Do you believe in food addiction?

cwolfman13

Not particularly no...

I think it's become acceptable to just apply the word addiction to anything where people have difficulty with self control...it's easier than taking personal responsibility; unfortunately, that's the age we live in...

I do believe the people can have problems with food, etc...but perhaps people should be looking more to the underlying cause of those issues rather than just chalking it up to yet another addiction.

Similarly, I do not believe in sex addiction (I know a guy who claims this and even has his wife convinced that he just can't keep his pole in his pants because he's just "addicted") and I do not believe in gambling addiction, etc. Again, I think people can have issues here and very real problems...but "problem" doesn't necessarily equate to "addiction."

bcattoes

NO
If a drug addict stops using drugs, are they cured of the addiction? What if they just do less of the drug or just do the drugs occasionally, are they still considered an addict?

Can someone addicted to food quit eating, will they be cured of their addiction? What if they eat less or just eat occasionally, are they still considered an addict? How can a food addiction be broken?

Some smokers and drinkers who are addicted can learn to use these substances in moderation. Yet, no one questions that those substances are addictive.

Then those smokers and drinkers are still addicts? You'll never be able to stop eating food, therefore and addict will have to learn discipline and willpower and stop complaining about addicition. You can't quit food cold turkey.

No, I suppose once they learn to use the substance in moderation the addiction is cured, or at least remitted.

And no, one can't quit food cold turkey. Which may be why many struggle so much. Unlike the drinker or smoker, they can't totally give up the substance so they have to learn moderation while still using.

Which sounds like it would be very hard indeed.

Mr_Knight

I know some people think that you cannot be addicted to food because it is essential for survival and not something you can quit , but I 100% believe that sugary, fatty, and salty junk foods are addictive.
What do you think?

I think humans are extremely good at inventing stories that absolve them of personal responsibility.

How does addiction remove personal responsibility?

When did we agree they were addicted?

There is a difference being claiming and being.

neanderthin

I don't, but I know many people believe they are.

bcattoes

I know some people think that you cannot be addicted to food because it is essential for survival and not something you can quit , but I 100% believe that sugary, fatty, and salty junk foods are addictive.
What do you think?

I think humans are extremely good at inventing stories that absolve them of personal responsibility.

How does addiction remove personal responsibility?

When did we agree they were addicted?

There is a difference being claiming and being.

Perhaps I misunderstood your post, I inferred that you were saying people claim addiction as a means to absolve them of personal responsibility. Which made me wonder how being addicted (whether real or imagined) would absolve one of personal responsibility.

Is a crack addict that chooses to smoke crack not still responsible for that action?

FredDoyle

Can one be addicted to air? How about clean fresh air?
Maybe the better question is how does one control gluttony if one is predisposed to such.

Mr_Knight

Perhaps I misunderstood your post, I inferred that you were saying people claim addiction as a means to absolve them of personal responsibility. Which made me wonder how being addicted (whether real or imagined) would absolve one of personal responsibility.

Is a crack addict that chooses to smoke crack not still responsible for that action?

I see there being two kinds of responsibility - the kind imposed from the outside (i.e., "the law") and the kind we impose on ourselves ("It's not my fault, I can't help but eat that pop tart"). The former can't be avoided no matter what kind of internal rationalizations we create - the second one can.

subsonicbassist

Yes, food addictions exist. No, It doesn't matter if you believe in it for not. You can choose to believe whatever you want but many people suffer from food addiction, albeit some to a lesser degree where they are able to stop eventually. If there were no such things as food addictions, there would be many less reasons for one to consume enough food to become severely overweight. Take a look at the people that weight 500+ pounds and ask them what their reason is for being that big I am speaking from personal experience and being friends with larger individuals, and I am not certified to diagnose someone with a food addiction just because this is the Internet.

DavidSTC

I think this thread is going to end badly.

I also think that food addiction exists in the context of people eating as behavioral response to cope with issues going on in their lives, but I do not believe a person can be addicted to a specific food. I think people tend to choose highly palatable foods when eating to cope and confuse the food itself with the behavior.

I think people can also develop a habit/learned behavior of sitting down with an entire package of cookies while watching TV or doing some other activity, not paying attention to how many cookies they are eating, and then say that they are incapable of only eating one cookie and have an addiction when they could change that behavior if they make an effort to be conscious of their eating.

"I also think that food addiction exists in the context of people eating as behavioral response to cope with issues going on in their lives ..."

I think that's pretty much addictive behavior in general.

babyangelica2010

Like I said in my original post, I'm referring to junk foods being addicting, foods that we CAN stop eating.

lemurcat12

What does "addicted" mean? There are a variety of alternative definitions that seem to be in play.

IMO, clearly addiction is not limited to physical dependence, as people can be addicted to stuff like gambling or, say, alcohol, which can become physically addictive, but for most alcoholics does not result in physical withdrawal when one stops drinking--when it does, of course, it can be life-threatening.

Instead, addiction commonly gets used also for some kind of emotional dependence or misplaced use of something that creates difficulties in quitting and tends to result in the substance/activity being used when it causes harm, and may not even be pleasurable anymore, but more compulsive, plus a strong belief by the person that the substance/activity is needed, that he or she can't imagine life without it. Could food--or certain types of food or ways of relating to food--be considered similar? I'm leaning toward yes, even though I haven't personally experienced anything I'd call that with food.

Of course, it's also common to assume that people who get addicted in non-physically-addictive ways still have some physical component to it. For example, alcoholics who aren't strictly physically addicted in that they can stop without withdrawal symptoms are still often experienced problematic physical reactions to alcohol from the beginning and often never really drank normally, even before they started drinking much at all. But there are others who develop addiction from misuse over time and even the predisposed (if one believes in that, and I do) aren't addicted in advance. They must experience the substance and often how the substance is culturally used and encouraged plays a role.

Anyway, I don't see how claiming that any particular substance is addictive absolves anyone of personal responsibility. It just may make a difference in how to address the issue, how much one approaches it as a logical problem--this is what's healthy to eat and fits into my calorie allowance vs. an emotional or triggering issue or a mental, habitual one.

prattiger65

No

ThinLizzie0802

For people with drug and alcohol addictions, these can easily be transferred to food when trying to quit.

GertrudeHorse

There's an important difference in my view between addiction and compulsive behaviour. Addiction is is characterised by dependence, increased tolerance, habituation, inability to stop when one wants to and general lack of control. Some of that applies to some foods for some people, but I think most who struggle with food are compulsive eaters but not addicted in a clinical sense. It doesn't make the solution any easier though...and obviously total abstinence isn't a possible solution for food problems. Overall I feel it's not possible to give a definitive answer here.

ETA: the language we use is important and some people benefit from a medicalised understanding of their behaviour (which means it can be externalised and then managed/treated) rather than feeling they are greedy or whatever. In any event both addictions, compulsions and overeating involve complex emotional issues!

GiddyupTim

NO
If a drug addict stops using drugs, are they cured of the addiction? What if they just do less of the drug or just do the drugs occasionally, are they still considered an addict?

Can someone addicted to food quit eating, will they be cured of their addiction? What if they eat less or just eat occasionally, are they still considered an addict? How can a food addiction be broken?

Some smokers and drinkers who are addicted can learn to use these substances in moderation. Yet, no one questions that those substances are addictive.

I have a fair amount of experience with drug and alcohol addiction. I have never seen a true alcoholic or a smoker learn to use those substances with responsible moderation. Smokers either quit, or they don't quit. They do not become social smokers who can pick up, say, one or two cigarettes a week and be fine with it. NEVER!
Same with the drinkers. I think there are some people who go through an abusive period, in their teens, mostly, and then come out the other side. But, they are not really addicted. A true alcoholic doesn't come out the other side, to my knowledge. Their pattern might change. They might be a daily drinker at first, and then they become a binge drinker. But they do not become a social drinker who can have one or two glasses of wine a day and not miss inebriation. It just doesn't happen. Look closely, that alcoholic who still kinda drinks, probably does not drink much at all, and, sometimes when they do, they overdo it.
Sorry to digress from the true topic or the thread. I just thought that statement was so wrong, I had to say something.

bcattoes

Perhaps I misunderstood your post, I inferred that you were saying people claim addiction as a means to absolve them of personal responsibility. Which made me wonder how being addicted (whether real or imagined) would absolve one of personal responsibility.

Is a crack addict that chooses to smoke crack not still responsible for that action?

I see there being two kinds of responsibility - the kind imposed from the outside (i.e., "the law") and the kind we impose on ourselves ("It's not my fault, I can't help but eat that pop tart"). The former can't be avoided no matter what kind of internal rationalizations we create - the second one can.

I was not talking about law. I was talking presonal responsibility. Whether one chooses to overeat or smoke crack, it is still personal choice. No free person HAS to smoke crack.

bcattoes

NO
If a drug addict stops using drugs, are they cured of the addiction? What if they just do less of the drug or just do the drugs occasionally, are they still considered an addict?

Can someone addicted to food quit eating, will they be cured of their addiction? What if they eat less or just eat occasionally, are they still considered an addict? How can a food addiction be broken?

Some smokers and drinkers who are addicted can learn to use these substances in moderation. Yet, no one questions that those substances are addictive.

I have a fair amount of experience with drug and alcohol addiction. I have never seen a true alcoholic or a smoker learn to use those substances with responsible moderation. Smokers either quit, or they don't quit. They do not become social smokers who can pick up, say, one or two cigarettes a week and be fine with it. NEVER!
Same with the drinkers. I think there are some people who go through an abusive period, in their teens, mostly, and then come out the other side. But, they are not really addicted. A true alcoholic doesn't come out the other side, to my knowledge. Their pattern might change. They might be a daily drinker at first, and then they become a binge drinker. But they do not become a social drinker who can have one or two glasses of wine a day and not miss inebriation. It just doesn't happen. Look closely, that alcoholic who still kinda drinks, probably does not drink much at all, and, sometimes when they do, they overdo it.
Sorry to digress from the true topic or the thread. I just thought that statement was so wrong, I had to say something.

Well, sure you can say "I don't think they were addicted". But they were.

wonderwoman234

Yes, I think anything can be addicting like sex, gambling, shopping, computer, etc. There have been some interesting studies recently using brain scans that show food (certain foods) trigger the same the addictive process that other substances create in the brain.

Here is a quote from Dr. Lustig, who is doing great research on refined sugar:

"The brain's pleasure center, called the nucleus accumbens, is essential for our survival as a species... Turn off pleasure, and you turn off the will to live... But long-term stimulation of the pleasure center drives the process of addiction... When you consume any substance of abuse, including sugar, the nucleus accumbens receives a dopamine signal, from which you experience pleasure. And so you consume more.

The problem is that with prolonged exposure, the signal attenuates, gets weaker. So you have to consume more to get the same effect -- tolerance. And if you pull back on the substance, you go into withdrawal. Tolerance and withdrawal constitute addiction. And make no mistake, sugar is addictive."

wonderwoman234

There's an important difference in my view between addiction and compulsive behaviour. Addiction is is characterised by dependence, increased tolerance, habituation, inability to stop when one wants to and general lack of control. Some of that applies to some foods for some people, but I think most who struggle with food are compulsive eaters but not addicted in a clinical sense. It doesn't make the solution any easier though...and obviously total abstinence isn't a possible solution for food problems. Overall I feel it's not possible to give a definitive answer here.

ETA: the language we use is important and some people benefit from a medicalised understanding of their behaviour (which means it can be externalised and then managed/treated) rather than feeling they are greedy or whatever. In any event both addictions, compulsions and overeating involve complex emotional issues!

Terrific response!

ghostsnstuff

No. I believe that you can get addicted to the substances in food (sugar, HFCS, MSG, etc) but not the food itself. It's like people who bake marijuana brownies - they're addicted to the marijuana, not the brownies. Same thing with food.