Sugar and carb addiction addiction
Replies
-
Ok, so you're a sugar addict or food addict.
What's the solution?
redefining your relationship with the food. food is fuel. what sort of fuel do you want to use in your engine?
also realizing food is neither good or bad and just is. food does not care how you feel. there is a lot of foot work and a lot of retraining that happens from my understanding
Ok. If that's the answer, then why not do that?
some people do
And the rest...?0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
What's really unhelpful is feeding someone's misguided beliefs about a food in order to protect his feels.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »thorsmom01 wrote: »Love this post ! It should be a sticky !
Geez, I sure hope MFP wouldn't make such a mocking post a sticky.
I injected humor into my writing because that is my style and what I think of as entertaining on what can otherwise be a rather dry subject (neurobiology) for most people. I don't consider disagreeing with people the same as mocking. I was pretty clear in the outset of the writing, none of this is to say foods can't be a problem for people, nor that they can need help, I just find it unhelpful to call a person an addict and consider it akin to being on cocaine.
Humor about someone else's problem is certainly close to mocking. And is likely to be found unhelpful by all who feel addicted to a food.
Yes, that is likely true. But mocking or humor at their perception isn't the only way to tell someone they are mistaken.
The downfall of our society began when everyone decided that self-esteem needed protection, and enabling began. Everyone sat back and said, "Nothing is my fault," and everyone got a medal for effort. No one has to actually put in effort for success because everyone deserves recognition just for showing up, and a pat on the head. Winners get the same as everyone else, so there's no reward for actual effort. Anyone with a problem doesn't have to take any responsibility for it, because they can just point a finger to some issue in the past that caused it, and continue whatever bad behavior makes them feel better and helps them forget about it.
Seen Wall-E? That's humanity's future, if no one steps up and starts making people taking some responsibility for their actions, and face the fact that sometimes life is hard.
being an addict is independent of self esteem. you can be an addict and have low self esteem but the two are not mutually inclusive. no one is asking you to give them warm milk and rub their belly
As I'm not accepting food, sex or gambling 'addiction' as such.... I'm clarifying my earlier point. Addiction to a substance like drugs is different than using something to cover up your need to hide from something difficult in your life, which is what people who overeat, use sex or gambling excessively are doing. There's usually an underlying reason people have that behavior.
there is often an underlying reason to using the illicit drug as well.
what counts as an addiction to me: has my/your/one's life become unmanageable because of it. do you realize this and realize you have little power over your ability to the cessation of said thing? addictions treated at least two sided, if not three sided are more likely to succeed. I've heard another person say that their addiction is an abnormal response to a substance/action.
one can relapse at any time. people have thrown away 40 years sober for a beer and then another and another. it's not like they didn't realize the destructive nature of alcohol on their lives.
Minimizing an issue because you don't feel like it's valid, doesn't make it any less problematic for the people in the midst of this struggle. and doesn't keep it from killing people who do not make a change in their lives
that being said. I do feel like "addiction" is thrown around to easily.
Difference being that addiction to a substance - relapse happens because of the addiction itself, not because of the underlying cause. Once you treat the cause, for food/sex/gambling/etc, you often have a cure. People with emotional trauma can be treated and cured. Narcotics and alcoholic addictions are lifelong battles that can be in remission, but typically those people when exposed to their substance, relapse due to the physical properties of the addiction itself. We are talking about substances, in the case of some narcotics, that are addictive the first time they are used. To compare that level of addiction to say, the comfort of eating a burrito for emotional distress is insulting to the drug addict. One is not like the other. Both do need to be treated, but completely differently. And one is addiction, the other is not.0 -
Ok, so you're a sugar addict or food addict.
What's the solution?
redefining your relationship with the food. food is fuel. what sort of fuel do you want to use in your engine?
also realizing food is neither good or bad and just is. food does not care how you feel. there is a lot of foot work and a lot of retraining that happens from my understanding
Ok. If that's the answer, then why not do that?
some people do
And the rest...?
....don't0 -
No, simple doesn't necessarily mean easy. There are relatively few ways you can move chess pieces. At its core, it's a pretty simple game.
Eh, if he wanted the moon, stealing a couple billion shouldn't be a big deal.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Other than the couple of billion it would take to implement, even with full access to all the blueprints, hindsight, etc.?
With Google, right now you could probably look up everything needed to recreate the 1969 moon landing program. Why aren't you on the moon?Ok, so you're a sugar addict or food addict.
What's the solution?
redefining your relationship with the food. food is fuel. what sort of fuel do you want to use in your engine?
also realizing food is neither good or bad and just is. food does not care how you feel. there is a lot of foot work and a lot of retraining that happens from my understanding
Ok. If that's the answer, then why not do that?
Coming to grips with the idea that carbs aren't the problem, your relationship with carbs is the problem is probably less capital intensive, even apart for the much greater relative simplicity.
The simplicity is a great part. Trendweight lead me to look at the hacker's diet recently and he had a good quote about weight loss:There's an old Wall Street tale: a tyro asks an old-timer, “How do you make money in the market.” The wise man answers, “Nothing could be simpler: buy low, sell high.” The beginner asks, “How can I learn to do that?” The sage responds, “Ahhhh…that takes a lifetime.” Simple doesn't mean easy.
That an answer may be simple, yet very tricky indeed to implement, doesn't mean it isn't the right, or maybe the only, answer, though.
0 -
Very nice summation. I tend to agree and very suspicious of those trying to reclassify a new addiction or disorder.
Follow the money, or in this specific case, the ownership. If you can blame a deficiency on a disease, isn't that easier to come to terms with than a matter of personal responsibility? Once a new addiction is classified there's new funding, new research, new sales opportunities, and new power structure.
0 -
Ok, so you're a sugar addict or food addict.
What's the solution?
redefining your relationship with the food. food is fuel. what sort of fuel do you want to use in your engine?
also realizing food is neither good or bad and just is. food does not care how you feel. there is a lot of foot work and a lot of retraining that happens from my understanding
Seems a reasonable way to approach it for lots of people.
Also like it's not an addiction but an emotional attachment or dysfunction.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
What's really unhelpful is feeding someone's misguided beliefs about a food in order to protect his feels.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »thorsmom01 wrote: »Love this post ! It should be a sticky !
Geez, I sure hope MFP wouldn't make such a mocking post a sticky.
I injected humor into my writing because that is my style and what I think of as entertaining on what can otherwise be a rather dry subject (neurobiology) for most people. I don't consider disagreeing with people the same as mocking. I was pretty clear in the outset of the writing, none of this is to say foods can't be a problem for people, nor that they can need help, I just find it unhelpful to call a person an addict and consider it akin to being on cocaine.
Humor about someone else's problem is certainly close to mocking. And is likely to be found unhelpful by all who feel addicted to a food.
Yes, that is likely true. But mocking or humor at their perception isn't the only way to tell someone they are mistaken.
The downfall of our society began when everyone decided that self-esteem needed protection, and enabling began. Everyone sat back and said, "Nothing is my fault," and everyone got a medal for effort. No one has to actually put in effort for success because everyone deserves recognition just for showing up, and a pat on the head. Winners get the same as everyone else, so there's no reward for actual effort. Anyone with a problem doesn't have to take any responsibility for it, because they can just point a finger to some issue in the past that caused it, and continue whatever bad behavior makes them feel better and helps them forget about it.
Seen Wall-E? That's humanity's future, if no one steps up and starts making people taking some responsibility for their actions, and face the fact that sometimes life is hard.
being an addict is independent of self esteem. you can be an addict and have low self esteem but the two are not mutually inclusive. no one is asking you to give them warm milk and rub their belly
As I'm not accepting food, sex or gambling 'addiction' as such.... I'm clarifying my earlier point. Addiction to a substance like drugs is different than using something to cover up your need to hide from something difficult in your life, which is what people who overeat, use sex or gambling excessively are doing. There's usually an underlying reason people have that behavior.
there is often an underlying reason to using the illicit drug as well.
what counts as an addiction to me: has my/your/one's life become unmanageable because of it. do you realize this and realize you have little power over your ability to the cessation of said thing? addictions treated at least two sided, if not three sided are more likely to succeed. I've heard another person say that their addiction is an abnormal response to a substance/action.
one can relapse at any time. people have thrown away 40 years sober for a beer and then another and another. it's not like they didn't realize the destructive nature of alcohol on their lives.
Minimizing an issue because you don't feel like it's valid, doesn't make it any less problematic for the people in the midst of this struggle. and doesn't keep it from killing people who do not make a change in their lives
that being said. I do feel like "addiction" is thrown around to easily.
Difference being that addiction to a substance - relapse happens because of the addiction itself, not because of the underlying cause. Once you treat the cause, for food/sex/gambling/etc, you often have a cure. People with emotional trauma can be treated and cured. Narcotics and alcoholic addictions are lifelong battles that can be in remission, but typically those people when exposed to their substance, relapse due to the physical properties of the addiction itself. We are talking about substances, in the case of some narcotics, that are addictive the first time they are used. To compare that level of addiction to say, the comfort of eating a burrito for emotional distress is insulting to the drug addict. One is not like the other. Both do need to be treated, but completely differently. And one is addiction, the other is not.
who is to say that they are eating it for emotional support any more than the heroin addict had an abusive childhood and started because of that.
the point is that both people could be classified as a person who reacts abnormally to something.
as some addicts say, their drug of choice is more. some brains are just wired differently0 -
I've weighed as much as 310 lb in my life, and was 285 before I started losing weight this time around. I'm not sure how this is someone else's problem. I'm very much not mocking people for having a hard time with losing weight or issues of losing weight. What I will mock is the concept that comparing food to cocaine is true because of a gross misunderstanding of brain scans, and I will definitely mock people who think this will actually help people lose weight by treating food as an addiction akin to cocaine instead of as a unique problem.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »thorsmom01 wrote: »Love this post ! It should be a sticky !
Geez, I sure hope MFP wouldn't make such a mocking post a sticky.
I injected humor into my writing because that is my style and what I think of as entertaining on what can otherwise be a rather dry subject (neurobiology) for most people. I don't consider disagreeing with people the same as mocking. I was pretty clear in the outset of the writing, none of this is to say foods can't be a problem for people, nor that they can need help, I just find it unhelpful to call a person an addict and consider it akin to being on cocaine.
Humor about someone else's problem is certainly close to mocking. And is likely to be found unhelpful by all who feel addicted to a food.
My understanding is that mocking is against MFP forum rules regardless of the reason.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
What's really unhelpful is feeding someone's misguided beliefs about a food in order to protect his feels.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »thorsmom01 wrote: »Love this post ! It should be a sticky !
Geez, I sure hope MFP wouldn't make such a mocking post a sticky.
I injected humor into my writing because that is my style and what I think of as entertaining on what can otherwise be a rather dry subject (neurobiology) for most people. I don't consider disagreeing with people the same as mocking. I was pretty clear in the outset of the writing, none of this is to say foods can't be a problem for people, nor that they can need help, I just find it unhelpful to call a person an addict and consider it akin to being on cocaine.
Humor about someone else's problem is certainly close to mocking. And is likely to be found unhelpful by all who feel addicted to a food.
Yes, that is likely true. But mocking or humor at their perception isn't the only way to tell someone they are mistaken.
The downfall of our society began when everyone decided that self-esteem needed protection, and enabling began. Everyone sat back and said, "Nothing is my fault," and everyone got a medal for effort. No one has to actually put in effort for success because everyone deserves recognition just for showing up, and a pat on the head. Winners get the same as everyone else, so there's no reward for actual effort. Anyone with a problem doesn't have to take any responsibility for it, because they can just point a finger to some issue in the past that caused it, and continue whatever bad behavior makes them feel better and helps them forget about it.
Seen Wall-E? That's humanity's future, if no one steps up and starts making people taking some responsibility for their actions, and face the fact that sometimes life is hard.
being an addict is independent of self esteem. you can be an addict and have low self esteem but the two are not mutually inclusive. no one is asking you to give them warm milk and rub their belly
As I'm not accepting food, sex or gambling 'addiction' as such.... I'm clarifying my earlier point. Addiction to a substance like drugs is different than using something to cover up your need to hide from something difficult in your life, which is what people who overeat, use sex or gambling excessively are doing. There's usually an underlying reason people have that behavior.
there is often an underlying reason to using the illicit drug as well.
what counts as an addiction to me: has my/your/one's life become unmanageable because of it. do you realize this and realize you have little power over your ability to the cessation of said thing? addictions treated at least two sided, if not three sided are more likely to succeed. I've heard another person say that their addiction is an abnormal response to a substance/action.
one can relapse at any time. people have thrown away 40 years sober for a beer and then another and another. it's not like they didn't realize the destructive nature of alcohol on their lives.
Minimizing an issue because you don't feel like it's valid, doesn't make it any less problematic for the people in the midst of this struggle. and doesn't keep it from killing people who do not make a change in their lives
that being said. I do feel like "addiction" is thrown around to easily.
Difference being that addiction to a substance - relapse happens because of the addiction itself, not because of the underlying cause. Once you treat the cause, for food/sex/gambling/etc, you often have a cure. People with emotional trauma can be treated and cured. Narcotics and alcoholic addictions are lifelong battles that can be in remission, but typically those people when exposed to their substance, relapse due to the physical properties of the addiction itself. We are talking about substances, in the case of some narcotics, that are addictive the first time they are used. To compare that level of addiction to say, the comfort of eating a burrito for emotional distress is insulting to the drug addict. One is not like the other. Both do need to be treated, but completely differently. And one is addiction, the other is not.
who is to say that they are eating it for emotional support any more than the heroin addict had an abusive childhood and started because of that.
the point is that both people could be classified as a person who reacts abnormally to something.
as some addicts say, their drug of choice is more. some brains are just wired differently
That's the thing though. Despite us all wanting to be special flowers, our brains do not, in fact, react the same way to food as they do to drugs. "Abnormal reaction" to past trauma does not mean someone is addicted. That's an important distinction.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
I've weighed as much as 310 lb in my life, and was 285 before I started losing weight this time around. I'm not sure how this is someone else's problem. I'm very much not mocking people for having a hard time with losing weight or issues of losing weight. What I will mock is the concept that comparing food to cocaine is true because of a gross misunderstanding of brain scans, and I will definitely mock people who think this will actually help people lose weight by treating food as an addiction akin to cocaine instead of as a unique problem.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »thorsmom01 wrote: »Love this post ! It should be a sticky !
Geez, I sure hope MFP wouldn't make such a mocking post a sticky.
I injected humor into my writing because that is my style and what I think of as entertaining on what can otherwise be a rather dry subject (neurobiology) for most people. I don't consider disagreeing with people the same as mocking. I was pretty clear in the outset of the writing, none of this is to say foods can't be a problem for people, nor that they can need help, I just find it unhelpful to call a person an addict and consider it akin to being on cocaine.
Humor about someone else's problem is certainly close to mocking. And is likely to be found unhelpful by all who feel addicted to a food.
My understanding is that mocking is against MFP forum rules regardless of the reason.
No one is mocking. Could you please point out where this occurred if you insist on continuing to bring this up?0 -
Are people seriously at the point where mocking a concept is equated with mocking the people who buy into that concept? Is it wrong to mock the anti-vax position (I think it deserves worse) because some anti-vaxxer might feel bad or unsupported?
If we have to pretend that all ideas are equally good you might as well not discuss anything ever.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Ok, so you're a sugar addict or food addict.
What's the solution?
redefining your relationship with the food. food is fuel. what sort of fuel do you want to use in your engine?
also realizing food is neither good or bad and just is. food does not care how you feel. there is a lot of foot work and a lot of retraining that happens from my understanding
Seems a reasonable way to approach it for lots of people.
Also like it's not an addiction but an emotional attachment or dysfunction.
addiction means so many things to so many people it's so hard to take it for it's denotative meaning :the fact or condition of being physically and mentally dependent on a particular substance, and unable to stop taking it without incurring adverse effects, to a particular substance, thing, or activity.
I believe it is a dyfunction. a malfunctioning of a "normal" system. an irregularity. I look at it like a disorder like depression. brain doesn't work the same way for a person as it does for the general population
0 -
Then please report me if you think anything I've quipped about is mocking in the sense that MFP rules mean.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
I've weighed as much as 310 lb in my life, and was 285 before I started losing weight this time around. I'm not sure how this is someone else's problem. I'm very much not mocking people for having a hard time with losing weight or issues of losing weight. What I will mock is the concept that comparing food to cocaine is true because of a gross misunderstanding of brain scans, and I will definitely mock people who think this will actually help people lose weight by treating food as an addiction akin to cocaine instead of as a unique problem.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »thorsmom01 wrote: »Love this post ! It should be a sticky !
Geez, I sure hope MFP wouldn't make such a mocking post a sticky.
I injected humor into my writing because that is my style and what I think of as entertaining on what can otherwise be a rather dry subject (neurobiology) for most people. I don't consider disagreeing with people the same as mocking. I was pretty clear in the outset of the writing, none of this is to say foods can't be a problem for people, nor that they can need help, I just find it unhelpful to call a person an addict and consider it akin to being on cocaine.
Humor about someone else's problem is certainly close to mocking. And is likely to be found unhelpful by all who feel addicted to a food.
My understanding is that mocking is against MFP forum rules regardless of the reason.0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
I've weighed as much as 310 lb in my life, and was 285 before I started losing weight this time around. I'm not sure how this is someone else's problem. I'm very much not mocking people for having a hard time with losing weight or issues of losing weight. What I will mock is the concept that comparing food to cocaine is true because of a gross misunderstanding of brain scans, and I will definitely mock people who think this will actually help people lose weight by treating food as an addiction akin to cocaine instead of as a unique problem.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »thorsmom01 wrote: »Love this post ! It should be a sticky !
Geez, I sure hope MFP wouldn't make such a mocking post a sticky.
I injected humor into my writing because that is my style and what I think of as entertaining on what can otherwise be a rather dry subject (neurobiology) for most people. I don't consider disagreeing with people the same as mocking. I was pretty clear in the outset of the writing, none of this is to say foods can't be a problem for people, nor that they can need help, I just find it unhelpful to call a person an addict and consider it akin to being on cocaine.
Humor about someone else's problem is certainly close to mocking. And is likely to be found unhelpful by all who feel addicted to a food.
My understanding is that mocking is against MFP forum rules regardless of the reason.
No one is mocking. Could you please point out where this occurred if you insist on continuing to bring this up?
The poster specifically said "...and I will definitely mock people who..."lemurcat12 wrote:Are people seriously at the point where mocking a concept is equated with mocking the people who buy into that concept?
See above...That's no longer just a....concept.
0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
I've weighed as much as 310 lb in my life, and was 285 before I started losing weight this time around. I'm not sure how this is someone else's problem. I'm very much not mocking people for having a hard time with losing weight or issues of losing weight. What I will mock is the concept that comparing food to cocaine is true because of a gross misunderstanding of brain scans, and I will definitely mock people who think this will actually help people lose weight by treating food as an addiction akin to cocaine instead of as a unique problem.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »thorsmom01 wrote: »Love this post ! It should be a sticky !
Geez, I sure hope MFP wouldn't make such a mocking post a sticky.
I injected humor into my writing because that is my style and what I think of as entertaining on what can otherwise be a rather dry subject (neurobiology) for most people. I don't consider disagreeing with people the same as mocking. I was pretty clear in the outset of the writing, none of this is to say foods can't be a problem for people, nor that they can need help, I just find it unhelpful to call a person an addict and consider it akin to being on cocaine.
Humor about someone else's problem is certainly close to mocking. And is likely to be found unhelpful by all who feel addicted to a food.
My understanding is that mocking is against MFP forum rules regardless of the reason.
No one is mocking. Could you please point out where this occurred if you insist on continuing to bring this up?
The post to which I replied.-1 -
As a reply to someone calling what I did mocking. If she feels what I've said is mocking people, then I will do that. I already explained it before, and she continued to call it mocking. Is there a point in arguing her definition with her of what is mocking?tincanonastring wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
I've weighed as much as 310 lb in my life, and was 285 before I started losing weight this time around. I'm not sure how this is someone else's problem. I'm very much not mocking people for having a hard time with losing weight or issues of losing weight. What I will mock is the concept that comparing food to cocaine is true because of a gross misunderstanding of brain scans, and I will definitely mock people who think this will actually help people lose weight by treating food as an addiction akin to cocaine instead of as a unique problem.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »thorsmom01 wrote: »Love this post ! It should be a sticky !
Geez, I sure hope MFP wouldn't make such a mocking post a sticky.
I injected humor into my writing because that is my style and what I think of as entertaining on what can otherwise be a rather dry subject (neurobiology) for most people. I don't consider disagreeing with people the same as mocking. I was pretty clear in the outset of the writing, none of this is to say foods can't be a problem for people, nor that they can need help, I just find it unhelpful to call a person an addict and consider it akin to being on cocaine.
Humor about someone else's problem is certainly close to mocking. And is likely to be found unhelpful by all who feel addicted to a food.
My understanding is that mocking is against MFP forum rules regardless of the reason.
No one is mocking. Could you please point out where this occurred if you insist on continuing to bring this up?
The poster specifically said "...and I will definitely mock people who..."
That's no longer just a....concept.0 -
As a reply to someone calling what I did mocking. If she feels what I've said is mocking people, then I will do that.tincanonastring wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
I've weighed as much as 310 lb in my life, and was 285 before I started losing weight this time around. I'm not sure how this is someone else's problem. I'm very much not mocking people for having a hard time with losing weight or issues of losing weight. What I will mock is the concept that comparing food to cocaine is true because of a gross misunderstanding of brain scans, and I will definitely mock people who think this will actually help people lose weight by treating food as an addiction akin to cocaine instead of as a unique problem.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »thorsmom01 wrote: »Love this post ! It should be a sticky !
Geez, I sure hope MFP wouldn't make such a mocking post a sticky.
I injected humor into my writing because that is my style and what I think of as entertaining on what can otherwise be a rather dry subject (neurobiology) for most people. I don't consider disagreeing with people the same as mocking. I was pretty clear in the outset of the writing, none of this is to say foods can't be a problem for people, nor that they can need help, I just find it unhelpful to call a person an addict and consider it akin to being on cocaine.
Humor about someone else's problem is certainly close to mocking. And is likely to be found unhelpful by all who feel addicted to a food.
My understanding is that mocking is against MFP forum rules regardless of the reason.
No one is mocking. Could you please point out where this occurred if you insist on continuing to bring this up?
The poster specifically said "...and I will definitely mock people who..."
That's no longer just a....concept.
I don't care either way - not my circus, not my monkeys.
:drinker:
0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
What's really unhelpful is feeding someone's misguided beliefs about a food in order to protect his feels.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »thorsmom01 wrote: »Love this post ! It should be a sticky !
Geez, I sure hope MFP wouldn't make such a mocking post a sticky.
I injected humor into my writing because that is my style and what I think of as entertaining on what can otherwise be a rather dry subject (neurobiology) for most people. I don't consider disagreeing with people the same as mocking. I was pretty clear in the outset of the writing, none of this is to say foods can't be a problem for people, nor that they can need help, I just find it unhelpful to call a person an addict and consider it akin to being on cocaine.
Humor about someone else's problem is certainly close to mocking. And is likely to be found unhelpful by all who feel addicted to a food.
Yes, that is likely true. But mocking or humor at their perception isn't the only way to tell someone they are mistaken.
The downfall of our society began when everyone decided that self-esteem needed protection, and enabling began. Everyone sat back and said, "Nothing is my fault," and everyone got a medal for effort. No one has to actually put in effort for success because everyone deserves recognition just for showing up, and a pat on the head. Winners get the same as everyone else, so there's no reward for actual effort. Anyone with a problem doesn't have to take any responsibility for it, because they can just point a finger to some issue in the past that caused it, and continue whatever bad behavior makes them feel better and helps them forget about it.
Seen Wall-E? That's humanity's future, if no one steps up and starts making people taking some responsibility for their actions, and face the fact that sometimes life is hard.
being an addict is independent of self esteem. you can be an addict and have low self esteem but the two are not mutually inclusive. no one is asking you to give them warm milk and rub their belly
As I'm not accepting food, sex or gambling 'addiction' as such.... I'm clarifying my earlier point. Addiction to a substance like drugs is different than using something to cover up your need to hide from something difficult in your life, which is what people who overeat, use sex or gambling excessively are doing. There's usually an underlying reason people have that behavior.
there is often an underlying reason to using the illicit drug as well.
what counts as an addiction to me: has my/your/one's life become unmanageable because of it. do you realize this and realize you have little power over your ability to the cessation of said thing? addictions treated at least two sided, if not three sided are more likely to succeed. I've heard another person say that their addiction is an abnormal response to a substance/action.
one can relapse at any time. people have thrown away 40 years sober for a beer and then another and another. it's not like they didn't realize the destructive nature of alcohol on their lives.
Minimizing an issue because you don't feel like it's valid, doesn't make it any less problematic for the people in the midst of this struggle. and doesn't keep it from killing people who do not make a change in their lives
that being said. I do feel like "addiction" is thrown around to easily.
Difference being that addiction to a substance - relapse happens because of the addiction itself, not because of the underlying cause. Once you treat the cause, for food/sex/gambling/etc, you often have a cure. People with emotional trauma can be treated and cured. Narcotics and alcoholic addictions are lifelong battles that can be in remission, but typically those people when exposed to their substance, relapse due to the physical properties of the addiction itself. We are talking about substances, in the case of some narcotics, that are addictive the first time they are used. To compare that level of addiction to say, the comfort of eating a burrito for emotional distress is insulting to the drug addict. One is not like the other. Both do need to be treated, but completely differently. And one is addiction, the other is not.
who is to say that they are eating it for emotional support any more than the heroin addict had an abusive childhood and started because of that.
the point is that both people could be classified as a person who reacts abnormally to something.
as some addicts say, their drug of choice is more. some brains are just wired differently
That's the thing though. Despite us all wanting to be special flowers, our brains do not, in fact, react the same way to food as they do to drugs. "Abnormal reaction" to past trauma does not mean someone is addicted. That's an important distinction.
our brains can in fact react the same live science
no emotional eating does not equal addiction but neither does emotional drug abuse. those are independent-ish of the abuse of an object/action.
some people abuse things, but that in and of itself is not addiction...0 -
As a reply to someone calling what I did mocking. If she feels what I've said is mocking people, then I will do that.tincanonastring wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
I've weighed as much as 310 lb in my life, and was 285 before I started losing weight this time around. I'm not sure how this is someone else's problem. I'm very much not mocking people for having a hard time with losing weight or issues of losing weight. What I will mock is the concept that comparing food to cocaine is true because of a gross misunderstanding of brain scans, and I will definitely mock people who think this will actually help people lose weight by treating food as an addiction akin to cocaine instead of as a unique problem.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »thorsmom01 wrote: »Love this post ! It should be a sticky !
Geez, I sure hope MFP wouldn't make such a mocking post a sticky.
I injected humor into my writing because that is my style and what I think of as entertaining on what can otherwise be a rather dry subject (neurobiology) for most people. I don't consider disagreeing with people the same as mocking. I was pretty clear in the outset of the writing, none of this is to say foods can't be a problem for people, nor that they can need help, I just find it unhelpful to call a person an addict and consider it akin to being on cocaine.
Humor about someone else's problem is certainly close to mocking. And is likely to be found unhelpful by all who feel addicted to a food.
My understanding is that mocking is against MFP forum rules regardless of the reason.
No one is mocking. Could you please point out where this occurred if you insist on continuing to bring this up?
The poster specifically said "...and I will definitely mock people who..."
That's no longer just a....concept.
I don't care either way - not my circus, not my monkeys.
:drinker:
Ok, I'll remove your dogs from the fighting roster.0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
I've weighed as much as 310 lb in my life, and was 285 before I started losing weight this time around. I'm not sure how this is someone else's problem. I'm very much not mocking people for having a hard time with losing weight or issues of losing weight. What I will mock is the concept that comparing food to cocaine is true because of a gross misunderstanding of brain scans, and I will definitely mock people who think this will actually help people lose weight by treating food as an addiction akin to cocaine instead of as a unique problem.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »thorsmom01 wrote: »Love this post ! It should be a sticky !
Geez, I sure hope MFP wouldn't make such a mocking post a sticky.
I injected humor into my writing because that is my style and what I think of as entertaining on what can otherwise be a rather dry subject (neurobiology) for most people. I don't consider disagreeing with people the same as mocking. I was pretty clear in the outset of the writing, none of this is to say foods can't be a problem for people, nor that they can need help, I just find it unhelpful to call a person an addict and consider it akin to being on cocaine.
Humor about someone else's problem is certainly close to mocking. And is likely to be found unhelpful by all who feel addicted to a food.
My understanding is that mocking is against MFP forum rules regardless of the reason.
No one is mocking. Could you please point out where this occurred if you insist on continuing to bring this up?
The poster specifically said "...and I will definitely mock people who..."lemurcat12 wrote:Are people seriously at the point where mocking a concept is equated with mocking the people who buy into that concept?
See above...That's no longer just a....concept.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
I've weighed as much as 310 lb in my life, and was 285 before I started losing weight this time around. I'm not sure how this is someone else's problem. I'm very much not mocking people for having a hard time with losing weight or issues of losing weight. What I will mock is the concept that comparing food to cocaine is true because of a gross misunderstanding of brain scans, and I will definitely mock people who think this will actually help people lose weight by treating food as an addiction akin to cocaine instead of as a unique problem.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »thorsmom01 wrote: »Love this post ! It should be a sticky !
Geez, I sure hope MFP wouldn't make such a mocking post a sticky.
I injected humor into my writing because that is my style and what I think of as entertaining on what can otherwise be a rather dry subject (neurobiology) for most people. I don't consider disagreeing with people the same as mocking. I was pretty clear in the outset of the writing, none of this is to say foods can't be a problem for people, nor that they can need help, I just find it unhelpful to call a person an addict and consider it akin to being on cocaine.
Humor about someone else's problem is certainly close to mocking. And is likely to be found unhelpful by all who feel addicted to a food.
My understanding is that mocking is against MFP forum rules regardless of the reason.
No one is mocking. Could you please point out where this occurred if you insist on continuing to bring this up?
The post to which I replied.
The posts in question did not actually mock anyone. Show me the person they actually mocked. If you think otherwise, follow the community guidelines and report them and move one, according to the aforementioned guidelines.
At least then the converation can get back on topic.0 -
hahahahahahahahh the crap people write.0
-
tincanonastring wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
What's really unhelpful is feeding someone's misguided beliefs about a food in order to protect his feels.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »thorsmom01 wrote: »Love this post ! It should be a sticky !
Geez, I sure hope MFP wouldn't make such a mocking post a sticky.
I injected humor into my writing because that is my style and what I think of as entertaining on what can otherwise be a rather dry subject (neurobiology) for most people. I don't consider disagreeing with people the same as mocking. I was pretty clear in the outset of the writing, none of this is to say foods can't be a problem for people, nor that they can need help, I just find it unhelpful to call a person an addict and consider it akin to being on cocaine.
Humor about someone else's problem is certainly close to mocking. And is likely to be found unhelpful by all who feel addicted to a food.
Yes, that is likely true. But mocking or humor at their perception isn't the only way to tell someone they are mistaken.
The downfall of our society began when everyone decided that self-esteem needed protection, and enabling began. Everyone sat back and said, "Nothing is my fault," and everyone got a medal for effort. No one has to actually put in effort for success because everyone deserves recognition just for showing up, and a pat on the head. Winners get the same as everyone else, so there's no reward for actual effort. Anyone with a problem doesn't have to take any responsibility for it, because they can just point a finger to some issue in the past that caused it, and continue whatever bad behavior makes them feel better and helps them forget about it.
Seen Wall-E? That's humanity's future, if no one steps up and starts making people taking some responsibility for their actions, and face the fact that sometimes life is hard.
being an addict is independent of self esteem. you can be an addict and have low self esteem but the two are not mutually inclusive. no one is asking you to give them warm milk and rub their belly
As I'm not accepting food, sex or gambling 'addiction' as such.... I'm clarifying my earlier point. Addiction to a substance like drugs is different than using something to cover up your need to hide from something difficult in your life, which is what people who overeat, use sex or gambling excessively are doing. There's usually an underlying reason people have that behavior.
there is often an underlying reason to using the illicit drug as well.
what counts as an addiction to me: has my/your/one's life become unmanageable because of it. do you realize this and realize you have little power over your ability to the cessation of said thing? addictions treated at least two sided, if not three sided are more likely to succeed. I've heard another person say that their addiction is an abnormal response to a substance/action.
one can relapse at any time. people have thrown away 40 years sober for a beer and then another and another. it's not like they didn't realize the destructive nature of alcohol on their lives.
Minimizing an issue because you don't feel like it's valid, doesn't make it any less problematic for the people in the midst of this struggle. and doesn't keep it from killing people who do not make a change in their lives
that being said. I do feel like "addiction" is thrown around to easily.
Difference being that addiction to a substance - relapse happens because of the addiction itself, not because of the underlying cause. Once you treat the cause, for food/sex/gambling/etc, you often have a cure. People with emotional trauma can be treated and cured. Narcotics and alcoholic addictions are lifelong battles that can be in remission, but typically those people when exposed to their substance, relapse due to the physical properties of the addiction itself. We are talking about substances, in the case of some narcotics, that are addictive the first time they are used. To compare that level of addiction to say, the comfort of eating a burrito for emotional distress is insulting to the drug addict. One is not like the other. Both do need to be treated, but completely differently. And one is addiction, the other is not.
who is to say that they are eating it for emotional support any more than the heroin addict had an abusive childhood and started because of that.
the point is that both people could be classified as a person who reacts abnormally to something.
as some addicts say, their drug of choice is more. some brains are just wired differently
That's the thing though. Despite us all wanting to be special flowers, our brains do not, in fact, react the same way to food as they do to drugs. "Abnormal reaction" to past trauma does not mean someone is addicted. That's an important distinction.
our brains can in fact react the same live science
no emotional eating does not equal addiction but neither does emotional drug abuse. those are independent-ish of the abuse of an object/action.
some people abuse things, but that in and of itself is not addiction...
Neurochemically, the bolded bit does not appear to be the case.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Ok, so you're a sugar addict or food addict.
What's the solution?
redefining your relationship with the food. food is fuel. what sort of fuel do you want to use in your engine?
also realizing food is neither good or bad and just is. food does not care how you feel. there is a lot of foot work and a lot of retraining that happens from my understanding
Seems a reasonable way to approach it for lots of people.
Also like it's not an addiction but an emotional attachment or dysfunction.
addiction means so many things to so many people it's so hard to take it for it's denotative meaning :the fact or condition of being physically and mentally dependent on a particular substance, and unable to stop taking it without incurring adverse effects, to a particular substance, thing, or activity.
I believe it is a dyfunction. a malfunctioning of a "normal" system. an irregularity. I look at it like a disorder like depression. brain doesn't work the same way for a person as it does for the general population
Logically, that's not going to work when it comes to things like food and sex. Things like drugs and alcohol are not natural and necessary to the body to function, and can be given up without adverse reactions.
Addiction to food? Well, technically we could say we're all addicted to food, because we need it to live, and crave it if we try to go without it for too long. I'm not going to buy into an addiction to a substance that the body needs and can't be given up. Tell me next you're addicted to water. The mind is a powerful thing and can develop an unnatural relationship with virtually anything, and that relationship needs to be addressed through therapy. That doesn't make it an addiction. A stalker isn't 'addicted' to his or her victim.0 -
Drugs and alcohol absolutely *are* natural.
0 -
I wrote up an a whole article about why those kind of articles are oversimplified and represent journalism that doesn't understand the subject. You are now replying by linking to more of the same science. I know it is long, but have you read the OP? I promise, I tried (not necessarily succeeded) to put in humor to make it a better read. I probably shouldn't put in that tried, it is self-deprecating, which means I'm mocking myself.tincanonastring wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
What's really unhelpful is feeding someone's misguided beliefs about a food in order to protect his feels.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »thorsmom01 wrote: »Love this post ! It should be a sticky !
Geez, I sure hope MFP wouldn't make such a mocking post a sticky.
I injected humor into my writing because that is my style and what I think of as entertaining on what can otherwise be a rather dry subject (neurobiology) for most people. I don't consider disagreeing with people the same as mocking. I was pretty clear in the outset of the writing, none of this is to say foods can't be a problem for people, nor that they can need help, I just find it unhelpful to call a person an addict and consider it akin to being on cocaine.
Humor about someone else's problem is certainly close to mocking. And is likely to be found unhelpful by all who feel addicted to a food.
Yes, that is likely true. But mocking or humor at their perception isn't the only way to tell someone they are mistaken.
The downfall of our society began when everyone decided that self-esteem needed protection, and enabling began. Everyone sat back and said, "Nothing is my fault," and everyone got a medal for effort. No one has to actually put in effort for success because everyone deserves recognition just for showing up, and a pat on the head. Winners get the same as everyone else, so there's no reward for actual effort. Anyone with a problem doesn't have to take any responsibility for it, because they can just point a finger to some issue in the past that caused it, and continue whatever bad behavior makes them feel better and helps them forget about it.
Seen Wall-E? That's humanity's future, if no one steps up and starts making people taking some responsibility for their actions, and face the fact that sometimes life is hard.
being an addict is independent of self esteem. you can be an addict and have low self esteem but the two are not mutually inclusive. no one is asking you to give them warm milk and rub their belly
As I'm not accepting food, sex or gambling 'addiction' as such.... I'm clarifying my earlier point. Addiction to a substance like drugs is different than using something to cover up your need to hide from something difficult in your life, which is what people who overeat, use sex or gambling excessively are doing. There's usually an underlying reason people have that behavior.
there is often an underlying reason to using the illicit drug as well.
what counts as an addiction to me: has my/your/one's life become unmanageable because of it. do you realize this and realize you have little power over your ability to the cessation of said thing? addictions treated at least two sided, if not three sided are more likely to succeed. I've heard another person say that their addiction is an abnormal response to a substance/action.
one can relapse at any time. people have thrown away 40 years sober for a beer and then another and another. it's not like they didn't realize the destructive nature of alcohol on their lives.
Minimizing an issue because you don't feel like it's valid, doesn't make it any less problematic for the people in the midst of this struggle. and doesn't keep it from killing people who do not make a change in their lives
that being said. I do feel like "addiction" is thrown around to easily.
Difference being that addiction to a substance - relapse happens because of the addiction itself, not because of the underlying cause. Once you treat the cause, for food/sex/gambling/etc, you often have a cure. People with emotional trauma can be treated and cured. Narcotics and alcoholic addictions are lifelong battles that can be in remission, but typically those people when exposed to their substance, relapse due to the physical properties of the addiction itself. We are talking about substances, in the case of some narcotics, that are addictive the first time they are used. To compare that level of addiction to say, the comfort of eating a burrito for emotional distress is insulting to the drug addict. One is not like the other. Both do need to be treated, but completely differently. And one is addiction, the other is not.
who is to say that they are eating it for emotional support any more than the heroin addict had an abusive childhood and started because of that.
the point is that both people could be classified as a person who reacts abnormally to something.
as some addicts say, their drug of choice is more. some brains are just wired differently
That's the thing though. Despite us all wanting to be special flowers, our brains do not, in fact, react the same way to food as they do to drugs. "Abnormal reaction" to past trauma does not mean someone is addicted. That's an important distinction.
our brains can in fact react the same live science
no emotional eating does not equal addiction but neither does emotional drug abuse. those are independent-ish of the abuse of an object/action.
some people abuse things, but that in and of itself is not addiction...0 -
it's about the dopamine.
also note in the livescience where it said "A 2011 study found that the brains of people with "food addiction" reacted to junk food the same way that the brains of people with drug addictions react to drugs."
that in and of itself does not make one addicted per se but it can lead to pathological obsesity which they say "There are clear similarities between pathological obesity that involves uncontrolled eating, and addictions," London said." also "People who are obese have fewer dopamine receptors in a brain region called the striatum, which is also a characteristic of people who are addicted to drugs, London said." Also, in the summary, "But a small percentage of people may truly become addicted, experiencing the type of loss of control around food that is characteristic of addiction, Frascella said."
and again I will say that I believe people in general use addiction too lightly
I don't follow with all of what this post says but I do agree with some of the alignments. I find that it is even more relevant as the author is a recovering person
similarities0 -
it's about the dopamine.
also note in the livescience where it said "A 2011 study found that the brains of people with "food addiction" reacted to junk food the same way that the brains of people with drug addictions react to drugs."
that in and of itself does not make one addicted per se but it can lead to pathological obsesity which they say "There are clear similarities between pathological obesity that involves uncontrolled eating, and addictions," London said." also "People who are obese have fewer dopamine receptors in a brain region called the striatum, which is also a characteristic of people who are addicted to drugs, London said." Also, in the summary, "But a small percentage of people may truly become addicted, experiencing the type of loss of control around food that is characteristic of addiction, Frascella said."
and again I will say that I believe people in general use addiction too lightly
I don't follow with all of what this post says but I do agree with some of the alignments. I find that it is even more relevant as the author is a recovering person
similarities
Saying that the reaction of the brain to the food (it's all about the dopamine) qualifies food reception in the body as an addiction is ridiculous. Scans show chemical reactions in the brain when people pet puppies, see each other, smell certain scents, hear certain music.... are all those things addictions as well? And the level shouldn't matter, either. Composers have higher levels of chemicals when music is heard than the common layperson, are they music addicts? I don't think so. It just makes them more adept at composing music.
I find it less relevant that the author is a recovering person. Of course he's going to want his data to prove the theory that he believes- that he was an addict and helpless to control himself.0 -
it's about the dopamine.
also note in the livescience where it said "A 2011 study found that the brains of people with "food addiction" reacted to junk food the same way that the brains of people with drug addictions react to drugs."
that in and of itself does not make one addicted per se but it can lead to pathological obsesity which they say "There are clear similarities between pathological obesity that involves uncontrolled eating, and addictions," London said." also "People who are obese have fewer dopamine receptors in a brain region called the striatum, which is also a characteristic of people who are addicted to drugs, London said." Also, in the summary, "But a small percentage of people may truly become addicted, experiencing the type of loss of control around food that is characteristic of addiction, Frascella said."
and again I will say that I believe people in general use addiction too lightly
I don't follow with all of what this post says but I do agree with some of the alignments. I find that it is even more relevant as the author is a recovering person
similarities
In this case, though, words matter and there's a big dfference between similar to and the same when it comes to addiction and uncontrolled eating.
The dopamine thing was addressed in the OP and is the entire basis for this post.0 -
it's about the dopamine.
also note in the livescience where it said "A 2011 study found that the brains of people with "food addiction" reacted to junk food the same way that the brains of people with drug addictions react to drugs."
that in and of itself does not make one addicted per se but it can lead to pathological obsesity which they say "There are clear similarities between pathological obesity that involves uncontrolled eating, and addictions," London said." also "People who are obese have fewer dopamine receptors in a brain region called the striatum, which is also a characteristic of people who are addicted to drugs, London said." Also, in the summary, "But a small percentage of people may truly become addicted, experiencing the type of loss of control around food that is characteristic of addiction, Frascella said."
and again I will say that I believe people in general use addiction too lightly
I don't follow with all of what this post says but I do agree with some of the alignments. I find that it is even more relevant as the author is a recovering person
similarities
Everything that causes reward anticipation spikes dopamine. If you read my OP, you'd see that dogs that are trained to salivate when they hear a bell also have dopamine spike when they hear the bell. So now do we say food is liking hearing bells?
I also explained, in cocaine, your brain's dopamine remains elevated, as does serotonin, and neuropenphrine. This all happens AFTER the drug is taken.
When you eat, your brain increases in dopamine BEFORE eating. When eating, you get a serotonin rise that actually supresses the dopamine effect. It is an evolved feedback loop to get people to stop searching for food while it is available.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions