Is anyone else addicted to SUGAR?!?

Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »

baconslave wrote: »

wamydia wrote: »

I have always loved sugar and had a hard time limiting my intake. I found that moderating it by setting rules for myself worked. For instance, I can only have something sweet in the evening after dinner. For items that I have a hard time not eating too much of, I limit the amount that I have in the house (like buy a little 6 pack of oreos instead of a big pack). This works for me, but for some people it doesn't because they find it hard to control the urge to just keep eating whatever is at hand.

Some people find that they have to abstain completely in order to control their sugar cravings. Some say they cut out sweets entirely, some just cut out certain sweet foods. Some people try this, however, and find that it leads to overindulgence later.

My words of wisdom are try all of the above and see what works for you in the long run. I recommend starting with moderating just because why deprive yourself when you don't have to? But if you find that it just can't work, I don't see anything wrong with choosing to abstain from certain foods as long as you feel it is something that you can maintain long term. Finally, if this is a really huge struggle for you, you may consider talking to a counselor that deals with food issues. Sometimes the root of the issue is more emotional than anything.

The bolded part.
All you need in a nutshell, OP.

I personally had to cut added sugar out completely for the time being. It FELT like an addiction, but really wasn't. I could now probably reintroduce in moderation if I wanted, but being divorced from it for so long, I feel really "meh" toward it now and would rather spend my calories eating other foods and drinking occasionally. And I can't deny that I feel really well now. So if it ain't broke...

What I found was: when I cut it out initially, it lost its allure. Now I don't really crave it or think about it, so it became more of a lifestyle. All the better for me.

dbmata wrote: »

baconslave wrote: »

dbmata wrote: »

Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »

Prepare for folks to nitpick your use of the word "addicted" and for folks to declare that everything in moderation is the only preferable option.

Didn't take long for a post like this to show up. Well done.

Forewarned is forearmed?

She did not say that these things OP will hear aren't true. But it IS what OP should expect to hear. Lo' and behold, it happened. In accordance with the prophecy.

Prophecy, or did she invoke the devil by mentioning him? lol.

BombshellPhoenix wrote: »

Moderation.

baconslave wrote: »

Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »

baconslave wrote: »

wamydia wrote: »

I have always loved sugar and had a hard time limiting my intake. I found that moderating it by setting rules for myself worked. For instance, I can only have something sweet in the evening after dinner. For items that I have a hard time not eating too much of, I limit the amount that I have in the house (like buy a little 6 pack of oreos instead of a big pack). This works for me, but for some people it doesn't because they find it hard to control the urge to just keep eating whatever is at hand.

Some people find that they have to abstain completely in order to control their sugar cravings. Some say they cut out sweets entirely, some just cut out certain sweet foods. Some people try this, however, and find that it leads to overindulgence later.

My words of wisdom are try all of the above and see what works for you in the long run. I recommend starting with moderating just because why deprive yourself when you don't have to? But if you find that it just can't work, I don't see anything wrong with choosing to abstain from certain foods as long as you feel it is something that you can maintain long term. Finally, if this is a really huge struggle for you, you may consider talking to a counselor that deals with food issues. Sometimes the root of the issue is more emotional than anything.

The bolded part.
All you need in a nutshell, OP.

I personally had to cut added sugar out completely for the time being. It FELT like an addiction, but really wasn't. I could now probably reintroduce in moderation if I wanted, but being divorced from it for so long, I feel really "meh" toward it now and would rather spend my calories eating other foods and drinking occasionally. And I can't deny that I feel really well now. So if it ain't broke...

What I found was: when I cut it out initially, it lost its allure. Now I don't really crave it or think about it, so it became more of a lifestyle. All the better for me.

Exactly. It loses it's allure. So if we really want it, we CAN have it. But we don't want it, so we don't eat it.

The key is training yourself to moderate. The specific technique varies by person.

wamydia wrote: »

My words of wisdom are try all of the above and see what works for you in the long run. I recommend starting with moderating just because why deprive yourself when you don't have to? But if you find that it just can't work, I don't see anything wrong with choosing to abstain from certain foods as long as you feel it is something that you can maintain long term. Finally, if this is a really huge struggle for you, you may consider talking to a counselor that deals with food issues. Sometimes the root of the issue is more emotional than anything.

Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »

Prepare for folks to nitpick your use of the word "addicted" and for folks to declare that everything in moderation is the only preferable option.

Good luck. I used to waste tons of calories on sugary snacks and drinks. I ultimately decided to cut out added sugars pretty much cold turkey for a few weeks. I still limit added sugars to 3 grams per serving. In the beginning it took a lot of label reading (they call sugar many things and add tons of it to things that don't need it other than for industrial purposes).

Best thing I ever did for myself, tbh.
You need to figure out what works for you for the long haul. Everyone's different. cheers!

Blueseraphchaos wrote: »

Out of curiosity, anyone care to explain why gambling addiction is an addiction despite having no physical symptoms and no physical withdrawal symptoms, while sugar is not a "real" addiction despite having obvious psychological symptoms (like gambling addicting)?

if addiction is defined by withdrawal symptoms after increasing tolerance, leading a user to use more to prevent withdrawal, then gambling, sex, etc cannot be defined as addictions.

I've read that addiction is defined, however, as a desire for more despite negative consequences....so in that case, why can sugar not be an addiction?

Also, the whole thing about it being a smack in the face to people who were addicted to heroin....studies have shown that people typically age out of addiction even if they continue to use moderately after that...and just because heroin has terrible physical withdrawal doesn't diminish the struggle of people who say they are addicted to sugar, food, or what have you.

Blueseraphchaos wrote: »

Also, the whole thing about it being a smack in the face to people who were addicted to heroin....studies have shown that people typically age out of addiction even if they continue t

Plenty of people remain addicts 'til they die, so I don't think it's nothing to worry about, not that serious, people age out, if that's what you are trying to convey, and frankly comparing what most people are talking about when they say they are "sugar addicts" to true addiction does seem to me to be insensitive or to minimize how horrible addiction for everyone involved. Typically what people talking about "sugar addiction" are talking about is the fact that they have a tendency to overeat dessert type items and feel a bit out of control (i.e., have trouble not overeating) when they do eat it (and perhaps have trouble resisting a delicious-looking piece of cake). And yes, being fat can be a huge bummer. That's still not the kind of "I guess I'll throw my life in the toilet" experience of addiction.

I think binge eating disorder, on the other hand, or other kinds of behaviors related to eating can be basically the same or similar, however. There is someone here who used to be morbidly obese and has written movingly about his experience with food where food had essentially become the center of his life, in a way that nearly crowded out everything else, and that's the kind of relationship--where eating (or drinking or taking the substance in question) isn't even fun anymore, it's just the only thing that makes it like addiction as I understand it.

Saying "I just really love food" (or "love pizza" or "love cake") doesn't make one an addict. I did, at one point, love wine and know a lot about it and so on. That's not what made me a drunk. (Also, saying "I'm a sugar addict" but then acknowledging the "addiction" is only for certain sweet treats (since almost no one claims to have that reaction to fruit or even to eating sugar straight) is rather like claiming to be a pinot noir addict, but not have any issue with any other kind of alcohol, which is obviously absurd.) What seems most off re some of the efforts to claim sugar is like an addictive substance is the assumption that it being super enjoyable is what means it's addictive. The essence of addiction isn't that using the substance is fun or pleasurable.

I'm not trying to downplay heroin addiction or any other addiction. Coming from the town with the highest per-capita heroin addiction in the country, being a former addict myself, i understand all too well what all that crap is. I have watched friends die from heroin...I've also watched them age out. It's kind of a crap shoot at best. The people like me tend never to define themselves as having been addicts even though they have all the markets and diagnostic criteria for it. my point in saying that most ppl actually age out of addiction is that there are plenty of former addicts, like me, who would not view someone saying they're addicted to food as a slap in the face.

I just see people on here all the time saying that addiction to food or sugar or what have you isn't real....but i think it is. I won't deny that the term most likely does get thrown around too loosely, but i just find it terrible that people are so nasty to other people who say they're addicted to sugar...especially if the person hasn't given many or any details (do they binge, sneak large amounts of food, etc). A lot of behaviors i see on here are so close to addiction that they might as well be functionally defined as addiction. I guess I'd have to add a component of compulsion to doing things with negative consequences (where deciding to go to sleep despite having a big project due isn't addiction but eating large amounts of sugar without even making the decision to do so could be considered addiction, just like gambling large amounts of money because you feel compelled to could be considered addiction).

At the risk being "that person," i guess this would be more of a "why are people so nasty for no reason" post, haha. Everyone is here for a reason, people come to the forums because they're struggling with someone, and other people reply with nastiness because semantics! If someone is struggling, just help them....there's no need to pitch fits about the use of the word addiction and say it's not possible when, arguably, it very well IS possible because we don't know life stories. A question like, "anyone else addicted to sugar? How did you handle it?" could just be answered instead of being blown up into a bunch of crap.

I'm not a very overly-sensitive person, so i don't throw a fit at the use of the word addicted when someone most likely isn't truly addicted. Maybe that's the issue. I just get mad when people act like compete *kitten* on here (or when people read something, twist it pretty much beyond recognition, then reply rudely on here). Maybe I'll start another "mean people" thread.

lemurcat12 wrote: »

there are plenty of former addicts, like me, who would not view someone saying they're addicted to food as a slap in the face.

Sure. There are lots of things I'm not sensitive about either (including stuff people say about addiction, in fact), but I don't think that means that it's false to say that others are and that it's insensitive to them to compare what they dealt with to some of the casual uses of the term.

In fact, I don't think most people mind the truly casual uses of the term. If I said "I'm addicted to Brussels sprouts, they are so tasty," I think everyone would get that I just mean "I really like them," and not get bothered.

Why people get bothered about the use of "addiction" in the usual sugar thread is that it is supposed to mean something else, that your physical reaction to sugar is akin to that of an addict, and thus it is fair game, I think, to explore that, especially since the arguments are often so different from what addiction really is, for all the reasons I identified above. And, even more significantly, because it's usually used to mean "I can't help it," and the fact is even an addict can help it, it's just what has to be done is different. Indeed, as someone who feels strongly that acknowledging an addiction is a step toward stopping the behavior, and not an excuse or basis to say "I can't help it," that it is so often used in that way when invoked in connection with food is bothersome.

I just see people on here all the time saying that addiction to food or sugar or what have you isn't real....but i think it is.

We disagree, then. I think binge eating disorder and eating addiction (which could be called food addiction) is real. The first seems not especially uncommon, but also seems quite difference than having a weakness for sugary treats, and the latter is, I think, quite uncommon but does seem to be related especially to some cases of morbid obesity. Having been an emotional eater myself, I don't think that's the same thing, and that seems to be one area where it's often used. However, arguably there's a continuum and if we stop with the effort to deny personal responsibility I actually do think (and always say) that some addiction-related tactics probably can help with things like emotional eating too. They have for me. And related to this, certainly OA may help people, and I'm in favor of people trying stuff like that if they feel unable to get a handle on their eating behaviors.

But none of this is generally what is discussed in the sugar addiction threads. Instead, the claim is made that sugar is a substance that causes physical addiction, etc., and somehow this is so even though the reaction is limited to stuff like cake and not fruit, dairy, or sugar from the jar. (In one such thread a participant even suggested to me that I might be "addicted" to naan, but not other bread, which shows how irrational this use of the term "addiction" is.)

i just find it terrible that people are so nasty to other people who say they're addicted to sugar...especially if the person hasn't given many or any details (do they binge, sneak large amounts of food, etc

I haven't noticed lots of nastiness. I certainly don't think I am, and would like to see what you think is nasty in any of my posts, if you disagree. Usually there are helpful responses combined with statements that we don't believe it's really addiction or questions about the specifics. And lots of people always jump in to say it's addiction and because of sugar which causes withdrawal symptoms and such nonsense, which tends to take the thread off the real topic, which is how to deal with the specific struggles, usually.

eating large amounts of sugar without even making the decision to do so could be considered addiction, just like gambling large amounts of money because you feel compelled to could be considered addiction).

What is not making the decision to do so? For example, mostly I gained weight due to overeating not directly related to sugar, but after I was fat again and while involved in some really stressful work stuff, I would make the decision to, say, just have ice cream for dinner, and that would not infrequently involve eating the whole pint. I knew that would likely lead to me gaining more weight, but at the time the payoff was worth it to me, so I did it. Now I'd say that was a decision that led to bad consequences, but did it require addiction? Certainly not. Binging IMO is different, but people who binge know they have a binging disorder. They don't say it's about sugar, really, so I don't think that's what we are talking about.

Why are people nasty on here? I think they have someone in their lives that pisses in their Cheerios on the daily, and they are bothered by it enough to pay it forward. That's my theory any way.

Eh, sometimes I think people are inconsiderate because they are used to dealing with certain questions and tired of certain kinds of claims. I've done that, probably, although I really do try to be helpful even when expressing my objection to certain things.

But for the most part I don't think people are nasty or even all that inconsiderate. I think a LOT of the time some people interpret any disagreement as nastiness, even if it's on a factual matter expressed. It's like a book site I used to post on where for the most part there would be good discussions but there was a faction who would take "Faulkner is overrated" as a personal insult (okay, it wasn't usually the Faulkner fans who got butthurt, but I don't want to start a side argument). That's kind of how I take the people who read some of these discussions as mean. If you post on a factual topic on any message board I think you have to assume there will be debate and I guess I just don't perceive debate as insulting or not supportive. It's like insisting that if you say "Rand Paul is super great" on a political message board I have to either not say something or agree even if I can't stand the policies Paul supports or else be accused of being non-supportive or mean.

What you have to do is STOP IT. It isn't that easy for some people. I tried just having "a little bit." (Miserable failure. ) Many people feel like they can't and don't know how to just stop.

I agree with this, and think that's been acknowledged in my posts and the posts of many others on this thread, including those who disagree with the use of the term "addiction." In fact, one problem I have with the use of the term (although you can disagree) is that I think it's counterproductive. I think deciding that you are addicted often means that you are more likely to lose control if tempted and certainly if you indulge a bit. That happened to me with alcohol, and I think I was, in fact, addicted to alcohol. Even so, acknowledging that, while necessary, did not have purely positive effects. To have the same thing happen with something you aren't in fact addicted to would be unfortunate. That doesn't mean you need to keep eating it if that strategy doesn't work for you, obviously, as everyone has said.

We disagree, then. I think binge eating disorder and eating addiction (which could be called food addiction) is real. The first seems not especially uncommon, but also seems quite difference than having a weakness for sugary treats, and the latter is, I think, quite uncommon but does seem to be related especially to some cases of morbid obesity.

I haven't noticed lots of nastiness. I certainly don't think I am, and would like to see what you think is nasty in any of my posts, if you disagree.

And lots of people always jump in to say it's addiction and because of sugar which causes withdrawal symptoms and such nonsense, which tends to take the thread off the real topic, which is how to deal with the specific struggles, usually.

What is not making the decision to do so? For example, mostly I gained weight due to overeating not directly related to sugar, but after I was fat again and while involved in some really stressful work stuff, I would make the decision to, say, just have ice cream for dinner, and that would not infrequently involve eating the whole pint. I knew that would likely lead to me gaining more weight, but at the time the payoff was worth it to me, so I did it. Now I'd say that was a decision that led to bad consequences, but did it require addiction? Certainly not. Binging IMO is different, but people who binge know they have a binging disorder. They don't say it's about sugar, really, so I don't think that's what we are talking about.

Eh, sometimes I think people are inconsiderate because they are used to dealing with certain questions and tired of certain kinds of claims. I've done that, probably, although I really do try to be helpful even when expressing my objection to certain things.

But for the most part I don't think people are nasty or even all that inconsiderate. I think a LOT of the time some people interpret any disagreement as nastiness, even if it's on a factual matter expressed. It's like a book site I used to post on where for the most part there would be good discussions but there was a faction who would take "Faulkner is overrated" as a personal insult (okay, it wasn't usually the Faulkner fans who got butthurt, but I don't want to start a side argument). That's kind of how I take the people who read some of these discussions as mean.

Blueseraphchaos wrote: »

I didn't say actual sugar or food addiction is common, just that i think it does exist...which appears to be what you are also saying? In which case, we aren't actually disagreeing....unless i misread something there.

And that's the gist of my point...perhaps take away the idea of being offended and simply HELP.

I view name-calling and arbitrary marking of posts as spam or abuse that aren't even CLOSE to spam or abuse as being nasty.