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
-
divinehipster69 wrote: »I would say my former neighbor was addicted to it. Had type 2 diabetes and would always drink soda, eat junk food, and if someone brought her baked goods she would eat it all and not share with her husband. Anyone who eats sugar to the point their legs have open, seeping diabetic sores, then continues eating is an addict. Ew Dx
I don't see how overeating all of everything = sugar addiction. I'd call that far deeper psychological issues surrounding food consumption that are causing her to basically kill herself.1 -
Disclaimer: biology is not my field, but I do have someone who studies sensory reactions in the family and I know how to interpret a scientific paper. I have done research; I'm not pulling this out of nowhere - but I'm not an expert.
That said, addiction is a complicated subject. A human being can become addicted to anything. Calling a substance or behavior "addictive" is only saying that it's more likely to cause dependence than something more benign, and/or trying to break the addiction is more likely to have adverse physiological side effects than trying to break an addiction to a less addictive substance or behavior.
In other words, yes, you CAN be addicted to sugar. Even so, all hope is not lost - addictions CAN be broken. It's hard. Lots of people fail. Nearly no one succeeds the first time they try. But it can be done if you just keep getting back on the wagon.
But, where exactly does sugar fall in the scheme of things? Well, by what I've seen, I'm inclined to say that excessive sugar is somewhere in the middle of the addictiveness scale - more addictive than rock concerts, but less addictive than cigarettes, or gambling, or heavy drugs.
In other words, if you're addicted to sugar but willing to work to break it, your prognosis is a lot better than it is for trying to quit smoking, so keep at it.14 -
explodingmango wrote: »Disclaimer: biology is not my field, but I do have someone who studies sensory reactions in the family and I know how to interpret a scientific paper. I have done research; I'm not pulling this out of nowhere - but I'm not an expert.
That said, addiction is a complicated subject. A human being can become addicted to anything. Calling a substance or behavior "addictive" is only saying that it's more likely to cause dependence than something more benign, and/or trying to break the addiction is more likely to have adverse physiological side effects than trying to break an addiction to a less addictive substance or behavior.
In other words, yes, you CAN be addicted to sugar. Even so, all hope is not lost - addictions CAN be broken. It's hard. Lots of people fail. Nearly no one succeeds the first time they try. But it can be done if you just keep getting back on the wagon.
But, where exactly does sugar fall in the scheme of things? Well, by what I've seen, I'm inclined to say that excessive sugar is somewhere in the middle of the addictiveness scale - more addictive than rock concerts, but less addictive than cigarettes, or gambling, or heavy drugs.
In other words, if you're addicted to sugar but willing to work to break it, your prognosis is a lot better than it is for trying to quit smoking, so keep at it.
Based on anything I have read/studied no they can't. Once you are addicted you are always addicted....you just learn to cope and not go to the substance. Treatment is lifelong and the addiction is chronic and you can relapse at anytime given the right circumstances.
and dependence is another story..it is different than addiction so please don't use the two as the same.
dependence does not mean addicted. You can become dependent on drugs without being addicted to them but they are often seen together.
7 -
explodingmango wrote: »Disclaimer: biology is not my field, but I do have someone who studies sensory reactions in the family and I know how to interpret a scientific paper. I have done research; I'm not pulling this out of nowhere - but I'm not an expert.
That said, addiction is a complicated subject. A human being can become addicted to anything. Calling a substance or behavior "addictive" is only saying that it's more likely to cause dependence than something more benign, and/or trying to break the addiction is more likely to have adverse physiological side effects than trying to break an addiction to a less addictive substance or behavior.
In other words, yes, you CAN be addicted to sugar. Even so, all hope is not lost - addictions CAN be broken. It's hard. Lots of people fail. Nearly no one succeeds the first time they try. But it can be done if you just keep getting back on the wagon.
But, where exactly does sugar fall in the scheme of things? Well, by what I've seen, I'm inclined to say that excessive sugar is somewhere in the middle of the addictiveness scale - more addictive than rock concerts, but less addictive than cigarettes, or gambling, or heavy drugs.
In other words, if you're addicted to sugar but willing to work to break it, your prognosis is a lot better than it is for trying to quit smoking, so keep at it.
And which scientific paper are you interpreting to come to these conclusions?1 -
explodingmango wrote: »Disclaimer: biology is not my field, but I do have someone who studies sensory reactions in the family and I know how to interpret a scientific paper. I have done research; I'm not pulling this out of nowhere - but I'm not an expert.
That said, addiction is a complicated subject. A human being can become addicted to anything. Calling a substance or behavior "addictive" is only saying that it's more likely to cause dependence than something more benign, and/or trying to break the addiction is more likely to have adverse physiological side effects than trying to break an addiction to a less addictive substance or behavior.
In other words, yes, you CAN be addicted to sugar. Even so, all hope is not lost - addictions CAN be broken. It's hard. Lots of people fail. Nearly no one succeeds the first time they try. But it can be done if you just keep getting back on the wagon.
But, where exactly does sugar fall in the scheme of things? Well, by what I've seen, I'm inclined to say that excessive sugar is somewhere in the middle of the addictiveness scale - more addictive than rock concerts, but less addictive than cigarettes, or gambling, or heavy drugs.
In other words, if you're addicted to sugar but willing to work to break it, your prognosis is a lot better than it is for trying to quit smoking, so keep at it.
Based on anything I have read/studied no they can't. Once you are addicted you are always addicted....you just learn to cope and not go to the substance. Treatment is lifelong and the addiction is chronic and you can relapse at anytime given the right circumstances.
and dependence is another story..it is different than addiction so please don't use the two as the same.
dependence does not mean addicted. You can become dependent on drugs without being addicted to them but they are often seen together.
Agreed.
For instance, I'm dependent on caffeine. I've had it consistently enough for a long enough period of time that if I go without it I get a nice headache.
However, I'm not addicted to it.
I never get cravings for it and oftentimes on the weekend I don't even know why my head hurts until I stop to think about it and realize I didn't have my coffee that day. I can beat the headache with ibuprofen and roll right on without the caffeine.
Give it a few days of abstinence and the dependence is gone. No more headaches.
Addicted? Nope. Totally fine to go without it. I can watch someone else drink coffee or mt dew and be totally content with a water.4 -
Very enlightening thread. Some great thoughts shared.
The word addiction seems to be contested. I’ve used it myself to identify a pack a day of smokes for 20 years. I’ve even used it to describe my “need” for caffeine. Both were habitual behaviors, both seemed to drive physical cravings.
I’ve now heard addictions associated with social media use, gaming, internet porn, and gambling. All habitual behaviors, and I can see them become obsessions, possibly even compulsions? All seem to trigger brain chemical releases I suppose like dopamine, stimulate certain brain cells, and whatever else. But are those neurological responses enough to satisfy these behaviors being defined as addictions? I don’t know.
I have battled behavioral overeating and obesity all my life. I’ve lost 100 pounds twice. I’ve been put off work and treated for bulimia. And I’ve been in and out of counseling for disordered eating. Diabetes is prevelant in my family, my Mom has denied to admit she has disordered eating, but has been in treatment for OCD. It has been suggested to me that eating disorders seem to have some connection to family history of eating disorders, OCD, abuse (not in my case though), and some athletic pursuits. So maybe there is an element that I might be psychologically prone to certain eating behaviors. Still I’m not convinced I am addicted.
I will though share what I have experienced; when I eat foods such as - granola bars, pop tarts, cookies, ice cream, most packaged breakfast cereals, (foods described by some as hyper palatable) I struggle to stop at 1 or 2 servings. I’ve eaten a couple pounds of M&M’s in just 2 hours. If I resist, I began to have extreme anxiety like symptoms. I have many, many, many times ate these foods until the entire supply is gone. I have had binges that easily exceed 5000 calories. I just can’t stop. I’ve stolensweets out of coworkers desks. I’ve driven to multiple gas stations in a very short span to purchase a Binge supply of candy bars and other sweets. I’ve thrown a tantrum when my wonderful wife has tried to help me in mid-Binge to stop it. I won’t stop until I am physically so sick I throw up and oftentimes sleep for 24 hours Post Binge. The sheets will be soaked through from me sweating as if I broke a fever.
Ok I’ve shared all I can for now. Again, I don’t like using the term addiction, but what I have experienced has been pathetic, not normal, and yes, I’ve dug in my trash to pull sweets out. It’s not an addiction, but it’s obviously something humiliating and not healthy.
8 -
This content has been removed.
-
KeepRunningFatboy wrote: »Very enlightening thread. Some great thoughts shared.
The word addiction seems to be contested. I’ve used it myself to identify a pack a day of smokes for 20 years. I’ve even used it to describe my “need” for caffeine. Both were habitual behaviors, both seemed to drive physical cravings.
I'd call these physical dependencies (they unquestionably are, re cigarettes, and can be, re caffeine) that are sometimes tied to an addiction. They need not be -- some drugs create dependencies even when they are helping, not harming you, and thus you have to wean off them. I've quit caffeine cold turkey and gotten the headache, tired reaction, which I think means I had a bit of a dependency, but it wasn't serious. I don't think I'm addicted to caffeine (using the term as I understand it would encompass it having a negative effect on your life, bad effects, so on).I have battled behavioral overeating and obesity all my life. I’ve lost 100 pounds twice. I’ve been put off work and treated for bulimia. And I’ve been in and out of counseling for disordered eating. Diabetes is prevelant in my family, my Mom has denied to admit she has disordered eating, but has been in treatment for OCD. It has been suggested to me that eating disorders seem to have some connection to family history of eating disorders, OCD, abuse (not in my case though), and some athletic pursuits. So maybe there is an element that I might be psychologically prone to certain eating behaviors. Still I’m not convinced I am addicted.
I think there are links between eating disorders and various eating behaviors and addiction, although I am not personally comfortable saying that are the same thing (or normally the same thing). But I don't really think it matters. I know that SOME of how I use food when emotional eating/stress eating is similar to how I used to use alcohol, but it is also different in various ways (it doesn't affect my brain in the same way -- I can numb myself with food, but I don't get "under the influence," and I can generally overeat, even to the point of being extremely overweight (I lost 60 lbs once and 95 the second time) without it being the same kind of "let everything else in my life go and don't care about anything" that alcohol was). But it was also to some extent a replacement activity and self medicating for depression, I think (and the latter I know has been something my mother, who has been gaining and losing weight all her life, has done).
Anyway, I have gone back and forth on how I think about the term addiction for eating behaviors/food. Originally I thought "why not." Then, I got bothered by the fact that the discussion seemed to focus on specific components (sugar) that seemed inaccurate or at least not addressing the whole issue, and to assume it was all about a physical issue, which I think it is not. Increasingly I think eating addiction can be a thing, although how it manifests is different in different people (what foods trigger it if there are specific ones, so on), and I think mostly people who struggle with food don't have full-scale addictions but perhaps are somewhere on the spectrum.
I am inclined to say that whether the term is used or not likely does not matter, so long as you don't use it to ignore the specifics or assume there's a one-size fits all.
For me, it was really helpful to acknowledge some ways in which what I do with food, sometimes, is similar to how I used alcohol to numb, but not jump to "must be abstinent." It was UNHELPFUL when I assumed it was about finding a specific way to eat that would automatically fix everything (which really has nothing to do with the term "addiction" in my mind) but seems to be the way some diets are sold (by diet gurus, not saying anything bad about various ways of eating). It was helpful to recognize WHY I was diving into food or wanting so badly to eat or unable to control myself around some foods once I started.
I find it easier to focus on eating healthfully and whole foods and not to eat a lot of so-called hyperpalatable things when in a period where I'm struggling with misusing food, but I can see how some can end up intensifying the problem if they focus on eating restrictively and beating themselves up if they don't. For me it helps with my head to focus on enjoying eating whole, nutrient-dense foods and very consciously choose and look forward to them, rather than focusing on NOT eating certain other things (although I don't). Although I see the addiction analogy, I worry that use of the term addiction makes the power all in the food and the focus on NOT doing things rather than doing positive things. (Admittedly, I think some of this is personality differences and different things work for different people.)
Just some Saturday musing! ;-)2 -
.2
-
I think it is unproductive to blame an external thing, like soda or hard candy, for obsessive behaviour. I was T2 for years, cut added sugars from my diet, kept it in control for decades, but did not find relief until surgery. My health benefitted from good education and a calm acceptance that I would have to monitor my intake.2
-
I think abstinence disorders like anorexia are a sickness. Is there a food that causes it? I don’t think so. The food is an external proxy for what is really going on.2
-
Great insight above. There are recognized behavioral and medical conditions and treatments. I personally feel that we are still in the dark ages when it comes to neuroscience. This is far more complex a matter then simply blaming sugar and labeling it an addiction or even calling it a habit. There are a combination of factors and differing degrees in which people are triggered and affected and even how it manifests itself. Hyper-palatability, nueroscience, DNA,, cravings, and God knows what else all seem to work together against some people. It’s a real struggle for many, sometimes even life threatening, but I just don’t think it can be classified as an addiction.0
-
YepItsKriss wrote: »Sugar addicts seem to be all over the place with their claims. you never hear of them eating sugar from the bag or buying bags of sugar in bulk at the grocery store.
The answer is yes. I have eaten white sugar, brown sugar, and powdered sugar straight from the bag during binges. I have even tore open small packets of sugar, and the small packets of sugar substitutes while in motel rooms. And yes to tearing open energy gels to consume sugar even when not running. Again, addiction - I dont think so. Pathetic and humiliating - yes. Some mental health / eating disorder - Absolutely.
2 -
Bingeing is interesting, because it seems then the compulsion to eat isn't really tied to what is tasty or specific foods, for at least a lot of people (although bingeing behavior does seem to vary). Is that true for you?
It also seems like some people do find straight sugar tasty and many of us don't. I don't actually think that has much to do with how addictive it is. (I don't think not finding straight sugar tasty has much to do with whether one can have disordered and addictive-like reactions to eating or food, although I'd say it shows that sugar itself is not really the driver, although for some it may be part of the foods most commonly gravitated to -- not surprising if they are perceived as tasty.)2 -
Yep. Like going to a movie you're excited about without seeing it yet. Or a rollercoaster you're waiting in line for. Or a date with someone you've always wanted to date. Or buying baby stuff before even using it.An interesting opinion piece published recently called "The Pursuit of Pleasure is a Modern Day Addiction"
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/09/pursuit-of-pleasure-modern-day-addiction
In this piece, the author argues that it's the dopamine our brains release when we do something pleasurable which is the true addiction. So if we drink alcohol, smoke, eat sugar, look at porn, get friended on FB, we get a release of dopamine...which causes us to want more dopamine so we repeat the activity that gives us that feel good feeling. He talks about how serotonin is the feel good but satisfied feeling and how modern day stress reduce serotonin levels such that we are seeking more dopamine. He basically points to the increasing rates of depression ( linked to low serotonin...caused by stress in his opinion) as a symptom of this increased need for dopamine.
The problem with this hypothesis is that dopamine is now considered the anticipation hormone. In studies it has been shown to release before the desired reward is given.
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
2 -
And same studies could be applied to petting puppies and holding babies.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.
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
5 -
This content has been removed.
-
Why don't some people allow that although they are not addicted to sugar some people are?
Addiction can occur with almost any substance or activity. If you have an overridding urge to do/ingest something & are unable to control that urge you have an addiction.
Addiction is a personal and horrible matter & just because a substance us legal or redily available does not mitigate the emotional impact of doing/ingesting something that you know is causing you harm.
How can you tell someone that they do not have a 'proper' addiction when they are doing something to excess that is adversly accecting them.
12 -
purplebobkat wrote: »Why don't some people allow that although they are not addicted to sugar some people are?
Addiction can occur with almost any substance or activity. If you have an overridding urge to do/ingest something & are unable to control that urge you have an addiction.
Addiction is a personal and horrible matter & just because a substance us legal or redily available does not mitigate the emotional impact of doing/ingesting something that you know is causing you harm.
How can you tell someone that they do not have a 'proper' addiction when they are doing something to excess that is adversly accecting them.
Because there is a difference between an emotional/psychological addiction, and a physical/chemical addiction.
Comparing sugar to cocaine/heroin is silly. Comparing it to Gambling/gaming/sex addiction is reasonable. And from listening to some of the folks here who have dealt with ED, and binging, it's appears to be very generic vs specific to a particular substance.8 -
stanmann571 wrote: »purplebobkat wrote: »Why don't some people allow that although they are not addicted to sugar some people are?
Addiction can occur with almost any substance or activity. If you have an overridding urge to do/ingest something & are unable to control that urge you have an addiction.
Addiction is a personal and horrible matter & just because a substance us legal or redily available does not mitigate the emotional impact of doing/ingesting something that you know is causing you harm.
How can you tell someone that they do not have a 'proper' addiction when they are doing something to excess that is adversly accecting them.
Because there is a difference between an emotional/psychological addiction, and a physical/chemical addiction.
Comparing sugar to cocaine/heroin is silly. Comparing it to Gambling/gaming/sex addiction is reasonable. And from listening to some of the folks here who have dealt with ED, and binging, it's appears to be very generic vs specific to a particular substance.
Correct. The real issue would be more accurately described as eating addiction, as the culprit foods in such cases are not limited to sugar.
To single it out as a sugar addiction would be akin to claiming a blackjack addiction when the real issue is gambling as a whole.8 -
purplebobkat wrote: »Why don't some people allow that although they are not addicted to sugar some people are?
Addiction can occur with almost any substance or activity. If you have an overridding urge to do/ingest something & are unable to control that urge you have an addiction.
Addiction is a personal and horrible matter & just because a substance us legal or redily available does not mitigate the emotional impact of doing/ingesting something that you know is causing you harm.
How can you tell someone that they do not have a 'proper' addiction when they are doing something to excess that is adversly accecting them.
If you read through the thread you should see the answer to the question.
I think there are such things as "eating addictions" or even some form of addiction based on hyperpalatable foods. And I think some EDs are analogous to addiction in some ways (BED).
What I don't see any evidence for is "sugar addiction." People who claim that normally have specific trigger foods (not all foods with sugar in them) and they typically (not always, but in most cases I've seen discussed on MFP) are a mix of ingredients, usually including fat as well as sugar (and often including foods that lack sugar, although sure some just have a huge sweet tooth).
The same people generally do not have a problem with many other foods with sugar in them, like fruit, veg, dairy, or other foods that are identical to sugar to your body (those containing starch). Studies about human reaction to foods do NOT show a specific reaction to sugar, but a reaction to sugar and fat, as well as all hyperpalatable foods (generally foods containing a mix of ingredients, often carbs + fat + salt). For example, plain potato (starch that quickly becomes glucose in the body) tends not to provoke a reaction (and is generally extremely satiating), whereas fries (carbs plus fat plus salt) may. Pizza tends to score highest on "addictiveness" -- not surprising given the mix of ingredients (cheese, carbs plus fat, other tasty things), and yet not a "sugary" food.
That's my problem with those who claim "sugar addiction" as something that is the same as "heroin addiction" or "cocaine addiction" -- a physical thing and one related specifically to the substance sugar. (And as pointed out, most people would not consume sugar straight, although some find it tasty and might. It's clearly about taste, though, not the "high.")
Now, can it be a behavioral thing? Like I said above, I think issues with eating can be, sure, but then don't say it's exactly the same as heroin addiction. Also, it's still not specifically sugar (although for some again their trigger foods/what they find tasty may be heavily weighted toward the sweet).
One of my issues too is that people really dumb down (weaken?) what they mean by adverse consequences here. Part of human nature is that we often have trouble with short term vs. long term pleasures and benefits. Short term pleasures and longer term negatives get preferred very commonly to short term inconveniences or work for long term pleasures. One does not need an addiction model to explain that, and if you are talking about why people eat cake when they are trying to diet and end up consuming too many calories, that explains it very well. There's no reason to assume "cake addiction."
The kind of negative consequences for drug use are generally far, far greater, when we are talking about addiction.4 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »purplebobkat wrote: »Why don't some people allow that although they are not addicted to sugar some people are?
Addiction can occur with almost any substance or activity. If you have an overridding urge to do/ingest something & are unable to control that urge you have an addiction.
Addiction is a personal and horrible matter & just because a substance us legal or redily available does not mitigate the emotional impact of doing/ingesting something that you know is causing you harm.
How can you tell someone that they do not have a 'proper' addiction when they are doing something to excess that is adversly accecting them.
If you read through the thread you should see the answer to the question.
I think there are such things as "eating addictions" or even some form of addiction based on hyperpalatable foods. And I think some EDs are analogous to addiction in some ways (BED).
What I don't see any evidence for is "sugar addiction." People who claim that normally have specific trigger foods (not all foods with sugar in them) and they typically (not always, but in most cases I've seen discussed on MFP) are a mix of ingredients, usually including fat as well as sugar (and often including foods that lack sugar, although sure some just have a huge sweet tooth).
The same people generally do not have a problem with many other foods with sugar in them, like fruit, veg, dairy, or other foods that are identical to sugar to your body (those containing starch). Studies about human reaction to foods do NOT show a specific reaction to sugar, but a reaction to sugar and fat, as well as all hyperpalatable foods (generally foods containing a mix of ingredients, often carbs + fat + salt). For example, plain potato (starch that quickly becomes glucose in the body) tends not to provoke a reaction (and is generally extremely satiating), whereas fries (carbs plus fat plus salt) may. Pizza tends to score highest on "addictiveness" -- not surprising given the mix of ingredients (cheese, carbs plus fat, other tasty things), and yet not a "sugary" food.
That's my problem with those who claim "sugar addiction" as something that is the same as "heroin addiction" or "cocaine addiction" -- a physical thing and one related specifically to the substance sugar. (And as pointed out, most people would not consume sugar straight, although some find it tasty and might. It's clearly about taste, though, not the "high.")
Now, can it be a behavioral thing? Like I said above, I think issues with eating can be, sure, but then don't say it's exactly the same as heroin addiction. Also, it's still not specifically sugar (although for some again their trigger foods/what they find tasty may be heavily weighted toward the sweet).
One of my issues too is that people really dumb down (weaken?) what they mean by adverse consequences here. Part of human nature is that we often have trouble with short term vs. long term pleasures and benefits. Short term pleasures and longer term negatives get preferred very commonly to short term inconveniences or work for long term pleasures. One does not need an addiction model to explain that, and if you are talking about why people eat cake when they are trying to diet and end up consuming too many calories, that explains it very well. There's no reason to assume "cake addiction."
The kind of negative consequences for drug use are generally far, far greater, when we are talking about addiction.
5 -
According to tje American Society of Addiction Medicine, addiction foes nit necessarily need to involve a physical reaction, or physical withdrawal symptoms. It is a screwed up reward system in your brain, and is primarily characterized by a behavior not by pjysical symptoms or inability to be satiated.
https://www.asam.org/resources/definition-of-addiction
"Public Policy Statement: Definition of Addiction
Short Definition of Addiction:
Addiction is a primary, chronic disease of brain reward, motivation, memory and related circuitry. Dysfunction in these circuits leads to characteristic biological, psychological, social and spiritual manifestations. This is reflected in an individual pathologically pursuing reward and/or relief by substance use and other behaviors.
Addiction is characterized by inability to consistently abstain, impairment in behavioral control, craving, diminished recognition of significant problems with one’s behaviors and interpersonal relationships, and a dysfunctional emotional response. Like other chronic diseases, addiction often involves cycles of relapse and remission. Without treatment or engagement in recovery activities, addiction is progressive and can result in disability or premature death."
Just because there is not a physical or chemical component does not mean there is not an addiction. Sugary substances provide a quick a positive boost to your brain's reward system, and over time, people with an addictive personality are going to crave that physical and emotional boost. That includes social media, video games, greasy salty foods, sex, drugs, ANYTHING that leads to an excessive desire to indulge in, to the point of negatively impacting your lifestyle.Once that craving overcomes good sense and becomes very difficult to ignore, to the point of negatively impacting your lifestyle and health, it IS an addiction.
For me specifically, it is sweets rather than overeating that I have the most trouble with. I mentioned earlier (WAY earlier) that I had serious issus with sugar specifically that led me to not only ignore the impact on my health, (short and long term), but failed shool projects and ruined other peoples projects that involved sugar cubes, frosting or whatever because of the difficulty overcoming that reward effect.
Fortunately, since sugar does not cause serious withdrawal issues, it is easier to overcome and fight it, but that does not mwan the addiction is not there.
6 -
According to tje American Society of Addiction Medicine, addiction foes nit necessarily need to involve a physical reaction, or physical withdrawal symptoms. It is a screwed up reward system in your brain, and is primarily characterized by a behavior not by pjysical symptoms or inability to be satiated.
https://www.asam.org/resources/definition-of-addiction
"Public Policy Statement: Definition of Addiction
Short Definition of Addiction:
Addiction is a primary, chronic disease of brain reward, motivation, memory and related circuitry. Dysfunction in these circuits leads to characteristic biological, psychological, social and spiritual manifestations. This is reflected in an individual pathologically pursuing reward and/or relief by substance use and other behaviors.
Addiction is characterized by inability to consistently abstain, impairment in behavioral control, craving, diminished recognition of significant problems with one’s behaviors and interpersonal relationships, and a dysfunctional emotional response. Like other chronic diseases, addiction often involves cycles of relapse and remission. Without treatment or engagement in recovery activities, addiction is progressive and can result in disability or premature death."
Just because there is not a physical or chemical component does not mean there is not an addiction. Sugary substances provide a quick a positive boost to your brain's reward system, and over time, people with an addictive personality are going to crave that physical and emotional boost. That includes social media, video games, greasy salty foods, sex, drugs, ANYTHING that leads to an excessive desire to indulge in, to the point of negatively impacting your lifestyle.Once that craving overcomes good sense and becomes very difficult to ignore, to the point of negatively impacting your lifestyle and health, it IS an addiction.
Except that, as has been repeatedly pointed out.
A twinkie or Ho-Ho or ding dong or pizza isn't "sugar" or "a Sugary substance"
Thus, even if it is an addiction, it's not a sugar addiction. For example, given the opportunity, I would suggest that Swedish meatballs(despite being heavy on protein) are just as susceptible to binge craving as pizza. Because they meet the profile of hyper palatable foods. Baked potatoes, unless stuffed with bacon, sour cream, cheese and butter. simply aren't. Even though they produce a much faster and more potent insulin response.
TLDR: You didn't read the thread.7 -
stanmann571 wrote: »According to tje American Society of Addiction Medicine, addiction foes nit necessarily need to involve a physical reaction, or physical withdrawal symptoms. It is a screwed up reward system in your brain, and is primarily characterized by a behavior not by pjysical symptoms or inability to be satiated.
https://www.asam.org/resources/definition-of-addiction
"Public Policy Statement: Definition of Addiction
Short Definition of Addiction:
Addiction is a primary, chronic disease of brain reward, motivation, memory and related circuitry. Dysfunction in these circuits leads to characteristic biological, psychological, social and spiritual manifestations. This is reflected in an individual pathologically pursuing reward and/or relief by substance use and other behaviors.
Addiction is characterized by inability to consistently abstain, impairment in behavioral control, craving, diminished recognition of significant problems with one’s behaviors and interpersonal relationships, and a dysfunctional emotional response. Like other chronic diseases, addiction often involves cycles of relapse and remission. Without treatment or engagement in recovery activities, addiction is progressive and can result in disability or premature death."
Just because there is not a physical or chemical component does not mean there is not an addiction. Sugary substances provide a quick a positive boost to your brain's reward system, and over time, people with an addictive personality are going to crave that physical and emotional boost. That includes social media, video games, greasy salty foods, sex, drugs, ANYTHING that leads to an excessive desire to indulge in, to the point of negatively impacting your lifestyle.Once that craving overcomes good sense and becomes very difficult to ignore, to the point of negatively impacting your lifestyle and health, it IS an addiction.
Except that, as has been repeatedly pointed out.
A twinkie or Ho-Ho or ding dong or pizza isn't "sugar" or "a Sugary substance"
Thus, even if it is an addiction, it's not a sugar addiction. For example, given the opportunity, I would suggest that Swedish meatballs(despite being heavy on protein) are just as susceptible to binge craving as pizza. Because they meet the profile of hyper palatable foods. Baked potatoes, unless stuffed with bacon, sour cream, cheese and butter. simply aren't. Even though they produce a much faster and more potent insulin response.
TLDR: You didn't read the thread.
Yes, this.
I don't think there's any support for the concept of an "addictive personality," either, but I suppose that's a separate issue. If the idea is that one finds food pleasurable (the brain reaction) there is nothing specific about sugar.
Might a particular person be most focused on sugary foods (usually also with other ingredients, and specific sugary foods?)? Sure. I think that's often habit or a history of seeing them as forbidden fruit, but also it can be taste specific (I personally will never overeat M&Ms, but peanut M&Ms? I will, under the right conditions). But that's not what people are saying when they insist it's a "sugar" addiction or "exactly like" cocaine (which is absurd).
If the issue is sugar, and cravings for sugar, the answer seems easy. Eat fruit. Sugary, low enough cal that most will still not end up overeating (especially if you are logging), and pretty good for you. People generally don't find this satisfactory, because they aren't really craving "sugar," but specific foods (which may contain sugar, and some which likely do not).
It's like when people say "what do you do for a carb craving." IMO, eat a carrot. If the craving is just for carbs, carrots have carbs.3 -
Highly patatable and sugar are definitely two different categories, but if the cravings are specifically towards high sugar items, rather than greasy, salty, or just tasty, than the addiction is the sugar. I can easily eat myself sick with pixie sticks and sugar cubes, but though I absolutely love pizza, I'm not going to go out of my way to pigout on it, especially if I don't feel great.
Someone else may be addicted to the highly palatable, or high carb, or spicy or salty items. Just like someone can be addicted to heroin AND cocaine, but not necessarily Vicodine or alchohol. Another might be addicted to more than one category. In my case, it is the sugar.6 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »According to tje American Society of Addiction Medicine, addiction foes nit necessarily need to involve a physical reaction, or physical withdrawal symptoms. It is a screwed up reward system in your brain, and is primarily characterized by a behavior not by pjysical symptoms or inability to be satiated.
https://www.asam.org/resources/definition-of-addiction
"Public Policy Statement: Definition of Addiction
Short Definition of Addiction:
Addiction is a primary, chronic disease of brain reward, motivation, memory and related circuitry. Dysfunction in these circuits leads to characteristic biological, psychological, social and spiritual manifestations. This is reflected in an individual pathologically pursuing reward and/or relief by substance use and other behaviors.
Addiction is characterized by inability to consistently abstain, impairment in behavioral control, craving, diminished recognition of significant problems with one’s behaviors and interpersonal relationships, and a dysfunctional emotional response. Like other chronic diseases, addiction often involves cycles of relapse and remission. Without treatment or engagement in recovery activities, addiction is progressive and can result in disability or premature death."
Just because there is not a physical or chemical component does not mean there is not an addiction. Sugary substances provide a quick a positive boost to your brain's reward system, and over time, people with an addictive personality are going to crave that physical and emotional boost. That includes social media, video games, greasy salty foods, sex, drugs, ANYTHING that leads to an excessive desire to indulge in, to the point of negatively impacting your lifestyle.Once that craving overcomes good sense and becomes very difficult to ignore, to the point of negatively impacting your lifestyle and health, it IS an addiction.
Except that, as has been repeatedly pointed out.
A twinkie or Ho-Ho or ding dong or pizza isn't "sugar" or "a Sugary substance"
Thus, even if it is an addiction, it's not a sugar addiction. For example, given the opportunity, I would suggest that Swedish meatballs(despite being heavy on protein) are just as susceptible to binge craving as pizza. Because they meet the profile of hyper palatable foods. Baked potatoes, unless stuffed with bacon, sour cream, cheese and butter. simply aren't. Even though they produce a much faster and more potent insulin response.
TLDR: You didn't read the thread.
Yes, this.
I don't think there's any support for the concept of an "addictive personality," either, but I suppose that's a separate issue. If the idea is that one finds food pleasurable (the brain reaction) there is nothing specific about sugar.
Might a particular person be most focused on sugary foods (usually also with other ingredients, and specific sugary foods?)? Sure. I think that's often habit or a history of seeing them as forbidden fruit, but also it can be taste specific (I personally will never overeat M&Ms, but peanut M&Ms? I will, under the right conditions). But that's not what people are saying when they insist it's a "sugar" addiction or "exactly like" cocaine (which is absurd).
If the issue is sugar, and cravings for sugar, the answer seems easy. Eat fruit. Sugary, low enough cal that most will still not end up overeating (especially if you are logging), and pretty good for you. People generally don't find this satisfactory, because they aren't really craving "sugar," but specific foods (which may contain sugar, and some which likely do not).
It's like when people say "what do you do for a carb craving." IMO, eat a carrot. If the craving is just for carbs, carrots have carbs.
I don't deal with binge/ED, I do deal with craving. and if I'm craving "junk" snowballs, Honey buns, etc will absolutely meet my craving and just one is quite enough. A bowl or bag of strawberries just won't.2 -
stanmann571 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »According to tje American Society of Addiction Medicine, addiction foes nit necessarily need to involve a physical reaction, or physical withdrawal symptoms. It is a screwed up reward system in your brain, and is primarily characterized by a behavior not by pjysical symptoms or inability to be satiated.
https://www.asam.org/resources/definition-of-addiction
"Public Policy Statement: Definition of Addiction
Short Definition of Addiction:
Addiction is a primary, chronic disease of brain reward, motivation, memory and related circuitry. Dysfunction in these circuits leads to characteristic biological, psychological, social and spiritual manifestations. This is reflected in an individual pathologically pursuing reward and/or relief by substance use and other behaviors.
Addiction is characterized by inability to consistently abstain, impairment in behavioral control, craving, diminished recognition of significant problems with one’s behaviors and interpersonal relationships, and a dysfunctional emotional response. Like other chronic diseases, addiction often involves cycles of relapse and remission. Without treatment or engagement in recovery activities, addiction is progressive and can result in disability or premature death."
Just because there is not a physical or chemical component does not mean there is not an addiction. Sugary substances provide a quick a positive boost to your brain's reward system, and over time, people with an addictive personality are going to crave that physical and emotional boost. That includes social media, video games, greasy salty foods, sex, drugs, ANYTHING that leads to an excessive desire to indulge in, to the point of negatively impacting your lifestyle.Once that craving overcomes good sense and becomes very difficult to ignore, to the point of negatively impacting your lifestyle and health, it IS an addiction.
Except that, as has been repeatedly pointed out.
A twinkie or Ho-Ho or ding dong or pizza isn't "sugar" or "a Sugary substance"
Thus, even if it is an addiction, it's not a sugar addiction. For example, given the opportunity, I would suggest that Swedish meatballs(despite being heavy on protein) are just as susceptible to binge craving as pizza. Because they meet the profile of hyper palatable foods. Baked potatoes, unless stuffed with bacon, sour cream, cheese and butter. simply aren't. Even though they produce a much faster and more potent insulin response.
TLDR: You didn't read the thread.
Yes, this.
I don't think there's any support for the concept of an "addictive personality," either, but I suppose that's a separate issue. If the idea is that one finds food pleasurable (the brain reaction) there is nothing specific about sugar.
Might a particular person be most focused on sugary foods (usually also with other ingredients, and specific sugary foods?)? Sure. I think that's often habit or a history of seeing them as forbidden fruit, but also it can be taste specific (I personally will never overeat M&Ms, but peanut M&Ms? I will, under the right conditions). But that's not what people are saying when they insist it's a "sugar" addiction or "exactly like" cocaine (which is absurd).
If the issue is sugar, and cravings for sugar, the answer seems easy. Eat fruit. Sugary, low enough cal that most will still not end up overeating (especially if you are logging), and pretty good for you. People generally don't find this satisfactory, because they aren't really craving "sugar," but specific foods (which may contain sugar, and some which likely do not).
It's like when people say "what do you do for a carb craving." IMO, eat a carrot. If the craving is just for carbs, carrots have carbs.
I don't deal with binge/ED, I do deal with craving. and if I'm craving "junk" snowballs, Honey buns, etc will absolutely meet my craving and just one is quite enough. A bowl or bag of strawberries just won't.
I think that's probably much more common than not. My point is then it's not a sugar craving in reality, it's more specific.
I don't really like any foods that are just sugar, no fat. Don't necessarily dislike them, but I am never going to crave them or overeat them. That's not because I am not addicted and someone else is, it's a matter of taste. I adore this dark chocolate by Chocolove that is 88% and quite low in sugar per serving, and I have craved that, and if I added it to nuts (nuts + chocolate is a weakness of mine), then watch out.
I've also craved swedish meatballs (good thought!), rack of lamb, and cheese (good cheese, some string cheese would not have sufficed). Also really good tomato soup. Some of those foods have sugar, all have some fat (at least as I make tomato soup), yet craving them is not a "sugar" craving that I could sub some other sugar for or even a fat craving, it's specific.
What I'm saying is that if someone really, really just wanted sugar, eat fruit. (Probably you want something more specific, though.)5 -
Never mind.3
-
I used to eat cane sugar by the tablespoon. In my 20s, sugar sandwiches were a mainstay of my diet. Every tea and every coffee I drank had at least 4 heaped teaspoons in them, so much that there'd be a syrup at the bottom of the cup that I'd then spoon out and eat (or stick my fingers in and suck them clean). But then, I'm a recovered addict from alcohol, cocaine and amphetamine that's managed to keep a lid on his addictions for 21 years and all I can say is, hardly any of you know Jack Schitt about addiction.10
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