of you naysayers either have never been addicted or you don't believe in addiction in general (unless it ends in death or intervention) or you won't admit that your little love-affair with alcohol really and truly was (is) alcoholism. That would require a truth you don't want to face, I'm guessing. Or it is a spectrum, both in levels of need and in recovery: which is what I believe. Some go further down the rabbit hole before they stop digging. Some continue to dig themselves into a 600 pound life. Some get a handle on it earlier or with greater resolve.
In essence, addiction is a self-diagnosis unless and until it starts to affect the other people in the world. So all the overweight people who have developed this issue need help, right? Some of them will quit on their own, some will be able to moderate, some will need therapy/medication/12 Step/rehab/whatevers. Invalidating their need for any understanding, empathy and/or treatment isn't the answer - of that much I am certain. Yes, it's an inside job. Maybe you all could develop that side of you which is kinder and more understanding. It's not a weakness.
I spent my childhood being invalidated by a crazy mother. Ya'll don't scare me, but this is all very familiar. I recognize the dismissive tone of your approach, and it is not a compassionate response.
I just don't see how it's helpful to anyone to invalidate their experience, when it is a common problem.
I think the "why" is just like all the other arguments we have here. Frustration with people not really understanding how the body works, how weight is lost or gained, what a healthy diet is, what they should and shouldn't eat. Frustration with people running around in circles feeling like failures because they believe all the crap the diet and weightloss industry dumps on them. which usually involves not taking responsibility for your actions and changing your life, but rather believing that your body and your brain and the food industry and your doctor are all conspiring against you to keep you fat, so you have to buy this or that.4 -
BrianAWeber wrote: »Saying that you are addicted to sugar is like saying you're addicted to oxygen...
Not really. I can live without eating any sugar - I have had days where my carb count is zero - because my body can make the glucose it needs. I can't produce the oxygen I need.2 -
cmriverside wrote: »I don't see what the naysayers gain from invalidating the experiences of many people. If it doesn't affect you, why do you feel a need to just flat out shout down the ones for whom this is an issue?
Probably most of you naysayers either have never been addicted or you don't believe in addiction in general (unless it ends in death or intervention) or you won't admit that your little love-affair with alcohol really and truly was (is) alcoholism. That would require a truth you don't want to face, I'm guessing. Or it is a spectrum, both in levels of need and in recovery: which is what I believe. Some go further down the rabbit hole before they stop digging. Some continue to dig themselves into a 600 pound life. Some get a handle on it earlier or with greater resolve.
In essence, addiction is a self-diagnosis unless and until it starts to affect the other people in the world. So all the overweight people who have developed this issue need help, right? Some of them will quit on their own, some will be able to moderate, some will need therapy/medication/12 Step/rehab/whatevers. Invalidating their need for any understanding, empathy and/or treatment isn't the answer - of that much I am certain. Yes, it's an inside job. Maybe you all could develop that side of you which is kinder and more understanding. It's not a weakness.
I spent my childhood being invalidated by a crazy mother. Ya'll don't scare me, but this is all very familiar. I recognize the dismissive tone of your approach, and it is not a compassionate response.
I just don't see how it's helpful to anyone to invalidate their experience, when it is a common problem.
I think the "why" is just like all the other arguments we have here. Frustration with people not really understanding how the body works, how weight is lost or gained, what a healthy diet is, what they should and shouldn't eat. Frustration with people running around in circles feeling like failures because they believe all the crap the diet and weightloss industry dumps on them. which usually involves not taking responsibility for your actions and changing your life, but rather believing that your body and your brain and the food industry and your doctor are all conspiring against you to keep you fat, so you have to buy this or that.
What does that have to do with my post?
And if you get so frustrated at a forum post that you need to invalidate someone's actual experience, it's time to step away from the computer.
(not talking about you, you've been lovely. :flowerforyou: )5 -
The lengths those sugar addicts will go to get that ultimate high. They'll even denature it at a molecular level.
15 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »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.What is gained by this?
Is there a "Hey I'm addicted too?" trophy the rest of us aren't aware of?
I think her point was that being pedantic about sugar addiction isn't helpful, plus since there is behavioral addiction, why bother insisting that sugar is not physically addictive. Something doesn't need to be physically addictive to be a problem - for example, gambling.
What IS helpful is suggesting strategies for changing behavior.
1. Desire to change behavior leading to a better outcome.
2. Identify "bad" behavior.
3. Replace "bad" behavior with "good" behavior.
4. Establish benchmarks to ensure success.
5. Conduct effectiveness check.
Identifying the behavior as addictive is a pointless exercise.
Except that when a physical addiction is at play, number 3 doesn't just happen.
Precisely, which is why I would never legitimize sugar addiction. In all other forms of physical addiction there is a clear and objective lack of conscious/controlled thought.
Except the initial thought. And all those thoughts that occur before the individual becomes "physically" addicted, which does not happen overnight.
The decision to initially ingest something (through whatever route) that has the potential to be "physically" addictive is 100% voluntary. Funny how that's almost never mentioned in "debates" such as these.
Actually, physical addiction can occur overnight.
The voluntary nature of the initial decision to ingest an addictive substance isn't discussed in these debates for no other reason than that it is completely irrelevant to the topic. How does whether or not a crack addict chose freely to take their first hit have any bearing on the nature of addiction itself or the validity of claims that people are addicted to sugar?5 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »LiveLoveFitFab wrote: »Study after study has proven that sugar lights up the same part of the brain as drugs. The reward center.
The only reason you aren't killing to get it is because it's so easily available.
Sugar hails a taxi. Drugs hijack the vehicle and take it on a wild joy ride before crashing it into a telephone pole.
It's not the "lighting up of the pleasure center in the brain" that causes addiction. It's the hijacking of that part of the brain so that it becomes dependent on more of the drug in order to function.
I don't know why you got woo'ed for this.
What you described is exactly how addiction works in the brain on the reward system.
There's more involved than just dopamine in addiction.11 -
BrianAWeber wrote: »Saying that you are addicted to sugar is like saying you're addicted to oxygen...
Not really. I can live without eating any sugar - I have had days where my carb count is zero - because my body can make the glucose it needs. I can't produce the oxygen I need.
But you literally cannot live without sugar. So much so to the point your body will produce it on its own.
That's the point. You still need some sugar in your system to function.9 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »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.What is gained by this?
Is there a "Hey I'm addicted too?" trophy the rest of us aren't aware of?
I think her point was that being pedantic about sugar addiction isn't helpful, plus since there is behavioral addiction, why bother insisting that sugar is not physically addictive. Something doesn't need to be physically addictive to be a problem - for example, gambling.
What IS helpful is suggesting strategies for changing behavior.
1. Desire to change behavior leading to a better outcome.
2. Identify "bad" behavior.
3. Replace "bad" behavior with "good" behavior.
4. Establish benchmarks to ensure success.
5. Conduct effectiveness check.
Identifying the behavior as addictive is a pointless exercise.
Except that when a physical addiction is at play, number 3 doesn't just happen.
Precisely, which is why I would never legitimize sugar addiction. In all other forms of physical addiction there is a clear and objective lack of conscious/controlled thought.
Except the initial thought. And all those thoughts that occur before the individual becomes "physically" addicted, which does not happen overnight.
The decision to initially ingest something (through whatever route) that has the potential to be "physically" addictive is 100% voluntary. Funny how that's almost never mentioned in "debates" such as these.
I would agree with you that of course it is.
Not sure how that matters. I would never say that addiction means no responsibility for one's actions.3 -
janejellyroll wrote: »LiveLoveFitFab wrote: »Study after study has proven that sugar lights up the same part of the brain as drugs. The reward center.
The only reason you aren't killing to get it is because it's so easily available.
And isn't that also the same reward center that lights up when you pet a puppy?
And eat fat and pleasurable foods in general. So why is sugar singled out?3 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »LiveLoveFitFab wrote: »Study after study has proven that sugar lights up the same part of the brain as drugs. The reward center.
The only reason you aren't killing to get it is because it's so easily available.
Sugar hails a taxi. Drugs hijack the vehicle and take it on a wild joy ride before crashing it into a telephone pole.
It's not the "lighting up of the pleasure center in the brain" that causes addiction. It's the hijacking of that part of the brain so that it becomes dependent on more of the drug in order to function.
I don't know why you got woo'ed for this.
What you described is exactly how addiction works in the brain on the reward system.
There's more involved than just dopamine in addiction.
You can't be expected to use logic in a debate. Doing that will get you woo'd.
11 -
cmriverside wrote: »I don't see what the naysayers gain from invalidating the experiences of many people. If it doesn't affect you, why do you feel a need to just flat out shout down the ones for whom this is an issue?
If this is aimed at me, I'm not at all.
But what you don't seem willing to acknowledge is that not everyone who has issues with moderating foods, or sugary foods even, has the exact same experience as you. Many, as I pointed out before, have very different ones.
At this point I don't think we are debating the use of the term "addiction" but what it means/how to handle it, and I continue to maintain that you cannot give good advice on how to deal with it without knowing what the person means by it.
(And I certainly believe in addiction.)4 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »LiveLoveFitFab wrote: »Study after study has proven that sugar lights up the same part of the brain as drugs. The reward center.
The only reason you aren't killing to get it is because it's so easily available.
Sugar hails a taxi. Drugs hijack the vehicle and take it on a wild joy ride before crashing it into a telephone pole.
It's not the "lighting up of the pleasure center in the brain" that causes addiction. It's the hijacking of that part of the brain so that it becomes dependent on more of the drug in order to function.
I don't know why you got woo'ed for this.
What you described is exactly how addiction works in the brain on the reward system.
There's more involved than just dopamine in addiction.
You can't be expected to use logic in a debate. Doing that will get you woo'd.
I suspect that some people just don't know the science because all of the articles about this are just "But DOPAMINE!!!!" and stop there.3 -
cmriverside wrote: »I don't see what the naysayers gain from invalidating the experiences of many people. If it doesn't affect you, why do you feel a need to just flat out shout down the ones for whom this is an issue?
Probably most of you naysayers either have never been addicted or you don't believe in addiction in general (unless it ends in death or intervention) or you won't admit that your little love-affair with alcohol really and truly was (is) alcoholism. That would require a truth you don't want to face, I'm guessing. Or it is a spectrum, both in levels of need and in recovery: which is what I believe. Some go further down the rabbit hole before they stop digging. Some continue to dig themselves into a 600 pound life. Some get a handle on it earlier or with greater resolve.
In essence, addiction is a self-diagnosis unless and until it starts to affect the other people in the world. So all the overweight people who have developed this issue need help, right? Some of them will quit on their own, some will be able to moderate, some will need therapy/medication/12 Step/rehab/whatevers. Invalidating their need for any understanding, empathy and/or treatment isn't the answer - of that much I am certain. Yes, it's an inside job. Maybe you all could develop that side of you which is kinder and more understanding. It's not a weakness.
I spent my childhood being invalidated by a crazy mother. Ya'll don't scare me, but this is all very familiar. I recognize the dismissive tone of your approach, and it is not a compassionate response.
I just don't see how it's helpful to anyone to invalidate their experience, when it is a common problem.
Yep.
Who do you think is denying the existence of alcoholism or in denial about their own alcoholism? I'm genuinely curious here, as I saw nothing in the thread that would support that.3 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Would it be safe to say that people are addicted to the good feels that sugar has? (Is that dopamine?)
Could also be the taste.
If it were simply physical, I think fruit or refined starches would be the same, and people would be drawn to plain sugar over sugar plus fat. That it's sugar plus fat suggests that either fat brings a good feeling as well (which I think is true) and that taste is part of it.
Comfort food tends to also bring in memories/association/habit.
Definately, I think that is why some people prefer sweet and others savory. I guess the savory would be more fat than sugar.
The sweet is often as much or more fat than sugar/carbs too. I think part of this is the misnomer of calling a donut a "carb."4 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »LiveLoveFitFab wrote: »Study after study has proven that sugar lights up the same part of the brain as drugs. The reward center.
The only reason you aren't killing to get it is because it's so easily available.
And isn't that also the same reward center that lights up when you pet a puppy?
And eat fat and pleasurable foods in general. So why is sugar singled out?
It's trendy now to demonize it, and it's handy to call it an addiction rather than using other verbiage to frame the same problem (which no one denies people having, hence no one is being invalidated).
In fact, I don't see anyone's experience being invalidated. The discussion is regarding the words used to frame that experience.
That's something different.
I don't need to call myself an alcoholic to abstain from alcohol and explain that I have a problematic relationship with the stuff. I do have issues with it. I can drink socially if I choose to. I could manage it if I wanted to. It would be hard for me, so I don't. I respect the struggles of people who really are alcoholics too much to apply the term to myself and my issues, I don't need a word for my experience to implement strategies to deal with my issues.
I don't think it invalidates what I lived through not calling myself an alcholic. I had the experience, I lived it, I own it, and taking responsibility for all I did during that time manifests itself in how I deal with it all now.
The issue in this debate is focused on exactly this... the words used to describe someone's behavior shouldn't be so important. Why is it so important to think of yourself as an addict to those of you saying you're addicted? How is that essential to you owning your behavior and moving forward?
It doesn't invalidate your experience to use other words to frame that behavior. Not in the least.8 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »I don't see what the naysayers gain from invalidating the experiences of many people. If it doesn't affect you, why do you feel a need to just flat out shout down the ones for whom this is an issue?
Probably most of you naysayers either have never been addicted or you don't believe in addiction in general (unless it ends in death or intervention) or you won't admit that your little love-affair with alcohol really and truly was (is) alcoholism. That would require a truth you don't want to face, I'm guessing. Or it is a spectrum, both in levels of need and in recovery: which is what I believe. Some go further down the rabbit hole before they stop digging. Some continue to dig themselves into a 600 pound life. Some get a handle on it earlier or with greater resolve.
In essence, addiction is a self-diagnosis unless and until it starts to affect the other people in the world. So all the overweight people who have developed this issue need help, right? Some of them will quit on their own, some will be able to moderate, some will need therapy/medication/12 Step/rehab/whatevers. Invalidating their need for any understanding, empathy and/or treatment isn't the answer - of that much I am certain. Yes, it's an inside job. Maybe you all could develop that side of you which is kinder and more understanding. It's not a weakness.
I spent my childhood being invalidated by a crazy mother. Ya'll don't scare me, but this is all very familiar. I recognize the dismissive tone of your approach, and it is not a compassionate response.
I just don't see how it's helpful to anyone to invalidate their experience, when it is a common problem.
Yep.
Who do you think is denying the existence of alcoholism or in denial about their own alcoholism? I'm genuinely curious here, as I saw nothing in the thread that would support that.
Maybe she means me since I've disputed some of the things she's said on the topic? I would think it's obvious from my posting history that I absolutely believe in addiction, though.
Can't say I'm in denial about my alcoholism either, considering I've literally never had a single drop of alcohol in my entire life...so maybe not me? I haven't seen anyone on here saying anything that sounded like they were in denial of an addiction though so...?2
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions