no sugar or flour, food addiction?

threewins

>Do you think there is food addiction?

In lab animals? Because it's definitely possible to get a lab rat addicted to human food. Apparently they have a fondness for cheesecake. They don't get the same high on fruit.

>That seems like a hard way to live, not ever having a cookie? They say they dont struggle.

I went 6 weeks without sugar, and after the first week, it was pretty easy. I also lost weight, no surprises there. Everything got sweeter, because my tastebuds weren't experiencing sensory overload by eating 20 grams of sugar or so in 5 minutes.

It is possible to control how often you eat sugary food, and only have it for special events.

magnusthenerd

threewins wrote: »

>Do you think there is food addiction?

In lab animals? Because it's definitely possible to get a lab rat addicted to human food. Apparently they have a fondness for cheesecake. They don't get the same high on fruit.

I wouldn't say it is so definitive. Last I saw, there are no studies that elicit food addiction for ad libitum eating, only for time restricted windows.
So while there are studies that show lab rats will go wild for cheesecake when it isn't always available, there's none that shows this problem if cheesecake is always freely available. Compare it to drugs of addiction - rats don't seem to self-regulate their cocaine habits if they have an unlimited supply.

It is an important distinction to look at because there's an overlap between the food itself and behavior. And the behavior is readily linkable to normal survival behaviors.

ladylite0623

IMO, sugar/flour addiction is real. To say it isn't because you need food doesn't make it any less real. The fact is, you don't 'need' sugar or flour to survive. We want them because they taste good and are so easy to access. It also doesn't relate to, or affect, every person. Just like not everyone becomes an acholic when they are social drinkers. Not everyone that eats a gummy occasionally or even puffs once in a while is a drug addict.

I am sensitive to sugar. I have it, my blood sugar spikes for days. Am I addicted, I would say yes. I can't eat one cookie, I sometimes have a hard time stopping with a sleeve of cookies. For me having cookies because it fits in my calorie bank is not smart. That doesn't mean I begrudge anyone that can do that, just that I can't. Not shouldn't, can't. Because when I do, it takes weeks, months, years sometimes to break the cycle. That to me sounds like addiction. I think the really frustrating thing for me is that people don't truly believe it's a problem, so no matter how hard I work at beating the addiction, people will do things like say, just one cookie, one roll, or one piece of cake won't hurt. For me it will. No one would dream of doing that with a recovering alcoholic or drug addict. And this addition is so incideous that it takes years, even decades before the true affects become serious enough for those of us affected to take notice and get effective help.

So, people can ignore it, call it bunk, or a disorder. I don't care. What I do care about is that I finally understand it and it's affect on my life, and can do something about it.

So I try yet again to give up sugar and flour because they are slowly killing me. I'd much rather live abundantly without sugar and flour, than spend my days in pain or leave my family prematurely with that cookie, ice cream, or cake.

This is just me.

Xellercin

lemurcat2 wrote: »

I think one of the difficulties of this discussion is just what is meant by "addiction." I think a lot of times people end up talking past each other.

That's because very, very few people are up to date on what the current consensus is regarding anything to do with neurobiology and mental health.

I'm quoting you, but the following is a general response to the thread.

People's perception of what addiction is is heavily coloured by non scientific AA doctrine, media portrayals, political discourse, and media reporting in science.

There is actually pretty decent consensus medically as to what addiction is, and it isn't AT ALL limited to highly addictive chemicals.

Certainly, certain chemicals are easier to become addicted to than others, but addiction is a neurocognitive process and can happen perfectly fine in the total absence of external chemicals.

So yes, technically anything can progress to an addiction. And when we talk about substances with higher addictive properties, there is a spectrum of probability of becoming addicted with use, but our understanding of where exactly things fall on that spectrum is complicated by many confounding factors.

There are also two totally separate properties to something being addictive. There's how easily an addictive pattern can occur vs how hard that addictive pattern is to break.

Alcohol, for example, seems to have a very long onramp to addiction, but it's a brutal one to break. Coffee on the other hand is rapidly addictive, but seems pretty easy for people to quit after they suffer through the nasty detox phase. You don't hear about a lot of coffee "relapses."

Cigarettes are rapidly addictive and one of the hardest addictions to break, with far less statistical success than many hard drugs. Granted, the legality is a huge confounding factor. The consequences of relapsing as a smoker aren't nearly as life ruining as relapsing into criminal behaviour. So the deterrents for relapsing as a smoker aren't as meaningful most of the time.

Any study of illegal narcotics is confounded by their illegality. That's just the nature of addiction research, which is why you can't draw sweeping conclusions from individual studies, just like you can't with ANY scientific discipline. Although the public and the media LOVE to do just that.

Suffice to say, it's not that there are "addictive substances" that are the only things that cause "addiction." That's just not how the human brain works.

You have to remember that most of the highly addictive substances in the world act on receptors in the brain that *already exist*. A drug cannot be highly addictive unless it's mimicking the good feeling chemicals that are already in the brain, or adjusting how much of those chemicals get released.

Highly addictive chemicals are ones that make the existing system work in overdrive, but the system already exists. That's why people can have addictions to behaviours that also trigger those same feelings from the brain's own system: gambling, sex, cutting, video games, social media, nail biting, skin picking, etc

So if the system for addiction already exists without highly addictive drugs, then nitpicking what chemicals are addictive and which aren't is a moot point. It's pure nonsense actually.

Addiction isn't a property of a chemical, it's a function of the brain and certain chemicals jack this function up higher and faster. That's it.

If people actually read official academic textbooks on addiction, it's very interesting and not nearly as confusing as the popular discourse about it, which is really a bloody mess, and so outdated it's kind of crazy.

I may have mentioned it already, but if anyone wants to read a good investigation of food addiction and the legality around that, the book "Hooked" is very well researched.

It covers the time that Kraft was owned by a cigarette company that was VERY concerned about the addictiveness of their hyper-palatable ultra processed foods, and their possible liability.

For anyone who wants to read an academic source, Pinel is pretty much the go-to for neuroscience/biopsychology.

lemurcat2

Xellercin wrote: »

There is actually pretty decent consensus medically as to what addiction is, and it isn't AT ALL limited to highly addictive chemicals.

Yes, I don't think that people are suggesting it is, actually (although I certainly believe that people are working with different understandings of the term).

I had understood that the physical aspect is normally called "dependence," and that dependence can exist without what is usually called addiction, although I might be conflating addiction here with a substance use disorder, which is a term I prefer and have seen used more and more commonly.

Suffice to say, it's not that there are "addictive substances" that are the only things that cause "addiction." That's just not how the human brain works.

I personally agree with this. (I also think there are such things as gambling addictions, etc.) However, one thing that confuses many of these discussions is that those who claim to have "sugar" addictions or "flour" addictions or even "carb" addictions -- all common in certain dieting discussion/websites -- actually do usually conflate it with an addition to a highly-addictive substance. The argument usually is that sugar is more addictive to heroin, for example.

And of course that ignores the fact that most people who struggle with control over food (or some subset of foods) actually don't have issues with all foods containing whatever the specific substance is alleged to be. It also ignores the possibly dangerous effect of telling oneself one has no control once one has injected some food containing whatever the ingredient one is supposedly addicted to.

But this doesn't mean that there can't be food addictions or (as I think makes more sense) eating addictions or (of course) eating disorders that are quite like addictions or substance use disorders.

So if the system for addiction already exists without highly addictive drugs, then nitpicking what chemicals are addictive and which aren't is a moot point. It's pure nonsense actually.

From what I've read, the argument is more that substances that cause the system to go into overdrive are just ones that one would expect to be more difficult to deal with. The contrary argument is often that because we experience pleasure responses to things (which is normal and happens all the time), those things are innately "addictive." I happen to agree that of course one can get addicted to such things even without it being abnormal depending on habits surrounding it and use over time and so on. But that is different from the rhetoric (again) that sugar is innately habit-forming (said by someone who could have a spoonful of sugar and not want any more).

I may have mentioned it already, but if anyone wants to read a good investigation of food addiction and the legality around that, the book "Hooked" is very well researched.

It covers the time that Kraft was owned by a cigarette company that was VERY concerned about the addictiveness of their hyper-palatable ultra processed foods, and their possible liability.

This sounds interesting, and I have read Sugar, Salt, Fat (or whatever the order is), but I still think something is confused in how hyper-palatable highly processed foods are equated with addictive substances. There is a lot more to how come people eat more (and what advertisers and food manufacturers have done to contribute to people eating more) than something supposedly magical about the food. I don't actually believe that highly processed foods from the store are different in kind from foods that have been made in homes for years -- which also can include some combo of fat and sugar and salt. One difference, however, is that there were time constraints and money constraints around such foods and societal rules/customs about the consumption of them. As highly processed alternatives got more and more like the real thing (or just tastier in general), it made such foods available cheaply and easily without the lag between wanting and having. (I continue to think that anyone who thinks some packaged supermarket sweet is somehow better and more "palatable" than many desserts that could be made in the home just haven't had good homemade stuff.) And the broad availability of snack foods (an important market for food companies) has been combined with a shift in societal rules/customs such that snacking or eating at all times is expected and seems desirable. I think focusing on these kinds of things (and shifts in serving size and so on) is highly relevant to overeating behaviors and focusing on the foods being somehow different in kind and impossible to stop eating vs other foods (i.e., addictive) is overstated by many in terms of societal obesity.

Also, of course, the focus on processed snack foods itself is inconsistent with the strong "addiction" (meaning substance causing dependence) claim that I see over and over re sugar and flour and so on.

But again, I don't at all reject the possibility of eating or food addiction. I see aspects of it in myself.

cwolfman13

I always find it interesting that the foods people claim to be addicted to and blame sugar for that addiction have at least if not more calories coming from dietary fat than sugar...but nobody says they're addicted to fat. A cookie, cake, pie, doughnut, or whatever has more calories coming from fat than sugar.

If sugar was the issue in and of itself, a piece of fruit would satisfy the addiction. Just like a heroin addict would prefer heroin as their opioid of choice...but oxy or any other opioid will satisfy their addiction just the same. An alcoholic may have their preference of booze...but any form of alcohol will satisfy that addiction. In boot camp I've even seen guys drinking Listerine to satisfy their alcohol addiction. In many cases regarding alcohol, there's actually not a true addiction either, but rather a use disorder that is often more a symptom of other issues in the persons life than an actual dependency on alcohol...however, with increased use, prolonged over time, this can result in actual dependency and alcoholism (addiction). Opioids are much more powerful in their use for dependency.

Things like opioids and alcohol actually alter brain chemistry and create their own neural pathways that otherwise don't exist...sugar doesn't do that. People talk about dopamine release, but that happens with anything pleasurable and addiction goes well beyond a dopamine release. Opioids and alcohol create their own pleasure pathways that are unnatural...or at least non-native to normal brain chemistry...sugar doesn't do that.

wunderkindking

I'm not weighing in again on the addiction/not thing, but this whole weight loss journey taught me I have a problem with FAT. Almost all of my overage in keeping me obese and changes to get me down to a 20ish BMI has been ... high fat condiments. Butter. Cream. Ranch. Mayo. Whatever.

Of course I over corrected and got too little and was then ravenous but it wasn't the sugar that was my issue. Sugar's not even particularly high calorie!

AnnPT77

I agree that it's possible to have a problem relationship with food generally or with specific foods or groups of foods, including some problems that are at least addiction-like (and maybe even truly addiction - I'm confused by the technical distinctions).

Even so, I think some people resort quickly to the "I'm addicted to sugar" idea (meme?), and that that can limit effective problem-solving.

Very few of those people, I believe, will sit in their kitchen with a bag of sugar and eat it by the spoonful. (Probably a few do, of course.) Most of the "addicted to sugar" people have some kind of problem managing their intake of particular foods or types of foods, such as sweet baked goods, candy bars, full-sugar soda/pop, or the like.

I feel like reducing this to "addicted to sugar" doesn't help solve the very real problem.

Starting with a self-definition that is "I'm addicted to (giant inexact category)" doesn't make avenues of change as accessible as some other potential self-definitions, like "I tend to overeat baked goods" or something (or better yet, "I overeat Oreos in the evening while I watch TV"). The more narrowly the problem can be defined, while still being reasonable accurate, the easier that problem is going to be to solve, I think.

What does one over-consume, specifically? Under what circumstances? Why? (Taste, convenience, perceived blood sugar peaks/crashes, etc.)

Self-definition is really powerful. "I'm a sugar addict" is relatively disempowering, a tight box. If the person can frame a narrower, more specific self-definition that leaves room for personal change and personal agency, I think that can be helpful.

Example? "I find it difficult to limit how many cookies I eat, once I start". "I'm drawn to eat a donut at the bakery when I grocery shop." Etc. (There could be a list of such narrower problem statements.) It's more actionable, makes the self-definition "this is a practical thing I am working on" rather than "this is an addiction I am helplessly trapped by".

Part of solving any problem lies in defining it carefully, then analyzing options thoughtfully.

Xellercin

lemurcat2 wrote: »

Xellercin wrote: »

There is actually pretty decent consensus medically as to what addiction is, and it isn't AT ALL limited to highly addictive chemicals.

Yes, I don't think that people are suggesting it is, actually (although I certainly believe that people are working with different understandings of the term).

I had understood that the physical aspect is normally called "dependence," and that dependence can exist without what is usually called addiction, although I might be conflating addiction here with a substance use disorder, which is a term I prefer and have seen used more and more commonly.

Suffice to say, it's not that there are "addictive substances" that are the only things that cause "addiction." That's just not how the human brain works.

I personally agree with this. (I also think there are such things as gambling addictions, etc.) However, one thing that confuses many of these discussions is that those who claim to have "sugar" addictions or "flour" addictions or even "carb" addictions -- all common in certain dieting discussion/websites -- actually do usually conflate it with an addition to a highly-addictive substance. The argument usually is that sugar is more addictive to heroin, for example.

And of course that ignores the fact that most people who struggle with control over food (or some subset of foods) actually don't have issues with all foods containing whatever the specific substance is alleged to be. It also ignores the possibly dangerous effect of telling oneself one has no control once one has injected some food containing whatever the ingredient one is supposedly addicted to.

But this doesn't mean that there can't be food addictions or (as I think makes more sense) eating addictions or (of course) eating disorders that are quite like addictions or substance use disorders.

So if the system for addiction already exists without highly addictive drugs, then nitpicking what chemicals are addictive and which aren't is a moot point. It's pure nonsense actually.

From what I've read, the argument is more that substances that cause the system to go into overdrive are just ones that one would expect to be more difficult to deal with. The contrary argument is often that because we experience pleasure responses to things (which is normal and happens all the time), those things are innately "addictive." I happen to agree that of course one can get addicted to such things even without it being abnormal depending on habits surrounding it and use over time and so on. But that is different from the rhetoric (again) that sugar is innately habit-forming (said by someone who could have a spoonful of sugar and not want any more).

I may have mentioned it already, but if anyone wants to read a good investigation of food addiction and the legality around that, the book "Hooked" is very well researched.

It covers the time that Kraft was owned by a cigarette company that was VERY concerned about the addictiveness of their hyper-palatable ultra processed foods, and their possible liability.

This sounds interesting, and I have read Sugar, Salt, Fat (or whatever the order is), but I still think something is confused in how hyper-palatable highly processed foods are equated with addictive substances. There is a lot more to how come people eat more (and what advertisers and food manufacturers have done to contribute to people eating more) than something supposedly magical about the food. I don't actually believe that highly processed foods from the store are different in kind from foods that have been made in homes for years -- which also can include some combo of fat and sugar and salt. One difference, however, is that there were time constraints and money constraints around such foods and societal rules/customs about the consumption of them. As highly processed alternatives got more and more like the real thing (or just tastier in general), it made such foods available cheaply and easily without the lag between wanting and having. (I continue to think that anyone who thinks some packaged supermarket sweet is somehow better and more "palatable" than many desserts that could be made in the home just haven't had good homemade stuff.) And the broad availability of snack foods (an important market for food companies) has been combined with a shift in societal rules/customs such that snacking or eating at all times is expected and seems desirable. I think focusing on these kinds of things (and shifts in serving size and so on) is highly relevant to overeating behaviors and focusing on the foods being somehow different in kind and impossible to stop eating vs other foods (i.e., addictive) is overstated by many in terms of societal obesity.

Also, of course, the focus on processed snack foods itself is inconsistent with the strong "addiction" (meaning substance causing dependence) claim that I see over and over re sugar and flour and so on.

But again, I don't at all reject the possibility of eating or food addiction. I see aspects of it in myself.

I feel like a lot of this misses the points I was trying to make.

You keep talking about the things people say, and I'm pointing out that of course people say stupid crap because almost no one actually objectively knows the current medical/scientific understanding of addiction.

You've quoted a bunch of statements and concepts that people say that are exactly the gibberish mish mash of pop culture/12 step/movie scenes nonsense on which most people base their understanding of addiction.

A lot of what you're arguing against is just silliness, but when it comes to medicine and science, people say all sorts of silly, uninformed things, that's just the norm. I've spent my entire career listening to patients say things that are simultaneously HILARIOUS and kind of terrifying.

Don't get bent out of shape that people don't know what they're talking about. The vast majority of firm, "factual" statements that are made in life are made by people with absolutely no basis for their level of "factual" confidence.

People having NO CLUE what the hell they are talking about is the norm.

lemurcat2

Xellercin wrote: »

You've quoted a bunch of statements and concepts that people say that are exactly the gibberish mish mash of pop culture/12 step/movie scenes nonsense on which most people base their understanding of addiction.

I don't disagree, but usually in these kinds of threads that's what is being argued against, since those are the claims that are made. That's why I said the problem was people using "addiction" in different ways and therefore talking past each other in many cases.

Just saying what I am arguing against is "silliness" wouldn't work for a debate thread -- even if it didn't get a strike (and it might!) it's not an effective argument, which is why I think it can be worth breaking down the arguments and addressing them.

HelPur25

wunderkindking wrote: »

Fortunately I didn't have to. I started at 190ish and am now 126ish. While eating the freaking cookie when I wanted it (or bread, or cake or potatoes or candy or ice cream or whatever). My only restrictions were in making sure I get ENOUGH protein and fat and stay/stayed within my calories. Those are the only restrictions I have now.

@wunderkindking I'm curious at what level you set your protein and fat percentage goals. I used to do keto but had to stop because of some health concerns and ended up gaining back all the weight I had lost. So, now I'm monitoring calories/macros/fiber/sugar, but I'm really not sure what percentages I should aim for with my macros now.

wunderkindking

HelPur25 wrote: »

wunderkindking wrote: »

Fortunately I didn't have to. I started at 190ish and am now 126ish. While eating the freaking cookie when I wanted it (or bread, or cake or potatoes or candy or ice cream or whatever). My only restrictions were in making sure I get ENOUGH protein and fat and stay/stayed within my calories. Those are the only restrictions I have now.

@wunderkindking I'm curious at what level you set your protein and fat percentage goals. I used to do keto but had to stop because of some health concerns and ended up gaining back all the weight I had lost. So, now I'm monitoring calories/macros/fiber/sugar, but I'm really not sure what percentages I should aim for with my macros now.

I just have them set at the default MFP settings. I think it's 20% protein, 30% fat, 50% carbs. I try to make it more like 25% protein, but don't stress as long as I hit that minimum. I still eat a ton of carbs but low protein/low fat = "I turn into a nonstop eating machine" because I'm never satiated.

Xellercin

lemurcat2 wrote: »

Xellercin wrote: »

You've quoted a bunch of statements and concepts that people say that are exactly the gibberish mish mash of pop culture/12 step/movie scenes nonsense on which most people base their understanding of addiction.

I don't disagree, but usually in these kinds of threads that's what is being argued against, since those are the claims that are made. That's why I said the problem was people using "addiction" in different ways and therefore talking past each other in many cases.

Just saying what I am arguing against is "silliness" wouldn't work for a debate thread -- even if it didn't get a strike (and it might!) it's not an effective argument, which is why I think it can be worth breaking down the arguments and addressing them.

Literally my only point that I am trying to make is that most people don't actually understand what addiction is. The best thing anyone can do if they want to explain anything about addiction to anyone is to learn what the current biopsychological understanding of addiction is.

Xerogs

cwolfman13 wrote: »

Opioids and alcohol create their own pleasure pathways that are unnatural...or at least non-native to normal brain chemistry...sugar doesn't do that.

I think what has happened in the past few decades are that food manufacturers have tweaked their recipes so that it takes people to their bliss point. It's not so much about sugar but what its combined with and what it does to your body. Some people react to their bliss point in an addictive manner and it can be anything from food to drugs to gambling depending on the person. I think sugar can trigger the same brain chemistry changes just as any other addiction.
There are a number of articles out there in regards to it.

https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2235907/

Addictions are very unique to the individual. While opioids and alcohol can be really addictive not everyone chases that rabbit down they hole when the consume them. The same can be said of certain foods. The nefarious thing about processed foods is the time and money spent by the food manufacturers make their foods highly palatable to hit the bliss point quickly making them more addictive in nature which means people will eat more and buy more. It's really about making money at the expense of people's health. It's very similar to the cigarette industry in a way.

With all that being said there is a wide spectrum of people and personalities in this world. Some people have to be very aware their potential for addiction others can dabble in everything and never develop a problem.

lemurcat2

Xellercin wrote: »

lemurcat2 wrote: »

Xellercin wrote: »

You've quoted a bunch of statements and concepts that people say that are exactly the gibberish mish mash of pop culture/12 step/movie scenes nonsense on which most people base their understanding of addiction.

I don't disagree, but usually in these kinds of threads that's what is being argued against, since those are the claims that are made. That's why I said the problem was people using "addiction" in different ways and therefore talking past each other in many cases.

Just saying what I am arguing against is "silliness" wouldn't work for a debate thread -- even if it didn't get a strike (and it might!) it's not an effective argument, which is why I think it can be worth breaking down the arguments and addressing them.

Literally my only point that I am trying to make is that most people don't actually understand what addiction is. The best thing anyone can do if they want to explain anything about addiction to anyone is to learn what the current biopsychological understanding of addiction is.

And my point in posting the post that you initially responded to as the starting place for your initial post was that this current conversation involves a lot of people talking past each other because they are using different definitions of addiction. That's why I think it would make conversation easier if people would define what they mean by addiction before they use the term or, perhaps even better, maybe we should move away from a term with as many preconceptions as "addiction" (many of which people may be attached to for various reasons) and instead just focus on what we are saying without using that word (or at least after defining it first in a short and clear way). Otherwise the discussion always seems to go around in circles, and I am actually kind of interested in trying to figure out where people are agreeing or disagreeing in reality vs on the meaning of a term that is always a hot button.

I get that you think the conversation would work better if we all agreed on and used your definition of "addiction" (and it seems reasonably similar to the definition I also understand with the term), but the fact is that there are many definitions in play and it has sources in all kinds of uses, including just common usage and AA usage and dieting lit usage, etc., so rather than expect people will use it in one particular way I think it is necessary to say "well, what do you mean by that?" if it is not clear. And also to ask "how does that answer relate to behavior and how to modify it, if there's an issue?"

It also often leads to interesting answers.

Bridgie3

Having quit smoking, and knowing that throughout the lifetime of my smoking career I didn't consider myself addicted, I can happily say that sugar and flour are definitely addictions. They tick all the boxes.
Your body does not require to eat them to survive, and the idea of giving them up brings a sense of anxiety.

I am diabetic, so flour and sugar will definitely kill me - if slowly - so I have to let go of them. I don't process them properly.

Being used to sweetness all my life I have leant on fake sweeteners a little, but just a little. I'm having 1/4 tsp of fake sugar in my coffee, two pinches of fake sugar on my berries and greek yoghurt... Only eating berries for fruit, not actual fruit...

I think I have 1/4 bar of chocolate in the cupboard but I don't really care. I'm on 72% chocolate and now 33% is just too sweet.

no bread. No weetbix, or muesli, or potatoes, or rice. It doesn't hurt. As I learn more and more foods I can eat I find I'm eating much nicer foods.

Also: nothing like as hungry. Carbs make you mega hungry in an hour or two. I'm currently on intermittent fasting, 1 meal a day (as much as I want) - and I don't suffer hunger. I don't seem to have cravings. My body is much more settled.

wunderkindking

I mean... carbs might make you mega hungry in an hour or two.

Me? Well if I don't get enough protein I'm hungry but if I don't have carbs with my fat and protein I get shaky, and am STARVED pretty darned quick. Almost every time I eat it's protein + fat + carbs. Because that's what keeps me from getting hungry or just feeling like hot garbage.

Because I'm not diabetic.

lemurcat2

Eating only carbs -- even something I otherwise find filling like plain potatoes or broccoli or an apple (I know lots of people here find fruit not filling or that it otherwise makes them hungrier, but I find it very filling) would likely leave me ready to eat anything around, since I would feel very unsatisfied. (The exception would be a quick snack between meals -- I usually don't snack at all, but I know something like an apple or some carrots actually works fine in those circumstances, despite being basically just carbs.)

But does eating a diet with carbs providing some percentage of the cals along with fat and protein? Certainly not, and while individuals may find lower carbing helps them increase satiety, I think the idea that that works for everyone--or that everyone is hungry unless low carbing--is clearly wrong.

Also, I would point out that hunger control and the addiction concept are two different things.

Xellercin

lemurcat2 wrote: »

And my point in posting the post that you initially responded to as the starting place for your initial post was that this current conversation involves a lot of people talking past each other because they are using different definitions of addiction. That's why I think it would make conversation easier if people would define what they mean by addiction before they use the term or, perhaps even better, maybe we should move away from a term with as many preconceptions as "addiction" (many of which people may be attached to for various reasons) and instead just focus on what we are saying without using that word (or at least after defining it first in a short and clear way). Otherwise the discussion always seems to go around in circles, and I am actually kind of interested in trying to figure out where people are agreeing or disagreeing in reality vs on the meaning of a term that is always a hot button.

I get that you think the conversation would work better if we all agreed on and used your definition of "addiction" (and it seems reasonably similar to the definition I also understand with the term), but the fact is that there are many definitions in play and it has sources in all kinds of uses, including just common usage and AA usage and dieting lit usage, etc., so rather than expect people will use it in one particular way I think it is necessary to say "well, what do you mean by that?" if it is not clear. And also to ask "how does that answer relate to behavior and how to modify it, if there's an issue?"

It also often leads to interesting answers.

No one should use "my" definition of addiction, if they want to understand what addiction is, they should seek out what the current actual medical and scientific understanding of it is.

I'm not disagreeing with you. The only thing I have been saying is that, yes, it's extremely difficult to have a valid conversation about a complex topic when almost no one actually knows what they're talking about, but all seem to think that they do.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I wasn't proposing how to solve the problem of the conversation going around in circles, I was literally only explaining what I see as the source of the problem. If you want to try and solve it, by all means go ahead and try. I'm honestly not arguing with anything you are saying on that front.

I've been making one point, and one point only: that few people who talk about addiction have any legitimate understanding of it, even though they like to state things as if they do. How that plays out is going to be complex, and I don't have solutions for it, because we know that people don't generally feel the need to actually know things before stating that they do.

lemurcat2

Xellercin wrote: »

I wasn't proposing how to solve the problem of the conversation going around in circles, I was literally only explaining what I see as the source of the problem. If you want to try and solve it, by all means go ahead and try. I'm honestly not arguing with anything you are saying on that front.

Okay.

I think given that there is apparently not a common understanding of how "addiction" is being used that it makes sense to be clear on what one is claiming when using the term.

This is based on the assumption that people mean something they consider important when saying that food or eating or sugar or carbs or whatnot is or is not addictive or that they were or are addicted to food or eating, etc., and that they can explain what that is. I actually think this allows us to discuss the topic -- or at least what people are considering important in raising the topic -- reasonably well.

Here I am perhaps not seeing eye to eye with you in that I don't really think it is what addiction is that is being discussed here (although I've read a decent amount and have opinions about it personally), but why people struggle with certain foods or eating behaviors and how to fix that (which of course is going to vary from person to person, but I suspect there is somewhat more agreement on a lot of things than it seems and that the focus on the term "addiction" and certain ideas about what it means/why the answer to that question is important is causing more disagreement than is actually necessary).