The worst addiction in the world is FOOD
Replies
-
DeguelloTex wrote: »Maybe so. It seems to me that thinking of it in terms of the properties of the food rather than in terms of her decisions undermine gaining that power.
Yes. I have problems with this current tendency in pop culture to broaden the definition of addiction. It smacks of evasion. "Poor me. It's not my fault I ate the whole bag of cookies. It's the cookie's fault." No, you picked the cookies up off the shelf, you put them in the buggy, on the belt, in the bag, into the car, into the cupboard, then on to the sofa. They didn't open themselves and fly into your mouth.
Owning that and taking responsibility is the first step to stopping. The first step to not drinking all the gravy is not making it. If this is too difficult a step, seek professional assistance, because you won't find help on the internet.
So does this mean, it's the gin's or the cocaine's fault that an addict is hooked on a substance? I am not an expert in addictions, but in order to get clean, doesn't a person need to first acknowledge the problem and accept responsibility?
+1
BTW Sugar addiction is fact.
0 -
@kshama2001 True. I know this...and yet....still lose sight of it. Time to change all that ignorance for sure.0
-
PetiaIvailova wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »Maybe so. It seems to me that thinking of it in terms of the properties of the food rather than in terms of her decisions undermine gaining that power.
Yes. I have problems with this current tendency in pop culture to broaden the definition of addiction. It smacks of evasion. "Poor me. It's not my fault I ate the whole bag of cookies. It's the cookie's fault." No, you picked the cookies up off the shelf, you put them in the buggy, on the belt, in the bag, into the car, into the cupboard, then on to the sofa. They didn't open themselves and fly into your mouth.
Owning that and taking responsibility is the first step to stopping. The first step to not drinking all the gravy is not making it. If this is too difficult a step, seek professional assistance, because you won't find help on the internet.
So does this mean, it's the gin's or the cocaine's fault that an addict is hooked on a substance? I am not an expert in addictions, but in order to get clean, doesn't a person need to first acknowledge the problem and accept responsibility?
+1
BTW Sugar addiction is fact.
Nuh uh! The forum says its not. Caffeine either, even though you suffer withdrawal symptoms, the definition of physical dependence.0 -
TheopolisAmbroiseIII wrote: »I accidentally fell into this forum trap once. Note; fat weighs the same as muscle and addiction is limited SOLELY to heroin. If you remember those two facts, you're better able to swim these waters. Oh, and speaking of waters, you don't need 8 glasses a day.
You forgot meth, but otherwise got it
And the need to always have peer-reviewed studies to back your claims.
0 -
Surely you have some peer-reviewed studies to support this, right?PetiaIvailova wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »Maybe so. It seems to me that thinking of it in terms of the properties of the food rather than in terms of her decisions undermine gaining that power.
Yes. I have problems with this current tendency in pop culture to broaden the definition of addiction. It smacks of evasion. "Poor me. It's not my fault I ate the whole bag of cookies. It's the cookie's fault." No, you picked the cookies up off the shelf, you put them in the buggy, on the belt, in the bag, into the car, into the cupboard, then on to the sofa. They didn't open themselves and fly into your mouth.
Owning that and taking responsibility is the first step to stopping. The first step to not drinking all the gravy is not making it. If this is too difficult a step, seek professional assistance, because you won't find help on the internet.
So does this mean, it's the gin's or the cocaine's fault that an addict is hooked on a substance? I am not an expert in addictions, but in order to get clean, doesn't a person need to first acknowledge the problem and accept responsibility?
+1
BTW Sugar addiction is fact.
0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »TheopolisAmbroiseIII wrote: »I accidentally fell into this forum trap once. Note; fat weighs the same as muscle and addiction is limited SOLELY to heroin. If you remember those two facts, you're better able to swim these waters. Oh, and speaking of waters, you don't need 8 glasses a day.
You forgot meth, but otherwise got it
Something something lack of willpower..
I think this particular argument resurfaces again and again because of the different levels of power different people give the word 'addiction'.
Yes, there's a clinical definition, but there's a clinical definition of a lot of things that we 'misuse' the name for and it doesn't generate this level of wrath.
Some people have never witnessed hard drug addiction first hand, and some people deal with it daily.
This disparity generates some people cavalierly using a hot button word. We all either need to take the power the word has away by agreeing that any 'compulsion' can be overcome with various levels of personal effort, support and struggle, or we all need to agree that 'addiction' is a serious word, and we shouldn't bandy it about.
The same thing occurs with the term "depressed". It doesn't mean 'sad', you're not 'depressed' because they're out of sprinkles for your sundae.0 -
TheopolisAmbroiseIII wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »TheopolisAmbroiseIII wrote: »I accidentally fell into this forum trap once. Note; fat weighs the same as muscle and addiction is limited SOLELY to heroin. If you remember those two facts, you're better able to swim these waters. Oh, and speaking of waters, you don't need 8 glasses a day.
You forgot meth, but otherwise got it
Something something lack of willpower..
I think this particular argument resurfaces again and again because of the different levels of power different people give the word 'addiction'.
Yes, there's a clinical definition, but there's a clinical definition of a lot of things that we 'misuse' the name for and it doesn't generate this level of wrath.
Some people have never witnessed hard drug addiction first hand, and some people deal with it daily.
This disparity generates some people cavalierly using a hot button word. We all either need to take the power the word has away by agreeing that any 'compulsion' can be overcome with various levels of personal effort, support and struggle, or we all need to agree that 'addiction' is a serious word, and we shouldn't bandy it about.
The same thing occurs with the term "depressed". It doesn't mean 'sad', you're not 'depressed' because they're out of sprinkles for your sundae.
Yes, I believe that:
1. "Any 'compulsion' can be overcome with various levels of personal effort, support and struggle"
2. Addiction =/ an excuse for bad behavior. See # 1.
0 -
@TheopolisAmbroiseIII Ya- I agree with your statement. I do think the things that we feel we are 'addicted' to - are things we can overcome with actual effort. No one can take away that which pains me, but me. Really. I used the word 'addicted' lightly, or the intention was meant to be used lightly.
People tend to give any word too much power.0 -
TheopolisAmbroiseIII wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »TheopolisAmbroiseIII wrote: »I accidentally fell into this forum trap once. Note; fat weighs the same as muscle and addiction is limited SOLELY to heroin. If you remember those two facts, you're better able to swim these waters. Oh, and speaking of waters, you don't need 8 glasses a day.
You forgot meth, but otherwise got it
Something something lack of willpower..
I think this particular argument resurfaces again and again because of the different levels of power different people give the word 'addiction'.
Yes, there's a clinical definition, but there's a clinical definition of a lot of things that we 'misuse' the name for and it doesn't generate this level of wrath.
Some people have never witnessed hard drug addiction first hand, and some people deal with it daily.
This disparity generates some people cavalierly using a hot button word. We all either need to take the power the word has away by agreeing that any 'compulsion' can be overcome with various levels of personal effort, support and struggle, or we all need to agree that 'addiction' is a serious word, and we shouldn't bandy it about.
The same thing occurs with the term "depressed". It doesn't mean 'sad', you're not 'depressed' because they're out of sprinkles for your sundae.
I really want to see this argument pop up whenever someone says they're totally "addicted" to Quest Bars, or the new donuts at Tim Hortons. It only ever seems to become a major debate when someone uses the term when talking about their negative obsession/compulsion/whatever-you-want-to-call-it with food. That's a bit of a shame, considering the discussion gets bogged down by semantics when the OP is usually just hoping for a genuine vent or is asking for help (and, from what I've found, is more than aware of the difference between meth/heroine addiction and food "addiction").0 -
UltimateRBF wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »TheopolisAmbroiseIII wrote: »I accidentally fell into this forum trap once. Note; fat weighs the same as muscle and addiction is limited SOLELY to heroin. If you remember those two facts, you're better able to swim these waters. Oh, and speaking of waters, you don't need 8 glasses a day.
You forgot meth, but otherwise got it
And the need to always have peer-reviewed studies to back your claims.
Yeah, don't you hate it when people ask for evidence of claims made. Those haters!
The irony is when someone was bashing Lustig and I asked for evidence using the same standard and no one had anything but some blogs.
0 -
TheopolisAmbroiseIII wrote: »I accidentally fell into this forum trap once. Note; fat weighs the same as muscle and addiction is limited SOLELY to heroin. If you remember those two facts, you're better able to swim these waters. Oh, and speaking of waters, you don't need 8 glasses a day.
0 -
ManiacalLaugh wrote: »TheopolisAmbroiseIII wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »TheopolisAmbroiseIII wrote: »I accidentally fell into this forum trap once. Note; fat weighs the same as muscle and addiction is limited SOLELY to heroin. If you remember those two facts, you're better able to swim these waters. Oh, and speaking of waters, you don't need 8 glasses a day.
You forgot meth, but otherwise got it
Something something lack of willpower..
I think this particular argument resurfaces again and again because of the different levels of power different people give the word 'addiction'.
Yes, there's a clinical definition, but there's a clinical definition of a lot of things that we 'misuse' the name for and it doesn't generate this level of wrath.
Some people have never witnessed hard drug addiction first hand, and some people deal with it daily.
This disparity generates some people cavalierly using a hot button word. We all either need to take the power the word has away by agreeing that any 'compulsion' can be overcome with various levels of personal effort, support and struggle, or we all need to agree that 'addiction' is a serious word, and we shouldn't bandy it about.
The same thing occurs with the term "depressed". It doesn't mean 'sad', you're not 'depressed' because they're out of sprinkles for your sundae.
I really want to see this argument pop up whenever someone says they're totally "addicted" to Quest Bars, or the new donuts at Tim Hortons. It only ever seems to become a major debate when someone uses the term when talking about their negative obsession/compulsion/whatever-you-want-to-call-it with food. That's a bit of a shame, considering the discussion gets bogged down by semantics when the OP is usually just hoping for a genuine vent or is asking for help (and, from what I've found, is more than aware of the difference between meth/heroine addiction and food "addiction").
I actually thought the discussion had moved on from the semantic one, and it's really the people complaining that there's a negative reaction to using the word who are dragging it back into the semantic discussion.
Personally, I think it's usually quite clear when someone uses the term casually -- I'm addicted to pizza or shoes or whatever -- and am not bothered by that. On MFP, though, it's common to directly compare an addiction to "sugar" to one to "heroin" which is why it gets responded to in those cases as if the point being made is, in fact, intended seriously.
Here, I think OP was genuinely talking about feelings of out of controlness around food that many of us have dealt with, and I understand where she's coming from, but I still really hate the "food is the hardest addiction" thing because that's really not accurate to my experience (which yes is colored by too much experience with alcohol and drug addiction).
I don't think I was mean to OP, though -- I do think the out of control feeling is a real thing and is important to talk about and figure out how to deal with, even if I don't happen to think focusing on it as an addiction is actually useful to that. I don't think it's a terrible thing to use the word, but I also will disagree. (Sometimes on this forum you get the idea that disagreeing is considered cruelty and I find that odd.)0 -
Lose lose situation unless I learn to look at things differently. How do you reprogram your 40 year old brain to stop beating yourself up, stop hating self, stop punishing self?
Love is all you need, right? Love thyself in order to really know how to love others. Is that it?
This is probably the most important part. I am sure there are tons of people on this site that struggle with this - I am one of them. How do you do things to make yourself healthier when you not only don't care about yourself, but you actively hate yourself? I understand the eating to punish yourself thing too well. Some people are lucky and have no clue what that is like. I see that you have had counseling, but it might help you to get some more, especially where this self-harming food behavior is concerned.
I suffer from clinical depression and anxiety, and have been through the rounds of drugs for many years, and finally gave them up, as you did, when I decided they not only didn't help, many hurt me even more.
All I can say is what so many here say - something just "clicked" for me one day, and all that self-harming with food stopped dead in its tracks. I don't know why it changed - it just did. Even though I spent most of January and February this year in bed from severe depression, somehow I still was able to lose weight, albeit eating unhealthily - that changed in April when I discovered MFP. And somehow, finding the discipline - because that is what it takes to do this - to log every day and start choosing healthier foods, has caused a great deal of my self-hatred to diminish. This discipline has helped me in so many ways - I feel in control of myself now, where I never did before.
You have to find a way to love yourself again. I didn't just say "OK, I'm going to love myself now," I started trying to take better care of myself, and a better opinion of myself is slowly growing. I hope that you can do the same.
0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »UltimateRBF wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »TheopolisAmbroiseIII wrote: »I accidentally fell into this forum trap once. Note; fat weighs the same as muscle and addiction is limited SOLELY to heroin. If you remember those two facts, you're better able to swim these waters. Oh, and speaking of waters, you don't need 8 glasses a day.
You forgot meth, but otherwise got it
And the need to always have peer-reviewed studies to back your claims.
Yeah, don't you hate it when people ask for evidence of claims made. Those haters!
The irony is when someone was bashing Lustig and I asked for evidence using the same standard and no one had anything but some blogs.
I doubt there's a peer reviewed study named "Why that one dude is wrong, a case study".
And of course if you post a link by another doctor who writes page after page about what is wrong with Lustig that doesn't count because of where he works, but anything Lustig says is gospel even though he makes his money by saying sugar is evil.0 -
Lyndahh75 sorry you are getting so much slack on this forum where people are suppose to be supportive. Food may not be considered an "addiction", but there are many articles on the debilitating effects of emotional eating and the chemical cravings that some people get from sugar and other ingredients in some non-natural foods. Why would you not call it an addiction - for you it is. Yes, it is not drugs, but all the same, it is hard to break habits even if they are eating related.
I wish you luck. Start small and remember, everything is ok in moderation. It's not worth beating yourself up. A healthy mind leads to a healthy body which leads back to a healthy mind. You want gravy, take a 30 minute walk before dinner and have gravy, not a smothering load, but have some and enjoy it. You want ice cream, go to the gym at lunch and have ice cream (not everyday).
By the way, the definition of addiction:1) is a primary, chronic disease of brain reward, motivation, memory and related circuitry. 2) a strong and harmful need to regularly have something (such as a drug) or do something (such as gamble) 3) an unusually great interest in something or a need to do or have something
0 -
@LaceyBirds I too was diagnosed with clinical depression. Mind/Matter is and always will be my approach. Thank you for your post.0
-
Depending on what blog you were linked to, there well could have been peer reviewed literature discounting Lustig's theories. Peer reviewed journals aren't going to have papers published directly arguing why one expert is wrong or not. There are peer reviewed papers and statistical documents that discount what Lustig says, though usually a blog format citing them is more useful as it puts them in context to point-counterpoint what Lustig has said.kshama2001 wrote: »UltimateRBF wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »TheopolisAmbroiseIII wrote: »I accidentally fell into this forum trap once. Note; fat weighs the same as muscle and addiction is limited SOLELY to heroin. If you remember those two facts, you're better able to swim these waters. Oh, and speaking of waters, you don't need 8 glasses a day.
You forgot meth, but otherwise got it
And the need to always have peer-reviewed studies to back your claims.
Yeah, don't you hate it when people ask for evidence of claims made. Those haters!
The irony is when someone was bashing Lustig and I asked for evidence using the same standard and no one had anything but some blogs.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »ManiacalLaugh wrote: »TheopolisAmbroiseIII wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »TheopolisAmbroiseIII wrote: »I accidentally fell into this forum trap once. Note; fat weighs the same as muscle and addiction is limited SOLELY to heroin. If you remember those two facts, you're better able to swim these waters. Oh, and speaking of waters, you don't need 8 glasses a day.
You forgot meth, but otherwise got it
Something something lack of willpower..
I think this particular argument resurfaces again and again because of the different levels of power different people give the word 'addiction'.
Yes, there's a clinical definition, but there's a clinical definition of a lot of things that we 'misuse' the name for and it doesn't generate this level of wrath.
Some people have never witnessed hard drug addiction first hand, and some people deal with it daily.
This disparity generates some people cavalierly using a hot button word. We all either need to take the power the word has away by agreeing that any 'compulsion' can be overcome with various levels of personal effort, support and struggle, or we all need to agree that 'addiction' is a serious word, and we shouldn't bandy it about.
The same thing occurs with the term "depressed". It doesn't mean 'sad', you're not 'depressed' because they're out of sprinkles for your sundae.
I really want to see this argument pop up whenever someone says they're totally "addicted" to Quest Bars, or the new donuts at Tim Hortons. It only ever seems to become a major debate when someone uses the term when talking about their negative obsession/compulsion/whatever-you-want-to-call-it with food. That's a bit of a shame, considering the discussion gets bogged down by semantics when the OP is usually just hoping for a genuine vent or is asking for help (and, from what I've found, is more than aware of the difference between meth/heroine addiction and food "addiction").
I actually thought the discussion had moved on from the semantic one, and it's really the people complaining that there's a negative reaction to using the word who are dragging it back into the semantic discussion.
Personally, I think it's usually quite clear when someone uses the term casually -- I'm addicted to pizza or shoes or whatever -- and am not bothered by that. On MFP, though, it's common to directly compare an addiction to "sugar" to one to "heroin" which is why it gets responded to in those cases as if the point being made is, in fact, intended seriously.
Here, I think OP was genuinely talking about feelings of out of controlness around food that many of us have dealt with, and I understand where she's coming from, but I still really hate the "food is the hardest addiction" thing because that's really not accurate to my experience (which yes is colored by too much experience with alcohol and drug addiction).
I don't think I was mean to OP, though -- I do think the out of control feeling is a real thing and is important to talk about and figure out how to deal with, even if I don't happen to think focusing on it as an addiction is actually useful to that. I don't think it's a terrible thing to use the word, but I also will disagree. (Sometimes on this forum you get the idea that disagreeing is considered cruelty and I find that odd.)
I don't think it's a matter of being "mean" to anyone. Most people can learn through the civil debates that go on here and take them for what they are.
I just find it a shame when someone posts "I feel lost; I feel out of control; I need help" and 20 people reply, "Let me tell you why you're wrong and by the way, you just trivialized addiction, so shame on you."
IMO, posts like, "I know you feel out of control, but you're not, and you can do this. Here's some legitimate advice for helping you gain traction..." are a lot more helpful while shifting the focus off of "helpless addiction" and back onto them and what they can do to take responsibility for their own health.0 -
-
Nope. You can live without consuming sugar. You cannot live without sugar. So it is not possible to detox out of sugar like you can with crack.tennisdude2004 wrote: »0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 415 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions