How do you cut your craving for sugar??
Options
Replies
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
I still don't understand how "addict" means no accountability. How are addicts not accountable for their own behavior?
Well you see I don't believe food is addictive. I believe it is more like disordered eating and if that's the case, get professional help...
Well, okay. But that still doesn't clear up why calling it an addiction would eliminate accountability.
It shouldn't. By the time someone admits they are a drug or alcohol addict (instead of claiming they can handle it) they generally admit they are accountable. But my impression from MFP (and one of the reasons the addiction claims irritate me) is that people think that claiming "addiction" means they cannot help it, they are powerless over sugar (or whatever), and so have an excuse for over indulging.
I think the real issue here is MFP in general has to stop being so pedantic.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/addiction
: a strong and harmful need to regularly have something (such as a drug) or do something (such as gamble)
: an unusually great interest in something or a need to do or have something
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/addiction
1.
a. Physiological or psychological dependence, as on a substance: a drug used in the treatment of heroin addiction.
b. An instance of this: a person with a sex addiction.
2.
a. The condition of being habitually occupied with or involved in something: My addiction to comic books disappeared when graphic novels came out.
b. The condition of using something on a regular or dependent basis: fossil fuel addiction.
c. An instance of one of these conditions: had an addiction to fast cars.
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/addiction
1 a strong need that someone feels to regularly take an illegal or harmful drug
2 a strong need or wish to spend as much time as possible doing a particular activity
If someone started complaining that people could only use the word "too" to mean "also" but were not allowed to use it to mean "very", people would think they were nuts. Yet, people are doing the same exact thing with the word "addiction," ignoring half of the dictionary definition in favor of having an argument on the internet.0 -
I think it's ok to say that food has "addictive qualities," but that's not nearly the same thing as saying it's "addictive." Eating, sleeping, sexing, pursuing healthy/fun hobbies -- your body and mind want you to repeat these things, thus they activate your reward systems. And that's a good thing. An addiction to life is a wonderful mechanism.
I think the danger in going "all in" with the Food Is Addictive(R) gambit is that you give yourself permission to fail.
There was an episode of South Park where Stan's dad gets a DUI and is forced to go to meetings, where he "learns" that he has no control over his drinking. So, he takes that as a perfect reason to drink all day.
I have, at times, heard myself making the exact same rationalization. "I am going to eat six of these donuts because I cannot stop myself nom nom nom." Take a step back, and that just sounds absurd.
But I think it's entirely possibly to get so entrenched in the habit of permitting yourself to overindulge, over and over and over, that it sort of becomes moot whether there's an addiction going on. The "treatment" at that stage would probably need to, on some level, resemble a treatment for addiction, regardless of whether the addiction is "real" and demonstrated though peer review. Break the habit, then build the willpower to eat "normal."
Haha. Good analogy. I like the episode where Stan's dad explains to Stan that pot isn't okay because pot makes it okay to be bored. I feel that way about eating for entertainment. Sure, it's easy, it's cheap, cookies will never reject you or stand you up, or require any skill to eat, but as a substitute for real life? Nah, not if there's any hope of having an actual life.
Of course I'm pretty sure it's too late now for me, but for them younger people out there, go out, go dancing, have fun while you can. Because one day you might just look up and realize it's too late for you, too. So get all the good things while you can.0 -
lgramberg15 wrote: »Okay obviously there is a big difference between addiction to drugs, and the physiological craving for sugar. I never meant to compare the two. From my own experience once I eat something sugary (like a mini piece of candy for example) I tend to crave more of it. You can call it addiction, you can call it overindulgence, whatever you like; the fact of the matter is that the craving is there. I do not intend to cut sugar from my diet. I am working on eating less things with added sugar. I already don't eat very many processed foods as it is, but I would like to cut those things from my diet. To bring this full circle, the whole reason I posted this thread was because I've hit a plateau with weight loss, and I thought it might be due to the amount of sugar I eat. Clearly I am doing something wrong, but fighting over whether or addiction to sugar is a real thing isn't going to change anything.
Could you have something small in the evening, say natural yogurt with some peanut butter? I sometimes have a couple of rice cakes with jam on, so it's not loads of calories, but it satisfies that sweet tooth.
I'm the same in that once I eat some chocolate I want more, and I actually find it easier not to have any at all, but I don't find the same with other sweet things. Dark chocolate is good actually, I'm happy with a couple of small squares.
I haven't read the whole thread (I know how these things go lol) but how much do you have left to lose?0 -
After eating sugar all my life (way way too much), i could never give it up until i switched my way of eating. I am somewhere between a ketogenic and very low carb diet now. Been on this 60 days now and have no sugar cravings, in fact got no interest in sweet stuff at all
. After being very skeptic about this type of diet i can honestly say hand on heart it works for me. This diet kills your appetite too................can't be bad. 0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
I still don't understand how "addict" means no accountability. How are addicts not accountable for their own behavior?
Well you see I don't believe food is addictive. I believe it is more like disordered eating and if that's the case, get professional help...
Well, okay. But that still doesn't clear up why calling it an addiction would eliminate accountability.
It shouldn't. By the time someone admits they are a drug or alcohol addict (instead of claiming they can handle it) they generally admit they are accountable. But my impression from MFP (and one of the reasons the addiction claims irritate me) is that people think that claiming "addiction" means they cannot help it, they are powerless over sugar (or whatever), and so have an excuse for over indulging.
I think the real issue here is MFP in general has to stop being so pedantic.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/addiction
: a strong and harmful need to regularly have something (such as a drug) or do something (such as gamble)
: an unusually great interest in something or a need to do or have something
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/addiction
1.
a. Physiological or psychological dependence, as on a substance: a drug used in the treatment of heroin addiction.
b. An instance of this: a person with a sex addiction.
2.
a. The condition of being habitually occupied with or involved in something: My addiction to comic books disappeared when graphic novels came out.
b. The condition of using something on a regular or dependent basis: fossil fuel addiction.
c. An instance of one of these conditions: had an addiction to fast cars.
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/addiction
1 a strong need that someone feels to regularly take an illegal or harmful drug
2 a strong need or wish to spend as much time as possible doing a particular activity
If someone started complaining that people could only use the word "too" to mean "also" but were not allowed to use it to mean "very", people would think they were nuts. Yet, people are doing the same exact thing with the word "addiction," ignoring half of the dictionary definition in favor of having an argument on the internet.
If people used "addiction" in a way that didn't suggest they were trying to analogize it with drug addiction they wouldn't get flack. But they generally make it clear that they DO mean to compare it with drugs, and thus I think it's fair game to point out that it's not.
Also, I seriously doubt that even the definitions you wish to use actually fit.0 -
arditarose wrote: »lgramberg15 wrote: »Everytime I crave it?? ^
Save room in your day for a dessert. My diary is open. You will see a dessert in there every. single. night. Why do you need to cut the craving?
Agreeeeeed. Have a looksie at my diary too, i save around 200-250 every day for dessert. I am also literally the BIGGEST SUGAR ADDICT in the world. OP, im pretty sure you and i could share some tales about the ridiculous binges we have had. So yeah, the only way i can stop having my mental binge stages is by allowing myself dessert every night. That way i can look forward to it, and know that if (for example today) it gets to like 4pm and i NEED chocolate, i think to myself, huh... in only 3 hours i can have some for my noms after dinner! haha. Weight watchers desserts are great, or some 70% dark chocolate, or like a quest bar, or some frozen yogurt with *kitten* loads of fresh fruit etc etc.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
I still don't understand how "addict" means no accountability. How are addicts not accountable for their own behavior?
Well you see I don't believe food is addictive. I believe it is more like disordered eating and if that's the case, get professional help...
Well, okay. But that still doesn't clear up why calling it an addiction would eliminate accountability.
It shouldn't. By the time someone admits they are a drug or alcohol addict (instead of claiming they can handle it) they generally admit they are accountable. But my impression from MFP (and one of the reasons the addiction claims irritate me) is that people think that claiming "addiction" means they cannot help it, they are powerless over sugar (or whatever), and so have an excuse for over indulging.
I think the real issue here is MFP in general has to stop being so pedantic.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/addiction
: a strong and harmful need to regularly have something (such as a drug) or do something (such as gamble)
: an unusually great interest in something or a need to do or have something
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/addiction
1.
a. Physiological or psychological dependence, as on a substance: a drug used in the treatment of heroin addiction.
b. An instance of this: a person with a sex addiction.
2.
a. The condition of being habitually occupied with or involved in something: My addiction to comic books disappeared when graphic novels came out.
b. The condition of using something on a regular or dependent basis: fossil fuel addiction.
c. An instance of one of these conditions: had an addiction to fast cars.
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/addiction
1 a strong need that someone feels to regularly take an illegal or harmful drug
2 a strong need or wish to spend as much time as possible doing a particular activity
If someone started complaining that people could only use the word "too" to mean "also" but were not allowed to use it to mean "very", people would think they were nuts. Yet, people are doing the same exact thing with the word "addiction," ignoring half of the dictionary definition in favor of having an argument on the internet.
If people used "addiction" in a way that didn't suggest they were trying to analogize it with drug addiction they wouldn't get flack. But they generally make it clear that they DO mean to compare it with drugs, and thus I think it's fair game to point out that it's not.
Also, I seriously doubt that even the definitions you wish to use actually fit.
I'd say "using something on a regular or dependent basis" fits pretty well, as does "habitually occupied", especially considering cutting it back is usually harder for people than, say, cutting back on McDonald's or coffee. If they don't have it, they think about it, and if they think about it long enough, they give in and have it. They have a sugar habit, which they refer to as addiction, and rather than offer them helpful advice, we get people coming in beating them over the heads with the DSM V, because how dare they use that word in a non-clinical sense. I wonder if the people who get so verklemmt over someone wanting help with their sugar habit also write angry letters to the producers of Rehab Addict or My Strange Addcition?0 -
herrspoons wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
I still don't understand how "addict" means no accountability. How are addicts not accountable for their own behavior?
Well you see I don't believe food is addictive. I believe it is more like disordered eating and if that's the case, get professional help...
Well, okay. But that still doesn't clear up why calling it an addiction would eliminate accountability.
It shouldn't. By the time someone admits they are a drug or alcohol addict (instead of claiming they can handle it) they generally admit they are accountable. But my impression from MFP (and one of the reasons the addiction claims irritate me) is that people think that claiming "addiction" means they cannot help it, they are powerless over sugar (or whatever), and so have an excuse for over indulging.
I think the real issue here is MFP in general has to stop being so pedantic.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/addiction
: a strong and harmful need to regularly have something (such as a drug) or do something (such as gamble)
: an unusually great interest in something or a need to do or have something
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/addiction
1.
a. Physiological or psychological dependence, as on a substance: a drug used in the treatment of heroin addiction.
b. An instance of this: a person with a sex addiction.
2.
a. The condition of being habitually occupied with or involved in something: My addiction to comic books disappeared when graphic novels came out.
b. The condition of using something on a regular or dependent basis: fossil fuel addiction.
c. An instance of one of these conditions: had an addiction to fast cars.
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/addiction
1 a strong need that someone feels to regularly take an illegal or harmful drug
2 a strong need or wish to spend as much time as possible doing a particular activity
If someone started complaining that people could only use the word "too" to mean "also" but were not allowed to use it to mean "very", people would think they were nuts. Yet, people are doing the same exact thing with the word "addiction," ignoring half of the dictionary definition in favor of having an argument on the internet.
Complains of pedantry, quotes dictionary reference.
M'kay.
Yes, I'm sure deflecting is easier than explaining why you're always one of the first to charge in, demanding people only use the definition you approve of.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
I still don't understand how "addict" means no accountability. How are addicts not accountable for their own behavior?
Well you see I don't believe food is addictive. I believe it is more like disordered eating and if that's the case, get professional help...
Well, okay. But that still doesn't clear up why calling it an addiction would eliminate accountability.
It shouldn't. By the time someone admits they are a drug or alcohol addict (instead of claiming they can handle it) they generally admit they are accountable. But my impression from MFP (and one of the reasons the addiction claims irritate me) is that people think that claiming "addiction" means they cannot help it, they are powerless over sugar (or whatever), and so have an excuse for over indulging.
I think the real issue here is MFP in general has to stop being so pedantic.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/addiction
: a strong and harmful need to regularly have something (such as a drug) or do something (such as gamble)
: an unusually great interest in something or a need to do or have something
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/addiction
1.
a. Physiological or psychological dependence, as on a substance: a drug used in the treatment of heroin addiction.
b. An instance of this: a person with a sex addiction.
2.
a. The condition of being habitually occupied with or involved in something: My addiction to comic books disappeared when graphic novels came out.
b. The condition of using something on a regular or dependent basis: fossil fuel addiction.
c. An instance of one of these conditions: had an addiction to fast cars.
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/addiction
1 a strong need that someone feels to regularly take an illegal or harmful drug
2 a strong need or wish to spend as much time as possible doing a particular activity
If someone started complaining that people could only use the word "too" to mean "also" but were not allowed to use it to mean "very", people would think they were nuts. Yet, people are doing the same exact thing with the word "addiction," ignoring half of the dictionary definition in favor of having an argument on the internet.
If people used "addiction" in a way that didn't suggest they were trying to analogize it with drug addiction they wouldn't get flack. But they generally make it clear that they DO mean to compare it with drugs, and thus I think it's fair game to point out that it's not.
Also, I seriously doubt that even the definitions you wish to use actually fit.
I'd say "using something on a regular or dependent basis" fits pretty well, as does "habitually occupied", especially considering cutting it back is usually harder for people than, say, cutting back on McDonald's or coffee. If they don't have it, they think about it, and if they think about it long enough, they give in and have it. They have a sugar habit, which they refer to as addiction, and rather than offer them helpful advice, we get people coming in beating them over the heads with the DSM V, because how dare they use that word in a non-clinical sense. I wonder if the people who get so verklemmt over someone wanting help with their sugar habit also write angry letters to the producers of Rehab Addict or My Strange Addcition?
I don't think I bash them. I do object when people start comparing sugar to meth or crack, which is common.
I also don't think liking sweets=being obsessed with them and usually what people are talking about is liking sweets. Arguably that's just normal, since we evolved to like sweet fruits. (As mentioned above I'm in Hawaii and I'd drop just about any sweets for tropical fruits. This does not make me a "dragon fruit addict.")0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
I still don't understand how "addict" means no accountability. How are addicts not accountable for their own behavior?
Well you see I don't believe food is addictive. I believe it is more like disordered eating and if that's the case, get professional help...
Well, okay. But that still doesn't clear up why calling it an addiction would eliminate accountability.
It shouldn't. By the time someone admits they are a drug or alcohol addict (instead of claiming they can handle it) they generally admit they are accountable. But my impression from MFP (and one of the reasons the addiction claims irritate me) is that people think that claiming "addiction" means they cannot help it, they are powerless over sugar (or whatever), and so have an excuse for over indulging.
I think the real issue here is MFP in general has to stop being so pedantic.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/addiction
: a strong and harmful need to regularly have something (such as a drug) or do something (such as gamble)
: an unusually great interest in something or a need to do or have something
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/addiction
1.
a. Physiological or psychological dependence, as on a substance: a drug used in the treatment of heroin addiction.
b. An instance of this: a person with a sex addiction.
2.
a. The condition of being habitually occupied with or involved in something: My addiction to comic books disappeared when graphic novels came out.
b. The condition of using something on a regular or dependent basis: fossil fuel addiction.
c. An instance of one of these conditions: had an addiction to fast cars.
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/addiction
1 a strong need that someone feels to regularly take an illegal or harmful drug
2 a strong need or wish to spend as much time as possible doing a particular activity
If someone started complaining that people could only use the word "too" to mean "also" but were not allowed to use it to mean "very", people would think they were nuts. Yet, people are doing the same exact thing with the word "addiction," ignoring half of the dictionary definition in favor of having an argument on the internet.
If people used "addiction" in a way that didn't suggest they were trying to analogize it with drug addiction they wouldn't get flack. But they generally make it clear that they DO mean to compare it with drugs, and thus I think it's fair game to point out that it's not.
Also, I seriously doubt that even the definitions you wish to use actually fit.
I'd say "using something on a regular or dependent basis" fits pretty well, as does "habitually occupied", especially considering cutting it back is usually harder for people than, say, cutting back on McDonald's or coffee. If they don't have it, they think about it, and if they think about it long enough, they give in and have it. They have a sugar habit, which they refer to as addiction, and rather than offer them helpful advice, we get people coming in beating them over the heads with the DSM V, because how dare they use that word in a non-clinical sense. I wonder if the people who get so verklemmt over someone wanting help with their sugar habit also write angry letters to the producers of Rehab Addict or My Strange Addcition?
I don't think I bash them. I do object when people start comparing sugar to meth or crack, which is common.
I also don't think liking sweets=being obsessed with them and usually what people are talking about is liking sweets. Arguably that's just normal, since we evolved to like sweet fruits. (As mentioned above I'm in Hawaii and I'd drop just about any sweets for tropical fruits. This does not make me a "dragon fruit addict.")
Is it only mere "liking" when you literally have donuts, and ice cream, and chocolate, and whatever else you happen upon, every day? I think one of the issues here is perspective. If someone has never been the person that has Lucky Charms before they leave the house, then a muffin or donut with full-sugar latte at work, then something sugary for dessert with lunch, then a candy bar from the vending machine at break, and then home to eat whatever m&m's or fun size bars are in the cupboard while deciding what to order for dinner, and then ice cream after, do they really get how much of a person's day to day life is devoted to consuming sugar?0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
I still don't understand how "addict" means no accountability. How are addicts not accountable for their own behavior?
Well you see I don't believe food is addictive. I believe it is more like disordered eating and if that's the case, get professional help...
Well, okay. But that still doesn't clear up why calling it an addiction would eliminate accountability.
It shouldn't. By the time someone admits they are a drug or alcohol addict (instead of claiming they can handle it) they generally admit they are accountable. But my impression from MFP (and one of the reasons the addiction claims irritate me) is that people think that claiming "addiction" means they cannot help it, they are powerless over sugar (or whatever), and so have an excuse for over indulging.
I think the real issue here is MFP in general has to stop being so pedantic.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/addiction
: a strong and harmful need to regularly have something (such as a drug) or do something (such as gamble)
: an unusually great interest in something or a need to do or have something
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/addiction
1.
a. Physiological or psychological dependence, as on a substance: a drug used in the treatment of heroin addiction.
b. An instance of this: a person with a sex addiction.
2.
a. The condition of being habitually occupied with or involved in something: My addiction to comic books disappeared when graphic novels came out.
b. The condition of using something on a regular or dependent basis: fossil fuel addiction.
c. An instance of one of these conditions: had an addiction to fast cars.
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/addiction
1 a strong need that someone feels to regularly take an illegal or harmful drug
2 a strong need or wish to spend as much time as possible doing a particular activity
If someone started complaining that people could only use the word "too" to mean "also" but were not allowed to use it to mean "very", people would think they were nuts. Yet, people are doing the same exact thing with the word "addiction," ignoring half of the dictionary definition in favor of having an argument on the internet.
If people used "addiction" in a way that didn't suggest they were trying to analogize it with drug addiction they wouldn't get flack. But they generally make it clear that they DO mean to compare it with drugs, and thus I think it's fair game to point out that it's not.
Also, I seriously doubt that even the definitions you wish to use actually fit.
I'd say "using something on a regular or dependent basis" fits pretty well, as does "habitually occupied", especially considering cutting it back is usually harder for people than, say, cutting back on McDonald's or coffee. If they don't have it, they think about it, and if they think about it long enough, they give in and have it. They have a sugar habit, which they refer to as addiction, and rather than offer them helpful advice, we get people coming in beating them over the heads with the DSM V, because how dare they use that word in a non-clinical sense. I wonder if the people who get so verklemmt over someone wanting help with their sugar habit also write angry letters to the producers of Rehab Addict or My Strange Addcition?
The reason I argue the point is because how someone thinks about themselves has a lot more meaning than a conglomeration of vowels and consonants. A paradigm shift from thinking of oneself as addicted to something to just really, really liking it can make the difference from feeling out of control to in control. Words have power. Asking someone to think about how they're thinking about themselves isn't just being a pedant.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
I still don't understand how "addict" means no accountability. How are addicts not accountable for their own behavior?
Well you see I don't believe food is addictive. I believe it is more like disordered eating and if that's the case, get professional help...
Well, okay. But that still doesn't clear up why calling it an addiction would eliminate accountability.
It shouldn't. By the time someone admits they are a drug or alcohol addict (instead of claiming they can handle it) they generally admit they are accountable. But my impression from MFP (and one of the reasons the addiction claims irritate me) is that people think that claiming "addiction" means they cannot help it, they are powerless over sugar (or whatever), and so have an excuse for over indulging.
I think the real issue here is MFP in general has to stop being so pedantic.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/addiction
: a strong and harmful need to regularly have something (such as a drug) or do something (such as gamble)
: an unusually great interest in something or a need to do or have something
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/addiction
1.
a. Physiological or psychological dependence, as on a substance: a drug used in the treatment of heroin addiction.
b. An instance of this: a person with a sex addiction.
2.
a. The condition of being habitually occupied with or involved in something: My addiction to comic books disappeared when graphic novels came out.
b. The condition of using something on a regular or dependent basis: fossil fuel addiction.
c. An instance of one of these conditions: had an addiction to fast cars.
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/addiction
1 a strong need that someone feels to regularly take an illegal or harmful drug
2 a strong need or wish to spend as much time as possible doing a particular activity
If someone started complaining that people could only use the word "too" to mean "also" but were not allowed to use it to mean "very", people would think they were nuts. Yet, people are doing the same exact thing with the word "addiction," ignoring half of the dictionary definition in favor of having an argument on the internet.
If people used "addiction" in a way that didn't suggest they were trying to analogize it with drug addiction they wouldn't get flack. But they generally make it clear that they DO mean to compare it with drugs, and thus I think it's fair game to point out that it's not.
Also, I seriously doubt that even the definitions you wish to use actually fit.
I'd say "using something on a regular or dependent basis" fits pretty well, as does "habitually occupied", especially considering cutting it back is usually harder for people than, say, cutting back on McDonald's or coffee. If they don't have it, they think about it, and if they think about it long enough, they give in and have it. They have a sugar habit, which they refer to as addiction, and rather than offer them helpful advice, we get people coming in beating them over the heads with the DSM V, because how dare they use that word in a non-clinical sense. I wonder if the people who get so verklemmt over someone wanting help with their sugar habit also write angry letters to the producers of Rehab Addict or My Strange Addcition?
I don't think I bash them. I do object when people start comparing sugar to meth or crack, which is common.
I also don't think liking sweets=being obsessed with them and usually what people are talking about is liking sweets. Arguably that's just normal, since we evolved to like sweet fruits. (As mentioned above I'm in Hawaii and I'd drop just about any sweets for tropical fruits. This does not make me a "dragon fruit addict.")
Is it only mere "liking" when you literally have donuts, and ice cream, and chocolate, and whatever else you happen upon, every day? I think one of the issues here is perspective. If someone has never been the person that has Lucky Charms before they leave the house, then a muffin or donut with full-sugar latte at work, then something sugary for dessert with lunch, then a candy bar from the vending machine at break, and then home to eat whatever m&m's or fun size bars are in the cupboard while deciding what to order for dinner, and then ice cream after, do they really get how much of a person's day to day life is devoted to consuming sugar?
You presume those of us taking the "not addicted" stance never did stuff like that.
You'd be wrong.
0 -
herrspoons wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
I still don't understand how "addict" means no accountability. How are addicts not accountable for their own behavior?
Well you see I don't believe food is addictive. I believe it is more like disordered eating and if that's the case, get professional help...
Well, okay. But that still doesn't clear up why calling it an addiction would eliminate accountability.
It shouldn't. By the time someone admits they are a drug or alcohol addict (instead of claiming they can handle it) they generally admit they are accountable. But my impression from MFP (and one of the reasons the addiction claims irritate me) is that people think that claiming "addiction" means they cannot help it, they are powerless over sugar (or whatever), and so have an excuse for over indulging.
I think the real issue here is MFP in general has to stop being so pedantic.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/addiction
: a strong and harmful need to regularly have something (such as a drug) or do something (such as gamble)
: an unusually great interest in something or a need to do or have something
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/addiction
1.
a. Physiological or psychological dependence, as on a substance: a drug used in the treatment of heroin addiction.
b. An instance of this: a person with a sex addiction.
2.
a. The condition of being habitually occupied with or involved in something: My addiction to comic books disappeared when graphic novels came out.
b. The condition of using something on a regular or dependent basis: fossil fuel addiction.
c. An instance of one of these conditions: had an addiction to fast cars.
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/addiction
1 a strong need that someone feels to regularly take an illegal or harmful drug
2 a strong need or wish to spend as much time as possible doing a particular activity
If someone started complaining that people could only use the word "too" to mean "also" but were not allowed to use it to mean "very", people would think they were nuts. Yet, people are doing the same exact thing with the word "addiction," ignoring half of the dictionary definition in favor of having an argument on the internet.
Complains of pedantry, quotes dictionary reference.
M'kay.
Yes, I'm sure deflecting is easier than explaining why you're always one of the first to charge in, demanding people only use the definition you approve of.
Sweetie, I'm just telling you what the DSM V definition is. It's not my problem that you disagree with it.
I don't disagree that it's one of several definitions. DSM V has a section on depression, too. Does that mean meteorologists aren't allowed to talk about low pressure areas?
0 -
Cinnamon has really made a difference forme...
http://www.healthambition.com/stopping-sugar-cravings-cinnamon/0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
I still don't understand how "addict" means no accountability. How are addicts not accountable for their own behavior?
Well you see I don't believe food is addictive. I believe it is more like disordered eating and if that's the case, get professional help...
Well, okay. But that still doesn't clear up why calling it an addiction would eliminate accountability.
It shouldn't. By the time someone admits they are a drug or alcohol addict (instead of claiming they can handle it) they generally admit they are accountable. But my impression from MFP (and one of the reasons the addiction claims irritate me) is that people think that claiming "addiction" means they cannot help it, they are powerless over sugar (or whatever), and so have an excuse for over indulging.
I think the real issue here is MFP in general has to stop being so pedantic.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/addiction
: a strong and harmful need to regularly have something (such as a drug) or do something (such as gamble)
: an unusually great interest in something or a need to do or have something
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/addiction
1.
a. Physiological or psychological dependence, as on a substance: a drug used in the treatment of heroin addiction.
b. An instance of this: a person with a sex addiction.
2.
a. The condition of being habitually occupied with or involved in something: My addiction to comic books disappeared when graphic novels came out.
b. The condition of using something on a regular or dependent basis: fossil fuel addiction.
c. An instance of one of these conditions: had an addiction to fast cars.
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/addiction
1 a strong need that someone feels to regularly take an illegal or harmful drug
2 a strong need or wish to spend as much time as possible doing a particular activity
If someone started complaining that people could only use the word "too" to mean "also" but were not allowed to use it to mean "very", people would think they were nuts. Yet, people are doing the same exact thing with the word "addiction," ignoring half of the dictionary definition in favor of having an argument on the internet.
If people used "addiction" in a way that didn't suggest they were trying to analogize it with drug addiction they wouldn't get flack. But they generally make it clear that they DO mean to compare it with drugs, and thus I think it's fair game to point out that it's not.
Also, I seriously doubt that even the definitions you wish to use actually fit.
I'd say "using something on a regular or dependent basis" fits pretty well, as does "habitually occupied", especially considering cutting it back is usually harder for people than, say, cutting back on McDonald's or coffee. If they don't have it, they think about it, and if they think about it long enough, they give in and have it. They have a sugar habit, which they refer to as addiction, and rather than offer them helpful advice, we get people coming in beating them over the heads with the DSM V, because how dare they use that word in a non-clinical sense. I wonder if the people who get so verklemmt over someone wanting help with their sugar habit also write angry letters to the producers of Rehab Addict or My Strange Addcition?
The reason I argue the point is because how someone thinks about themselves has a lot more meaning than a conglomeration of vowels and consonants. A paradigm shift from thinking of oneself as addicted to something to just really, really liking it can make the difference from feeling out of control to in control. Words have power. Asking someone to think about how they're thinking about themselves isn't just being a pedant.
Yes, this.
Also, I really don't think it's that weird to have a little bit of something sweet after dinner most days, which is what this thread is about.
"most of the time the sugar I eat in the day comes from fruit (some from added sugar like chocolate or vitamin water), but I find myself craving sweets every night and I need to learn how to cut the craving!"
This seems to me to be making a problem something that is not--it's normal to like sweet things.
I'd say try eating something else or some fruit if you don't want a dessert every night, but there's no real harm in saving some calories for a small dessert, even every night, and liking sweet things is pretty natural for humans.0 -
Replaced sugar with fruit. I stopped drinking soda- diet and regular. I occasionally buy some root beer on occasion, but I'm slowly cutting it out completely. But if I get a sweet craving, usually root beer is the fix for me. Otherwise, I've noticed that sodas just made me crave sugary things even more. If I want bubbly drinks, I really love schweppes flavored seltzer. No sweeteners, just flavored seltzer. I actually like the flavors they have.0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
I still don't understand how "addict" means no accountability. How are addicts not accountable for their own behavior?
Well you see I don't believe food is addictive. I believe it is more like disordered eating and if that's the case, get professional help...
Well, okay. But that still doesn't clear up why calling it an addiction would eliminate accountability.
It shouldn't. By the time someone admits they are a drug or alcohol addict (instead of claiming they can handle it) they generally admit they are accountable. But my impression from MFP (and one of the reasons the addiction claims irritate me) is that people think that claiming "addiction" means they cannot help it, they are powerless over sugar (or whatever), and so have an excuse for over indulging.
I think the real issue here is MFP in general has to stop being so pedantic.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/addiction
: a strong and harmful need to regularly have something (such as a drug) or do something (such as gamble)
: an unusually great interest in something or a need to do or have something
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/addiction
1.
a. Physiological or psychological dependence, as on a substance: a drug used in the treatment of heroin addiction.
b. An instance of this: a person with a sex addiction.
2.
a. The condition of being habitually occupied with or involved in something: My addiction to comic books disappeared when graphic novels came out.
b. The condition of using something on a regular or dependent basis: fossil fuel addiction.
c. An instance of one of these conditions: had an addiction to fast cars.
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/addiction
1 a strong need that someone feels to regularly take an illegal or harmful drug
2 a strong need or wish to spend as much time as possible doing a particular activity
If someone started complaining that people could only use the word "too" to mean "also" but were not allowed to use it to mean "very", people would think they were nuts. Yet, people are doing the same exact thing with the word "addiction," ignoring half of the dictionary definition in favor of having an argument on the internet.
If people used "addiction" in a way that didn't suggest they were trying to analogize it with drug addiction they wouldn't get flack. But they generally make it clear that they DO mean to compare it with drugs, and thus I think it's fair game to point out that it's not.
Also, I seriously doubt that even the definitions you wish to use actually fit.
I'd say "using something on a regular or dependent basis" fits pretty well, as does "habitually occupied", especially considering cutting it back is usually harder for people than, say, cutting back on McDonald's or coffee. If they don't have it, they think about it, and if they think about it long enough, they give in and have it. They have a sugar habit, which they refer to as addiction, and rather than offer them helpful advice, we get people coming in beating them over the heads with the DSM V, because how dare they use that word in a non-clinical sense. I wonder if the people who get so verklemmt over someone wanting help with their sugar habit also write angry letters to the producers of Rehab Addict or My Strange Addcition?
I don't think I bash them. I do object when people start comparing sugar to meth or crack, which is common.
I also don't think liking sweets=being obsessed with them and usually what people are talking about is liking sweets. Arguably that's just normal, since we evolved to like sweet fruits. (As mentioned above I'm in Hawaii and I'd drop just about any sweets for tropical fruits. This does not make me a "dragon fruit addict.")
I don't think I would ever compare an addiction to drugs to my need for sugar; I know my boundaries and sugar doesn't control my life...but I wouldn't peg this as "liking sweets". I don't really even like them, obviously they taste good, but I hate how they make me feel and the need to always need more if I have a small amount. Thats my issue here, and why I started the thread. Also be careful in what you say, because your taste for sugar and your ability to control it may be very different than mine or others on here. I wouldn't judge others for the struggles they have with certain foods.0 -
I have found that the less sugar I eat, the easier it is not to have it.0
-
mamapeach910 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
I still don't understand how "addict" means no accountability. How are addicts not accountable for their own behavior?
Well you see I don't believe food is addictive. I believe it is more like disordered eating and if that's the case, get professional help...
Well, okay. But that still doesn't clear up why calling it an addiction would eliminate accountability.
It shouldn't. By the time someone admits they are a drug or alcohol addict (instead of claiming they can handle it) they generally admit they are accountable. But my impression from MFP (and one of the reasons the addiction claims irritate me) is that people think that claiming "addiction" means they cannot help it, they are powerless over sugar (or whatever), and so have an excuse for over indulging.
I think the real issue here is MFP in general has to stop being so pedantic.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/addiction
: a strong and harmful need to regularly have something (such as a drug) or do something (such as gamble)
: an unusually great interest in something or a need to do or have something
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/addiction
1.
a. Physiological or psychological dependence, as on a substance: a drug used in the treatment of heroin addiction.
b. An instance of this: a person with a sex addiction.
2.
a. The condition of being habitually occupied with or involved in something: My addiction to comic books disappeared when graphic novels came out.
b. The condition of using something on a regular or dependent basis: fossil fuel addiction.
c. An instance of one of these conditions: had an addiction to fast cars.
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/addiction
1 a strong need that someone feels to regularly take an illegal or harmful drug
2 a strong need or wish to spend as much time as possible doing a particular activity
If someone started complaining that people could only use the word "too" to mean "also" but were not allowed to use it to mean "very", people would think they were nuts. Yet, people are doing the same exact thing with the word "addiction," ignoring half of the dictionary definition in favor of having an argument on the internet.
If people used "addiction" in a way that didn't suggest they were trying to analogize it with drug addiction they wouldn't get flack. But they generally make it clear that they DO mean to compare it with drugs, and thus I think it's fair game to point out that it's not.
Also, I seriously doubt that even the definitions you wish to use actually fit.
I'd say "using something on a regular or dependent basis" fits pretty well, as does "habitually occupied", especially considering cutting it back is usually harder for people than, say, cutting back on McDonald's or coffee. If they don't have it, they think about it, and if they think about it long enough, they give in and have it. They have a sugar habit, which they refer to as addiction, and rather than offer them helpful advice, we get people coming in beating them over the heads with the DSM V, because how dare they use that word in a non-clinical sense. I wonder if the people who get so verklemmt over someone wanting help with their sugar habit also write angry letters to the producers of Rehab Addict or My Strange Addcition?
The reason I argue the point is because how someone thinks about themselves has a lot more meaning than a conglomeration of vowels and consonants. A paradigm shift from thinking of oneself as addicted to something to just really, really liking it can make the difference from feeling out of control to in control. Words have power. Asking someone to think about how they're thinking about themselves isn't just being a pedant.
Nice post.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 913 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions