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.
Why Is Food "Addiction" So Controversial?
Replies
-
Her point was pretty obvious.There is no dependence on chocolate (dependence is defined by withdrawal symptoms). There's a well recognized dependence on cigarettes. Cigarettes are also addictive, but many other things that lead to dependence are rarely addictive. Thus, if you say you believe in dependence but not other forms of addiction, it's contrary to that claim to assert that chocolate is more "addictive" (as it is unquestionably not a source of dependence) than cigs.
I would not dispute that you might have more difficultly kicking chocolate or controlling yourself with chocolate (of course, chocolate also does not inherently have the negative health effects of smoking) than cigs, but that wouldn't have a thing to do with dependence, as people do not suffer withdrawal when they stop eating chocolate.
Hahah, tell my husband that!
(I'm just joking, but he does get pretty grouchy on days when he doesn't have his chocolate).5 -
Many people seem to confuse physical dependance with habits...3
-
I don’t think science 100% has this all figured out but I love reading theories and seeing what various experts and lay people believe.
I read something once that speculated people who overeat are getting less enjoyment from their food in comparison to normal weight people. They made it sound like overweight people are chasing the dragon. 🐲3 -
janejellyroll wrote: »L1zardQueen wrote: »Lots of people rob grocery stores to get their cheese fix.
That can be easily proven (it was also proven through MRI). Take a person who eats a lot of cheese and keep them 1 month without dairy, yet living cheese in their refrigerator.
Yeah, pleasure centers in the brain light up on fMRI when contemplating tasty food, in receptive individuals. Also for things like petting cute kittens. Definitive: Petting kittens is addictive.
I eat cheese daily. Pretty sure I could go a month with some in the fridge, but not eat it. Maybe not if it was a fully ripe well-made brie, or Cypress Grove Humboldt Fog, but y'know, just general cheese, sure, no problem. No dairy at all for a month? Hard for me to get enough protein given current habits, but as long as I get to eat anything else I want, probably could. Cheese in the fridge wouldn't make it harder, except the ones I mentioned. (<= this paragraph is just joking around.)
What's being ignored here is that when people have sufficient motivation, they quit cheese ALL the time. Vegans exist and we managed to do it without checking ourselves into rehab centers. I also know some people who have stopped eating cheese due to various allergy/intolerance issues, they also all managed to do it by deciding "No more cheese for me."
That most people eat cheese is not evidence that it's the equivalent of Oxycontin, it's just an indicator that for most people it's a tasty, easily obtained, affordable, and satisfying food that they have no real reason to give up.
Far more people spontaneously quit drinking than do so via the help of AA. They also managed to do it by deciding "No more alcohol for me."6 -
I went through a period of my life where I was using a certain highly addictive class A drug, whenever I read threads like this I always think anyone who believes food of any kind is as addictive as class A drugs has never used class A drugs. I’ve known many drug addicts and let me tell you none of them are choosing sugar or cheese over their drug of choice. I enjoy high calorie foods, and sometimes get cravings for them but they seriously not in the same league whatsoever as class A drugs. The cravings you get for drugs are about 1000x worse.
I also grew up in a home where my sibling was obese and had issues with overeating when he was stressed and anxious and can definitely see there was some psychological issues going on with food, even now he’s lost the weight but still struggles with using food as a coping mechanism. But still even watching that drug addiction is NOT in the same league. I actually find it kind of insulting to say that food and drug addiction are the same because people do not understand the will power it takes to get and stay clean. You really can’t understand until you’ve done it. Never do class A drugs it stays with you for life19 -
My personal opinion on food addiction has been stated multiple times already (no addictive foods, overeating could, in some cases, be likened to a process addiction) so I'll leave that dead horse alone, but about the "no one robs convenience stores for donuts" comment... it's a funny witticism, but that's all it is.
I mean, it's true, but then again I'll take a wild guess that most of us don't live in societies where food is scarce. Back when food was scarce, the general attitude was a bit different. Ever wonder why gluttony was one of the seven deadly sins (and there were similar taboos in most pre-modern cultures)?7 -
My personal opinion on food addiction has been stated multiple times already (no addictive foods, overeating could, in some cases, be likened to a process addiction) so I'll leave that dead horse alone, but about the "no one robs convenience stores for donuts" comment... it's a funny witticism, but that's all it is.
I mean, it's true, but then again I'll take a wild guess that most of us don't live in societies where food is scarce. Back when food was scarce, the general attitude was a bit different. Ever wonder why gluttony was one of the seven deadly sins (and there were similar taboos in most pre-modern cultures)?
People still steal food nowadays when they're starving (or even more likely, when their kids are). Scarcity is a different case than the addiction issue, though, unless you count needing food to live as an addiction.
The time-honored gluttony prohibition is more about not taking more than your share, in times of scarcity, I would think. That's still an issue, but the people for whom shortage is a problem tend to be invisible (globally) to those for whom surplus is normal (like me). Further, various things contribute to a situation with surplus calories, but undernutrition, so obesity and ill-health, in parts of the developed world, for some people.
An add, for fun: Mixed media arts'n'crafts people make something called "Artist Trading Cards" (ATC) and swap them with others. They're the size of baseball cards. I once participated in a "seven deadly sins" swap, where each person was assigned sin(s). I got "gluttony" (and envy). This is the gluttony card, unfolded, and folded to size. (Yes, they're usually flat, but folded is allowed.)
5 -
My personal opinion on food addiction has been stated multiple times already (no addictive foods, overeating could, in some cases, be likened to a process addiction) so I'll leave that dead horse alone, but about the "no one robs convenience stores for donuts" comment... it's a funny witticism, but that's all it is.
I mean, it's true, but then again I'll take a wild guess that most of us don't live in societies where food is scarce. Back when food was scarce, the general attitude was a bit different. Ever wonder why gluttony was one of the seven deadly sins (and there were similar taboos in most pre-modern cultures)?
People still steal food nowadays when they're starving (or even more likely, when their kids are). Scarcity is a different case than the addiction issue, though, unless you count needing food to live as an addiction.
People are basically arguing that no one goes to the same lengths to satisfy overeating as they do drug addiction. While that's certainly true, it's also true that there are no such lengths to go to anyway. If you live in the developed - or most of the developing - world, food (by quantity if not quality) is neither hard nor inconvenient to get.
Back when food was scarcer, people would go to sufficient lengths that a social taboo existed.The time-honored gluttony prohibition is more about not taking more than your share, in times of scarcity, I would think. (...)
Some of that is just old-timey self-mortification fetish, but the bottom line is simply that back then food was the main expense/economic activity for most people...1 -
kshama2001 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »L1zardQueen wrote: »Lots of people rob grocery stores to get their cheese fix.
That can be easily proven (it was also proven through MRI). Take a person who eats a lot of cheese and keep them 1 month without dairy, yet living cheese in their refrigerator.
Yeah, pleasure centers in the brain light up on fMRI when contemplating tasty food, in receptive individuals. Also for things like petting cute kittens. Definitive: Petting kittens is addictive.
I eat cheese daily. Pretty sure I could go a month with some in the fridge, but not eat it. Maybe not if it was a fully ripe well-made brie, or Cypress Grove Humboldt Fog, but y'know, just general cheese, sure, no problem. No dairy at all for a month? Hard for me to get enough protein given current habits, but as long as I get to eat anything else I want, probably could. Cheese in the fridge wouldn't make it harder, except the ones I mentioned. (<= this paragraph is just joking around.)
What's being ignored here is that when people have sufficient motivation, they quit cheese ALL the time. Vegans exist and we managed to do it without checking ourselves into rehab centers. I also know some people who have stopped eating cheese due to various allergy/intolerance issues, they also all managed to do it by deciding "No more cheese for me."
That most people eat cheese is not evidence that it's the equivalent of Oxycontin, it's just an indicator that for most people it's a tasty, easily obtained, affordable, and satisfying food that they have no real reason to give up.
Far more people spontaneously quit drinking than do so via the help of AA. They also managed to do it by deciding "No more alcohol for me."
I'm going to guess it's a bit harder than giving up cheese though.5 -
I have found myself wanting different tastes at several different times in my life, and I didn't want to eat anything different. First it was sweet things, and then it was spicy things and then it was just a chewy mouth feel. Not sure what it's called, but the Japanese have this term for the 'lonely mouth' ...that the mouth feels lonely so they eat it's funny, but I totally understand that term!
I still struggle with spicy and salty snacks. I cant seem to avoid overeating those. Not sure if that is addiction or just inability to be disciplined about it and practice self control but isnt that what most people struggle with? self control in mind and body?2 -
This article was published in 2013 when gambling was classified as addiction in the DSM-5. It explains what happens to the brain when someone has a drug addiction, and how gambling shows the same changes to the brain: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-brain-gets-addicted-to-gambling/
To sum up:
-Something that qualifies as an addiction doesn't just light up your dopamine receptors, it floods them. Drugs result in 10 times as much dopamine being dispersed as sex or food.
-Your brain eventually adapts to being so flooded with dopamine, so it starts to take more and more of the substance to achieve the same high. With gambling, this meant bigger and/or more frequent monetary risks were being taken.
-The neural pathways between the reward center and the prefrontal cortex weaken, resulting in people having less impulse control.
-Treatment methods used for drug addicts have been effective for gambling addicts. These methods are NOT as effective for other compulsive behaviors like kleptomania or pyromania.
I haven't been keeping a close eye on recent studies for food/eating addiction, so I don't know what consensus the scientific community is leaning toward right now. I might go digging into it when I get some time. But it seems plausible to me that eating addiction may exist, and that some people do get dopamine floods when they eat, which eventually causes them to eat far too much to the detriment of their health. Given that trauma can also reshape our brain, perhaps an eating addiction is made possible because of trauma? Idk, smarter people than me are actively studying these things, and I hope someday we have a much clearer idea of what's going on for people who massively overeat and how to treat it. It seems ridiculous to me that single foods like cheese or chocolate would somehow result in 10 times as much dopamine being released as eating steak or strawberries.
To answer the OP's original question, I guess I can get worked up about this subject from time to time. It gets really frustrating to see people presenting their anecdotal evidence like it's proven science. I am very flexible to my mind being changed by research done with good methodology, with the same conclusions reached in other studies. Your personal narrative that eating a cookie makes you want 100 cookies? Not scientific enough for me to be convinced.14 -
chocolate_owl wrote: »This article was published in 2013 when gambling was classified as addiction in the DSM-5. It explains what happens to the brain when someone has a drug addiction, and how gambling shows the same changes to the brain: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-brain-gets-addicted-to-gambling/
To sum up:
-Something that qualifies as an addiction doesn't just light up your dopamine receptors, it floods them. Drugs result in 10 times as much dopamine being dispersed as sex or food.
-Your brain eventually adapts to being so flooded with dopamine, so it starts to take more and more of the substance to achieve the same high. With gambling, this meant bigger and/or more frequent monetary risks were being taken.
-The neural pathways between the reward center and the prefrontal cortex weaken, resulting in people having less impulse control.
-Treatment methods used for drug addicts have been effective for gambling addicts. These methods are NOT as effective for other compulsive behaviors like kleptomania or pyromania.
I haven't been keeping a close eye on recent studies for food/eating addiction, so I don't know what consensus the scientific community is leaning toward right now. I might go digging into it when I get some time. But it seems plausible to me that eating addiction may exist, and that some people do get dopamine floods when they eat, which eventually causes them to eat far too much to the detriment of their health. Given that trauma can also reshape our brain, perhaps an eating addiction is made possible because of trauma? Idk, smarter people than me are actively studying these things, and I hope someday we have a much clearer idea of what's going on for people who massively overeat and how to treat it. It seems ridiculous to me that single foods like cheese or chocolate would somehow result in 10 times as much dopamine being released as eating steak or strawberries.
To answer the OP's original question, I guess I can get worked up about this subject from time to time. It gets really frustrating to see people presenting their anecdotal evidence like it's proven science. I am very flexible to my mind being changed by research done with good methodology, with the same conclusions reached in other studies. Your personal narrative that eating a cookie makes you want 100 cookies? Not scientific enough for me to be convinced.
So this means I don't have an addiction to puppies because I still get the feels over one cute puppy, and I haven't worked up to needing 10 puppies for my fix?
6 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »chocolate_owl wrote: »This article was published in 2013 when gambling was classified as addiction in the DSM-5. It explains what happens to the brain when someone has a drug addiction, and how gambling shows the same changes to the brain: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-brain-gets-addicted-to-gambling/
To sum up:
-Something that qualifies as an addiction doesn't just light up your dopamine receptors, it floods them. Drugs result in 10 times as much dopamine being dispersed as sex or food.
-Your brain eventually adapts to being so flooded with dopamine, so it starts to take more and more of the substance to achieve the same high. With gambling, this meant bigger and/or more frequent monetary risks were being taken.
-The neural pathways between the reward center and the prefrontal cortex weaken, resulting in people having less impulse control.
-Treatment methods used for drug addicts have been effective for gambling addicts. These methods are NOT as effective for other compulsive behaviors like kleptomania or pyromania.
I haven't been keeping a close eye on recent studies for food/eating addiction, so I don't know what consensus the scientific community is leaning toward right now. I might go digging into it when I get some time. But it seems plausible to me that eating addiction may exist, and that some people do get dopamine floods when they eat, which eventually causes them to eat far too much to the detriment of their health. Given that trauma can also reshape our brain, perhaps an eating addiction is made possible because of trauma? Idk, smarter people than me are actively studying these things, and I hope someday we have a much clearer idea of what's going on for people who massively overeat and how to treat it. It seems ridiculous to me that single foods like cheese or chocolate would somehow result in 10 times as much dopamine being released as eating steak or strawberries.
To answer the OP's original question, I guess I can get worked up about this subject from time to time. It gets really frustrating to see people presenting their anecdotal evidence like it's proven science. I am very flexible to my mind being changed by research done with good methodology, with the same conclusions reached in other studies. Your personal narrative that eating a cookie makes you want 100 cookies? Not scientific enough for me to be convinced.
So this means I don't have an addiction to puppies because I still get the feels over one cute puppy, and I haven't worked up to needing 10 puppies for my fix?
I mean, one puppy works, but who is going to turn down time cuddling ten puppies (that someone else is training and housebreaking!).4 -
My personal opinion on food addiction has been stated multiple times already (no addictive foods, overeating could, in some cases, be likened to a process addiction) so I'll leave that dead horse alone, but about the "no one robs convenience stores for donuts" comment... it's a funny witticism, but that's all it is.
I mean, it's true, but then again I'll take a wild guess that most of us don't live in societies where food is scarce. Back when food was scarce, the general attitude was a bit different. Ever wonder why gluttony was one of the seven deadly sins (and there were similar taboos in most pre-modern cultures)?
Scarcity does not equal addiction...1 -
My personal opinion on food addiction has been stated multiple times already (no addictive foods, overeating could, in some cases, be likened to a process addiction) so I'll leave that dead horse alone, but about the "no one robs convenience stores for donuts" comment... it's a funny witticism, but that's all it is.
I mean, it's true, but then again I'll take a wild guess that most of us don't live in societies where food is scarce. Back when food was scarce, the general attitude was a bit different. Ever wonder why gluttony was one of the seven deadly sins (and there were similar taboos in most pre-modern cultures)?
Scarcity does not equal addiction...
A bit off-topic:
I recently read a book about WWII and food and was surprised to learn that a popular complaint from American soldiers during the war was that their meals were too focused on sweet stuff and they actually wanted LESS sugar. While American soldiers overall were not in a state of privation compared to soldiers from the USSR or Japan, it still was a situation of relative food scarcity. Things like candy were regular staples for soldiers in the field and overall, they seemed to hate relying on it long-term. What soldiers raved about when they could get them were fresh vegetables, fresh milk, non-canned/dried meat (although the type of meat also mattered -- American soldiers in the Pacific hated mutton, which Australia supplied for them in abundance), and eggs.
In most nations, meat and grain were the foods that people seemed to miss the most. While sugar rationing wasn't popular, limiting it didn't seem to trigger the deep discontent when people felt when their access to more substantial foods were limited. In multiple countries, decisions about food production and rationing were based specifically on what leaders felt would trigger political unrest: the foods focused on varied by country, but they were all things like meat, bread, and rice, as well as cooking fats. Sugar was never a focus. If sugar addiction is real and will provoke crime and violence if access is limited, the experience of WWII shows us that it apparently didn't provoke any activity that was notable then, the last widespread experience of almost global scarcity that humans experienced.
When the war was over and widespread access to sugar was restored, global sugar consumption did skyrocket. So it's very clear that people enjoy sugar and will eat it abundantly when they get the chance. But when food is truly scarce, it seems like our cravings get very practical. We want the foods that will most efficiently nourish us, like milk and eggs. We want the staple foods that serve as the basis for meals in our society, like rice or bread. When access to fat is limited, we crave that and it becomes difficult for many people to eat enough to prevent weight loss even if there are enough carbohydrates to meet energy needs.
Sugar craving appears to be almost like a luxury, something that kicks in when our other dietary needs are being met.12 -
janejellyroll wrote: »My personal opinion on food addiction has been stated multiple times already (no addictive foods, overeating could, in some cases, be likened to a process addiction) so I'll leave that dead horse alone, but about the "no one robs convenience stores for donuts" comment... it's a funny witticism, but that's all it is.
I mean, it's true, but then again I'll take a wild guess that most of us don't live in societies where food is scarce. Back when food was scarce, the general attitude was a bit different. Ever wonder why gluttony was one of the seven deadly sins (and there were similar taboos in most pre-modern cultures)?
Scarcity does not equal addiction...
A bit off-topic:
I recently read a book about WWII and food and was surprised to learn that a popular complaint from American soldiers during the war was that their meals were too focused on sweet stuff and they actually wanted LESS sugar. While American soldiers overall were not in a state of privation compared to soldiers from the USSR or Japan, it still was a situation of relative food scarcity. Things like candy were regular staples for soldiers in the field and overall, they seemed to hate relying on it long-term. What soldiers raved about when they could get them were fresh vegetables, fresh milk, non-canned/dried meat (although the type of meat also mattered -- American soldiers in the Pacific hated mutton, which Australia supplied for them in abundance), and eggs.
In most nations, meat and grain were the foods that people seemed to miss the most. While sugar rationing wasn't popular, limiting it didn't seem to trigger the deep discontent when people felt when their access to more substantial foods were limited. In multiple countries, decisions about food production and rationing were based specifically on what leaders felt would trigger political unrest: the foods focused on varied by country, but they were all things like meat, bread, and rice, as well as cooking fats. Sugar was never a focus. If sugar addiction is real and will provoke crime and violence if access is limited, the experience of WWII shows us that it apparently didn't provoke any activity that was notable then, the last widespread experience of almost global scarcity that humans experienced.
When the war was over and widespread access to sugar was restored, global sugar consumption did skyrocket. So it's very clear that people enjoy sugar and will eat it abundantly when they get the chance. But when food is truly scarce, it seems like our cravings get very practical. We want the foods that will most efficiently nourish us, like milk and eggs. We want the staple foods that serve as the basis for meals in our society, like rice or bread. When access to fat is limited, we crave that and it becomes difficult for many people to eat enough to prevent weight loss even if there are enough carbohydrates to meet energy needs.
Sugar craving appears to be almost like a luxury, something that kicks in when our other dietary needs are being met.
I do think that's interesting and insightful. I'd observe, though, partly as counterpoint, that humans often prefer a way of eating that they're accustomed to (the mutton issue is a case in point), especially in situations where comfort-maximizing is a priority.
A lot of those American GIs would've been farm boys, at that time, and even the city kids more accustomed to a diet centered around "fresh vegetables, fresh milk, non-canned/dried meat ". They weren't accustomed to eating lots of sugar. My dad was that age group (medically rejected for enlistment) and a couple of his brothers served.
In their farm life, sugar was often pretty restricted - for poor mostly subsistance-farming folks an optional store-sourced thing, that ran out when money was tight. Honey was somewhat scarce, maple syrup low yield and high effort
. Veggies could be grown, meat could be grown or hunted, milk came straight from the cow. Those were the commoner foods. For store purchases, flour would be more important than sugar, for those that didn't grow & grind their own wheat.6 -
janejellyroll wrote: »My personal opinion on food addiction has been stated multiple times already (no addictive foods, overeating could, in some cases, be likened to a process addiction) so I'll leave that dead horse alone, but about the "no one robs convenience stores for donuts" comment... it's a funny witticism, but that's all it is.
I mean, it's true, but then again I'll take a wild guess that most of us don't live in societies where food is scarce. Back when food was scarce, the general attitude was a bit different. Ever wonder why gluttony was one of the seven deadly sins (and there were similar taboos in most pre-modern cultures)?
Scarcity does not equal addiction...
A bit off-topic:
I recently read a book about WWII and food and was surprised to learn that a popular complaint from American soldiers during the war was that their meals were too focused on sweet stuff and they actually wanted LESS sugar. While American soldiers overall were not in a state of privation compared to soldiers from the USSR or Japan, it still was a situation of relative food scarcity. Things like candy were regular staples for soldiers in the field and overall, they seemed to hate relying on it long-term. What soldiers raved about when they could get them were fresh vegetables, fresh milk, non-canned/dried meat (although the type of meat also mattered -- American soldiers in the Pacific hated mutton, which Australia supplied for them in abundance), and eggs.
In most nations, meat and grain were the foods that people seemed to miss the most. While sugar rationing wasn't popular, limiting it didn't seem to trigger the deep discontent when people felt when their access to more substantial foods were limited. In multiple countries, decisions about food production and rationing were based specifically on what leaders felt would trigger political unrest: the foods focused on varied by country, but they were all things like meat, bread, and rice, as well as cooking fats. Sugar was never a focus. If sugar addiction is real and will provoke crime and violence if access is limited, the experience of WWII shows us that it apparently didn't provoke any activity that was notable then, the last widespread experience of almost global scarcity that humans experienced.
When the war was over and widespread access to sugar was restored, global sugar consumption did skyrocket. So it's very clear that people enjoy sugar and will eat it abundantly when they get the chance. But when food is truly scarce, it seems like our cravings get very practical. We want the foods that will most efficiently nourish us, like milk and eggs. We want the staple foods that serve as the basis for meals in our society, like rice or bread. When access to fat is limited, we crave that and it becomes difficult for many people to eat enough to prevent weight loss even if there are enough carbohydrates to meet energy needs.
Sugar craving appears to be almost like a luxury, something that kicks in when our other dietary needs are being met.
interesting...thanks..0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »My personal opinion on food addiction has been stated multiple times already (no addictive foods, overeating could, in some cases, be likened to a process addiction) so I'll leave that dead horse alone, but about the "no one robs convenience stores for donuts" comment... it's a funny witticism, but that's all it is.
I mean, it's true, but then again I'll take a wild guess that most of us don't live in societies where food is scarce. Back when food was scarce, the general attitude was a bit different. Ever wonder why gluttony was one of the seven deadly sins (and there were similar taboos in most pre-modern cultures)?
Scarcity does not equal addiction...
A bit off-topic:
I recently read a book about WWII and food and was surprised to learn that a popular complaint from American soldiers during the war was that their meals were too focused on sweet stuff and they actually wanted LESS sugar. While American soldiers overall were not in a state of privation compared to soldiers from the USSR or Japan, it still was a situation of relative food scarcity. Things like candy were regular staples for soldiers in the field and overall, they seemed to hate relying on it long-term. What soldiers raved about when they could get them were fresh vegetables, fresh milk, non-canned/dried meat (although the type of meat also mattered -- American soldiers in the Pacific hated mutton, which Australia supplied for them in abundance), and eggs.
In most nations, meat and grain were the foods that people seemed to miss the most. While sugar rationing wasn't popular, limiting it didn't seem to trigger the deep discontent when people felt when their access to more substantial foods were limited. In multiple countries, decisions about food production and rationing were based specifically on what leaders felt would trigger political unrest: the foods focused on varied by country, but they were all things like meat, bread, and rice, as well as cooking fats. Sugar was never a focus. If sugar addiction is real and will provoke crime and violence if access is limited, the experience of WWII shows us that it apparently didn't provoke any activity that was notable then, the last widespread experience of almost global scarcity that humans experienced.
When the war was over and widespread access to sugar was restored, global sugar consumption did skyrocket. So it's very clear that people enjoy sugar and will eat it abundantly when they get the chance. But when food is truly scarce, it seems like our cravings get very practical. We want the foods that will most efficiently nourish us, like milk and eggs. We want the staple foods that serve as the basis for meals in our society, like rice or bread. When access to fat is limited, we crave that and it becomes difficult for many people to eat enough to prevent weight loss even if there are enough carbohydrates to meet energy needs.
Sugar craving appears to be almost like a luxury, something that kicks in when our other dietary needs are being met.
I do think that's interesting and insightful. I'd observe, though, partly as counterpoint, that humans often prefer a way of eating that they're accustomed to (the mutton issue is a case in point), especially in situations where comfort-maximizing is a priority.
A lot of those American GIs would've been farm boys, at that time, and even the city kids more accustomed to a diet centered around "fresh vegetables, fresh milk, non-canned/dried meat ". They weren't accustomed to eating lots of sugar. My dad was that age group (medically rejected for enlistment) and a couple of his brothers served.
In their farm life, sugar was often pretty restricted - for poor mostly subsistance-farming folks an optional store-sourced thing, that ran out when money was tight. Honey was somewhat scarce, maple syrup low yield and high effort
. Veggies could be grown, meat could be grown or hunted, milk came straight from the cow. Those were the commoner foods. For store purchases, flour would be more important than sugar, for those that didn't grow & grind their own wheat.
My dad was a city boy before enlisting in the Army during WWII. At the beginning of a Europe to Pacific voyage on a Navy troop transport vessel, it was discovered that there was a weevil infestation in the flour that would be used in all the baked goods they would be eating for the next few months (bread, rolls, pancakes, whatever). So he and a buddy hit the PX or commissary or whatever it would have been called on a Navy transport ship, and spent all their cash on chocolate bars, pretty much wiping out the entire supply, not because they were sweet, but because they were ready to eat and, relatively speaking, nonperishable, at least for the duration of their sea voyage.
He said they were pretty darn sick of chocolate bars before too long, and that the other GIs who hadn't cornered the market on chocolate pretty rapidly progressed from trying to pick the weevils out of their bread to not bothering. Just extra calories and protein, after all.4 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »My personal opinion on food addiction has been stated multiple times already (no addictive foods, overeating could, in some cases, be likened to a process addiction) so I'll leave that dead horse alone, but about the "no one robs convenience stores for donuts" comment... it's a funny witticism, but that's all it is.
I mean, it's true, but then again I'll take a wild guess that most of us don't live in societies where food is scarce. Back when food was scarce, the general attitude was a bit different. Ever wonder why gluttony was one of the seven deadly sins (and there were similar taboos in most pre-modern cultures)?
Scarcity does not equal addiction...
A bit off-topic:
I recently read a book about WWII and food and was surprised to learn that a popular complaint from American soldiers during the war was that their meals were too focused on sweet stuff and they actually wanted LESS sugar. While American soldiers overall were not in a state of privation compared to soldiers from the USSR or Japan, it still was a situation of relative food scarcity. Things like candy were regular staples for soldiers in the field and overall, they seemed to hate relying on it long-term. What soldiers raved about when they could get them were fresh vegetables, fresh milk, non-canned/dried meat (although the type of meat also mattered -- American soldiers in the Pacific hated mutton, which Australia supplied for them in abundance), and eggs.
In most nations, meat and grain were the foods that people seemed to miss the most. While sugar rationing wasn't popular, limiting it didn't seem to trigger the deep discontent when people felt when their access to more substantial foods were limited. In multiple countries, decisions about food production and rationing were based specifically on what leaders felt would trigger political unrest: the foods focused on varied by country, but they were all things like meat, bread, and rice, as well as cooking fats. Sugar was never a focus. If sugar addiction is real and will provoke crime and violence if access is limited, the experience of WWII shows us that it apparently didn't provoke any activity that was notable then, the last widespread experience of almost global scarcity that humans experienced.
When the war was over and widespread access to sugar was restored, global sugar consumption did skyrocket. So it's very clear that people enjoy sugar and will eat it abundantly when they get the chance. But when food is truly scarce, it seems like our cravings get very practical. We want the foods that will most efficiently nourish us, like milk and eggs. We want the staple foods that serve as the basis for meals in our society, like rice or bread. When access to fat is limited, we crave that and it becomes difficult for many people to eat enough to prevent weight loss even if there are enough carbohydrates to meet energy needs.
Sugar craving appears to be almost like a luxury, something that kicks in when our other dietary needs are being met.
I do think that's interesting and insightful. I'd observe, though, partly as counterpoint, that humans often prefer a way of eating that they're accustomed to (the mutton issue is a case in point), especially in situations where comfort-maximizing is a priority.
A lot of those American GIs would've been farm boys, at that time, and even the city kids more accustomed to a diet centered around "fresh vegetables, fresh milk, non-canned/dried meat ". They weren't accustomed to eating lots of sugar. My dad was that age group (medically rejected for enlistment) and a couple of his brothers served.
In their farm life, sugar was often pretty restricted - for poor mostly subsistance-farming folks an optional store-sourced thing, that ran out when money was tight. Honey was somewhat scarce, maple syrup low yield and high effort
. Veggies could be grown, meat could be grown or hunted, milk came straight from the cow. Those were the commoner foods. For store purchases, flour would be more important than sugar, for those that didn't grow & grind their own wheat.
My dad was a city boy before enlisting in the Army during WWII. At the beginning of a Europe to Pacific voyage on a Navy troop transport vessel, it was discovered that there was a weevil infestation in the flour that would be used in all the baked goods they would be eating for the next few months (bread, rolls, pancakes, whatever). So he and a buddy hit the PX or commissary or whatever it would have been called on a Navy transport ship, and spent all their cash on chocolate bars, pretty much wiping out the entire supply, not because they were sweet, but because they were ready to eat and, relatively speaking, nonperishable, at least for the duration of their sea voyage.
He said they were pretty darn sick of chocolate bars before too long, and that the other GIs who hadn't cornered the market on chocolate pretty rapidly progressed from trying to pick the weevils out of their bread to not bothering. Just extra calories and protein, after all.
My parents were much tougher, sturdier than I am. Their parents, I think, even moreso.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »My personal opinion on food addiction has been stated multiple times already (no addictive foods, overeating could, in some cases, be likened to a process addiction) so I'll leave that dead horse alone, but about the "no one robs convenience stores for donuts" comment... it's a funny witticism, but that's all it is.
I mean, it's true, but then again I'll take a wild guess that most of us don't live in societies where food is scarce. Back when food was scarce, the general attitude was a bit different. Ever wonder why gluttony was one of the seven deadly sins (and there were similar taboos in most pre-modern cultures)?
Scarcity does not equal addiction...
A bit off-topic:
I recently read a book about WWII and food and was surprised to learn that a popular complaint from American soldiers during the war was that their meals were too focused on sweet stuff and they actually wanted LESS sugar. While American soldiers overall were not in a state of privation compared to soldiers from the USSR or Japan, it still was a situation of relative food scarcity. Things like candy were regular staples for soldiers in the field and overall, they seemed to hate relying on it long-term. What soldiers raved about when they could get them were fresh vegetables, fresh milk, non-canned/dried meat (although the type of meat also mattered -- American soldiers in the Pacific hated mutton, which Australia supplied for them in abundance), and eggs.
In most nations, meat and grain were the foods that people seemed to miss the most. While sugar rationing wasn't popular, limiting it didn't seem to trigger the deep discontent when people felt when their access to more substantial foods were limited. In multiple countries, decisions about food production and rationing were based specifically on what leaders felt would trigger political unrest: the foods focused on varied by country, but they were all things like meat, bread, and rice, as well as cooking fats. Sugar was never a focus. If sugar addiction is real and will provoke crime and violence if access is limited, the experience of WWII shows us that it apparently didn't provoke any activity that was notable then, the last widespread experience of almost global scarcity that humans experienced.
When the war was over and widespread access to sugar was restored, global sugar consumption did skyrocket. So it's very clear that people enjoy sugar and will eat it abundantly when they get the chance. But when food is truly scarce, it seems like our cravings get very practical. We want the foods that will most efficiently nourish us, like milk and eggs. We want the staple foods that serve as the basis for meals in our society, like rice or bread. When access to fat is limited, we crave that and it becomes difficult for many people to eat enough to prevent weight loss even if there are enough carbohydrates to meet energy needs.
Sugar craving appears to be almost like a luxury, something that kicks in when our other dietary needs are being met.
I do think that's interesting and insightful. I'd observe, though, partly as counterpoint, that humans often prefer a way of eating that they're accustomed to (the mutton issue is a case in point), especially in situations where comfort-maximizing is a priority.
A lot of those American GIs would've been farm boys, at that time, and even the city kids more accustomed to a diet centered around "fresh vegetables, fresh milk, non-canned/dried meat ". They weren't accustomed to eating lots of sugar. My dad was that age group (medically rejected for enlistment) and a couple of his brothers served.
In their farm life, sugar was often pretty restricted - for poor mostly subsistance-farming folks an optional store-sourced thing, that ran out when money was tight. Honey was somewhat scarce, maple syrup low yield and high effort
. Veggies could be grown, meat could be grown or hunted, milk came straight from the cow. Those were the commoner foods. For store purchases, flour would be more important than sugar, for those that didn't grow & grind their own wheat.
I agree and if I what I wrote flattened out the historical context of how they were used to, it was unintentional.
Yes, I think my post flattened out some historical context, so I'm glad you brought that up. How people were used to eating would absolutely be relevant.
One thing I thought interesting is that the Japanese armed forces, in the early 20th century, deliberately adopted "foreign" foods for their troops because it was too hard for them to create a menu of Japanese style foods that would appeal to all soldiers across regional differences. Apparently miso soup was a big issue -- it was a staple food that most men were used to eating, but in some areas it was preferred saltier, other sweeter. They got so many complaints from people who felt their familiar dishes tasted "wrong" that they began adding meals that the men wouldn't be familiar with, things like noodle stir fry and breaded cutlets. As men went back to civilian life, they brought back a taste for these dishes.
A pretty interesting illustration of how it's sometimes easier to learn to like something completely new than it is to adjust to a familiar food that is "off."
10 -
Mazintrov13 wrote: »I actually find it kind of insulting to say that food and drug addiction are the same because people do not understand the will power it takes to get and stay clean. You really can’t understand until you’ve done it.
This thread is super interesting to me as one of my kids has been battling addiction for the past 4-5 years. And I have NO concept of just how hard it is for him to stay clean. I've never done drugs, smoked a cigarette and I don't drink alcohol. But he's got the genetics, the trauma, the environmental factors (peer influence) that just primed him for addiction. I've tried to compare it to food for me to kind of get an idea of what he must face temptation wise. Like I can't imagine being asked to give up chips and candy or my favorite food for the rest of my life. Never taste it again. The kind of willpower needed to do that is unimaginable to me, so I can't even begin to understand what it must be like to have to abstain from an addictive substance forever.
On the flip side, there are many people who develop some unhealthy dependencies with substances who can learn to moderate. Or they can address the root cause of their behaviors and by finding alternative healthy means of obtaining the same effect the substance gave them. The book Beyond Addiction addresses this and I could totally see this applied to food.
First you figure out the "Why" by doing a Behavior Analysis.
What is the unhealthy behavior?- Who are you usually with when the behavior occurs?
- What do you like about the people with whom you do it?
- What do you think are the positive results of the behavior?
- On Relationships?
- On your Physical Health?
- On your Emotional Health?
- Legal Benefits?
- Work or School Benefits?
- Financial Benefits?
- Other Benefits?
How often do you engage in this behavior?- Where do you engage in this behavior the most?
- What do you feel right before doing it?
- What do you like about the place you do it?
How long does the behavior usually last?- When do you usually do the behavior?
- What do you like about the time of day you usually do it at?
What pleasant thoughts do you have while doing it?
What pleasant feelings do you have while doing it?
If you can figure out exactly what overeating or a specific food is fulfilling in your life, you can begin to brainstorm other behaviors that might fulfill the same positive reinforcements you are getting from this behavior and actions you can do to mitigate triggers.5 -
For me, it’s not a diagnosable addiction. Rather, we focus on problem behaviors around food and eating patterns. Those are totally a thing. Many of us have them to one degree or another.
And the full range of destructive addictive behaviors are not present in folxs struggling with food as they are with those who have alcohol, drug, or gambling addictions.2 -
Technically, cocaine isn't physically addictive, but no one much argues the semantics there. For a cocaine user, the dopamine rush can become an all-consuming compulsion. Being able to survive without a craved substance doesn't define addiction and that argument defies all logic. IMO, anything which lights up the pleasure centers of the brain and results in an irresistible obsession for more more more despite any negative consequences constitutes an addiction.
A dopamine reaction alone does not an addiction make. If sugar really was the source of the addiction, for example, people would hide in their basements, closets, or cars shoveling spoonfuls of it down. Because when you’re addicted, you swallow/snort anything close to the source of whatever’s got you in it’s power. I’ve had drug addicts huff aerosol whipped cream and cleaners. I’ve had alcoholics chug NyQuil. But it’s usually not just sugar for people with food issues. It’s the hyper palatable sweet or fries treats that also have a high fat content.
People addicted to drugs/alcohol/gambling destroy their finances, jobs, health, families, lives, all in the pursuit of their addiction.
Some of the paths and techniques to help people recover from food issues (overeating, not under-eating/anorexia/etc.) are similar to those that help others overcome addiction. And that can be said about therapies to help people move past other behaviors they’d like to change. But that doesn’t make all those behaviors addictions.4 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »L1zardQueen wrote: »Lots of people rob grocery stores to get their cheese fix.
That can be easily proven (it was also proven through MRI). Take a person who eats a lot of cheese and keep them 1 month without dairy, yet living cheese in their refrigerator.
Yeah, pleasure centers in the brain light up on fMRI when contemplating tasty food, in receptive individuals. Also for things like petting cute kittens. Definitive: Petting kittens is addictive.
I eat cheese daily. Pretty sure I could go a month with some in the fridge, but not eat it. Maybe not if it was a fully ripe well-made brie, or Cypress Grove Humboldt Fog, but y'know, just general cheese, sure, no problem. No dairy at all for a month? Hard for me to get enough protein given current habits, but as long as I get to eat anything else I want, probably could. Cheese in the fridge wouldn't make it harder, except the ones I mentioned. (<= this paragraph is just joking around.)
What's being ignored here is that when people have sufficient motivation, they quit cheese ALL the time. Vegans exist and we managed to do it without checking ourselves into rehab centers. I also know some people who have stopped eating cheese due to various allergy/intolerance issues, they also all managed to do it by deciding "No more cheese for me."
That most people eat cheese is not evidence that it's the equivalent of Oxycontin, it's just an indicator that for most people it's a tasty, easily obtained, affordable, and satisfying food that they have no real reason to give up.
When I was teenager I used to be drunk every Friday Saturday and Sunday quit cold turkey, no rehab. I smoked 30 years almost two packs a day... No rehab. Joints? No rehab. So they are not addictive either.
Being addicted to something it doesn't mean all your D2 receptors are gone. There are levels of dependence and they are different for everyone.
That a substance is addictive doesn't mean that every user will necessarily become addicted (there are a lot of people who casually drink, yet alcoholism is real). That someone is addicted doesn't necessarily mean that rehab is required to quit in all instances (I think we all know people who managed to quit using a substance they were addicted to without formal rehab). The point is that NOBODY goes to rehab for cheese ever, yet many people manage to eliminate it from their diet or moderate their consumption.
You're making a really bold claim about cheese and there just isn't evidence to support that cheese addiction is an actual thing.
You mean evidence that you or me are addicted? No. Like I was never addicted on joints. Evidence that it can be addictive? Yes. (I'll keep trying to find the study lol there are so many on nutrition). But this sums up chemically how it works.
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/is-cheese-addictive#your-brain-on-cheese
That link makes similar claims about turkey and legumes, so you're basically arguing that humans like to eat.
Do you really think someone who likes hummus or kidney bean soup is addicted?
I just had to chime in here. I have a work colleague who loves hummus so very much. One day he went to eat his hummus. And it had been a bit of time since he’d been to the grocery store. He has nothing to dip in his hummus. Except a can of chick peas. 😂😂😂 We still make fun of him for that.
It’s his favorite food. His comfort food. And there are so many wonderful memories that are brought forth when he eats it.
Is he addicted? No. Does he have a hummus problem? No.
What I see when people say they have food/sugar addictions, it’s not the food itself. It’s the reason that particular taste (sometimes taste family/range of tastes) is so meaningful to them—the emotional connection and story behind why they eat the way they do (having a hard time stopping). Often, they don’t realize it until I start probing.
Look at how many people say they e gained weight during the stress of the pandemic. We turn to what comforts us in times of extreme anxiety and uncertainty. And for many of us, what comforts us are memories that involve food.7 -
chocolate_owl wrote: »This article was published in 2013 when gambling was classified as addiction in the DSM-5. It explains what happens to the brain when someone has a drug addiction, and how gambling shows the same changes to the brain: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-brain-gets-addicted-to-gambling/
To sum up:
-Something that qualifies as an addiction doesn't just light up your dopamine receptors, it floods them. Drugs result in 10 times as much dopamine being dispersed as sex or food.
-Your brain eventually adapts to being so flooded with dopamine, so it starts to take more and more of the substance to achieve the same high. With gambling, this meant bigger and/or more frequent monetary risks were being taken.
-The neural pathways between the reward center and the prefrontal cortex weaken, resulting in people having less impulse control.
-Treatment methods used for drug addicts have been effective for gambling addicts. These methods are NOT as effective for other compulsive behaviors like kleptomania or pyromania.
I haven't been keeping a close eye on recent studies for food/eating addiction, so I don't know what consensus the scientific community is leaning toward right now. I might go digging into it when I get some time. But it seems plausible to me that eating addiction may exist, and that some people do get dopamine floods when they eat, which eventually causes them to eat far too much to the detriment of their health. Given that trauma can also reshape our brain, perhaps an eating addiction is made possible because of trauma? Idk, smarter people than me are actively studying these things, and I hope someday we have a much clearer idea of what's going on for people who massively overeat and how to treat it. It seems ridiculous to me that single foods like cheese or chocolate would somehow result in 10 times as much dopamine being released as eating steak or strawberries.
To answer the OP's original question, I guess I can get worked up about this subject from time to time. It gets really frustrating to see people presenting their anecdotal evidence like it's proven science. I am very flexible to my mind being changed by research done with good methodology, with the same conclusions reached in other studies. Your personal narrative that eating a cookie makes you want 100 cookies? Not scientific enough for me to be convinced.
Current thought and research has tended to examine how internet use may be classified (unrelated to online gambling). Particularly as it relates to gaming. It’s actually quite interesting considering some people make their living by gaming, and quite a lucrative one. The culture has shifted a lot in the last decade. Pots of $100,000 and people wearing diapers so they don’t have to be AFK (away from keyboard) for days at a time.
If the body of research continues to grow, internet use may show up in a future revision of the DSM.2 -
mom23mangos wrote: »Mazintrov13 wrote: »I actually find it kind of insulting to say that food and drug addiction are the same because people do not understand the will power it takes to get and stay clean. You really can’t understand until you’ve done it.
This thread is super interesting to me as one of my kids has been battling addiction for the past 4-5 years. And I have NO concept of just how hard it is for him to stay clean. I've never done drugs, smoked a cigarette and I don't drink alcohol. But he's got the genetics, the trauma, the environmental factors (peer influence) that just primed him for addiction. I've tried to compare it to food for me to kind of get an idea of what he must face temptation wise. Like I can't imagine being asked to give up chips and candy or my favorite food for the rest of my life. Never taste it again. The kind of willpower needed to do that is unimaginable to me, so I can't even begin to understand what it must be like to have to abstain from an addictive substance forever.
On the flip side, there are many people who develop some unhealthy dependencies with substances who can learn to moderate. Or they can address the root cause of their behaviors and by finding alternative healthy means of obtaining the same effect the substance gave them. The book Beyond Addiction addresses this and I could totally see this applied to food.
First you figure out the "Why" by doing a Behavior Analysis.
What is the unhealthy behavior?- Who are you usually with when the behavior occurs?
- What do you like about the people with whom you do it?
- What do you think are the positive results of the behavior?
- On Relationships?
- On your Physical Health?
- On your Emotional Health?
- Legal Benefits?
- Work or School Benefits?
- Financial Benefits?
- Other Benefits?
How often do you engage in this behavior?- Where do you engage in this behavior the most?
- What do you feel right before doing it?
- What do you like about the place you do it?
How long does the behavior usually last?- When do you usually do the behavior?
- What do you like about the time of day you usually do it at?
What pleasant thoughts do you have while doing it?
What pleasant feelings do you have while doing it?
If you can figure out exactly what overeating or a specific food is fulfilling in your life, you can begin to brainstorm other behaviors that might fulfill the same positive reinforcements you are getting from this behavior and actions you can do to mitigate triggers.
And the behavior may not start out as unhealthy. Wine is supposed to be good for your heart. People get prescribed drugs for legitimate and debilitating pain. So then you ask, “when did the behavior change from healthy or as prescribed to a problem and why?”5 -
Like some have mentioned, food is a necessity to live whereas alcohol, drugs, gambling etc. aren't needed to live.
For me I've seen addiction first hand in my family and when a family member steals money, even though they know it's dead wrong, to fulfill an addiction I just don't see someone who claims to be addicted to food doing the same thing. They may "sneak" and hide food from family to secretly eat, but they aren't purposely harming family to do it.
People that overeat have a behavioral issue, not and addictive issue. I've stated before to people who say they are addicted to sugar...................................if it spilled in the street, would you still scoop it up and eat it? A drug addict would snort cocaine off the street if they ran out . I've seen people who run out of smokes, look for butts to smoke off the street. To me that's addiction.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
9 -
I think it is controversial because it hasn't been definitively studied yet - even among professionals there isn't agreement on it. Even for alcohol addiction there isn't really a consistent "diagnosis" of who has it and who doesn't, it is subjective as to who fits the criteria. Although at a certain stage of alcoholism there will be physical dependence and withdrawal can cause death.
Having seen the downward life path of someone who is genuinely addicted to alcohol I can see how people are hesitant to put food addiction into the same category. I have POA for a family member who is a late stage alcoholic and it isn't pretty, it is hard to imagine food causing that same kind of destruction. But maybe it can happen, who knows.
The definition I was given is this: "If substance use causes significant problems in someone's life, such as health issues, disability, and/or not meeting responsibilities at work, home, or school, they may have a substance use disorder." I think that food could potentially meet that criteria, although I have never seen it personally. Physical addiction isn't required to qualify as substance use disorder.
I don't think the fact that "I can quit eating sugar" tells us anything really, lots of people quit drinking alcohol too. That doesn't mean that alcohol isn't an addictive substance.
I think the main sticking point for most people is that we all need food to survive, so how could it possibly be addictive. We can't withdraw from it (without death anyway). It's a complicated question.
Here is an analysis I found interesting : https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5946262/
"The results of the current systematic review generally support the validity of food addiction as a diagnostic construct, particularly as it relates to foods high in added sweeteners and refined ingredients. The majority of studies in the current review reported evidence for symptoms related to neurological changes and impaired control, with fewer studies evaluating preoccupation, chronicity, relapse, social impairment, and risky use. Behavioral and substance-related aspects of food addiction appear to be intertwined, but we suggest that the substance (highly-palatable food) component may be more salient to the diagnostic classification of this phenomenon than the behavior (eating). We propose that the food addiction construct merits serious attention in regard to its presentation, prevention, and treatment in humans."3 -
I think it is controversial because it hasn't been definitively studied yet - even among professionals there isn't agreement on it. Even for alcohol addiction there isn't really a consistent "diagnosis" of who has it and who doesn't, it is subjective as to who fits the criteria. Although at a certain stage of alcoholism there will be physical dependence and withdrawal can cause death.
Having seen the downward life path of someone who is genuinely addicted to alcohol I can see how people are hesitant to put food addiction into the same category. I have POA for a family member who is a late stage alcoholic and it isn't pretty, it is hard to imagine food causing that same kind of destruction. But maybe it can happen, who knows.
The definition I was given is this: "If substance use causes significant problems in someone's life, such as health issues, disability, and/or not meeting responsibilities at work, home, or school, they may have a substance use disorder." I think that food could potentially meet that criteria, although I have never seen it personally. Physical addiction isn't required to qualify as substance use disorder.
I don't think the fact that "I can quit eating sugar" tells us anything really, lots of people quit drinking alcohol too. That doesn't mean that alcohol isn't an addictive substance.
I think the main sticking point for most people is that we all need food to survive, so how could it possibly be addictive. We can't withdraw from it (without death anyway). It's a complicated question.
Here is an analysis I found interesting : https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5946262/
"The results of the current systematic review generally support the validity of food addiction as a diagnostic construct, particularly as it relates to foods high in added sweeteners and refined ingredients. The majority of studies in the current review reported evidence for symptoms related to neurological changes and impaired control, with fewer studies evaluating preoccupation, chronicity, relapse, social impairment, and risky use. Behavioral and substance-related aspects of food addiction appear to be intertwined, but we suggest that the substance (highly-palatable food) component may be more salient to the diagnostic classification of this phenomenon than the behavior (eating). We propose that the food addiction construct merits serious attention in regard to its presentation, prevention, and treatment in humans."
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
3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions