Hedonic Hunger
Options
Replies
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »What I see a lot that I consider unhelpful (and annoying) is people assuming that there is something special about them that makes this a lot harder than for others -- that they are compelled to eat when others are not. (And I have definitely seen defeatist attitudes related to that -- I think many don't really want to do what they need to do to lose weight but feel like they should or others are judging them for not, and so they post "I'm addicted.")
Anyway, I don't see hedonic hunger as about addiction at all. In fact, I think it's probably just being a human for the most part, for the reasons I posted above. I agree with Caitwn that understanding it and learning to deal is important, but not this idea that if one experiences it -- which I think most do -- one has something special wrong with them or is an "addict." I also think the key thing to consider is that we live in an environment that makes it an issue to deal with and encourages it. But liking to eat tasty food does not mean you have something wrong with you, even if you easily eat in excess. The problem is that people have trouble distinguishing between real hunger and wanting to eat for other reasons. (I find it helpful to eat to a schedule and just remind myself of when I'm eating again, which makes the notion of real hunger ridiculous most of the time.)
I too have found scheduled eating to be very helpful.
Years of emotional and pleasure eating have truly ruined my hunger signals. I also have days now where exercise will so suppress my appetite that I don't feel hungry even though I might need more calories if I want to have hope of exercising tomorrow.
In the same way that calorie budgeting has clicked for me (if I have no more budget, I can't eat), eating on a schedule has clicked for me. If it's not time, I don't eat.
There are times I change my schedule -- when starting a new exercise program, for example. The fact remains that keeping some sort of structure in place is incredibly helpful for me.
0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »@middlehaitch and @rabbitjb - you are both people I very much respect on these boards, but I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. The article looks at the possibility of shifting the focus from the currently popular (and misinformed, in my opinion) idea that "sugar/carbs/fat/whatever are EVIL and BAD and ADDICTIVE" and instead look at eating patterns overall.
It's true that sugar/fat/salt makes foods far more palatable, and palatable foods are most likely to be part of hedonic eating, but they are not the entirety of the problem...and that's the point of the article.
When people focus only on (for example) sugar, they tend to focus away from eating patterns overall, and they think that if they could only cut sugar out of their diet, then their weight problems would be solved.
But appetite - and specifically hedonic hunger - are driven by many factors that are specific to each individual: things like memory, association, aromas, social settings, beliefs, advertisements, and emotions (just to name a few).
I'd argue that increasing our understanding of hedonic hunger and how it plays into our personal eating patterns is indeed taking responsibility for our eating choices.
I just wanted to throw those thoughts out here because admittedly I find the research on appetite to be so interesting...and I think as we grow to better understand it, we'll have more tools to help people who are struggling with weight and eating disorders.
Good comment as always caitwn..
I'll agree and disagree.
In the context you provided (using the study to further understand, etc) I agree can be empowering.
But I'm afraid too many (probably likely with the 'help' of click bait website headlines) will simply latch on to the label and concept that 'oh noes...my brain's been rewired, I can't help myself from eating this entire box of chocolates'
I haven't noticed that attitude here. When people think they are addicted, they post looking for help. I think the same would be true if people thought they were wired for chocolate - "I'm wired for chocolate - how do I rewire my brain?"
I do agree that @Caitwn has great comments!
+1
I don't understand why people just wrote off the research until it was explained by Caitwn. I mean I do, people are worried about the idea of responsibility etc. being threatened by research, or just don't want to believe that it ever possibly could be, and are concerned about some audience or other misreading the research to support their own idea or bias or whatever. Which I find a little ironic.lemurcat12 wrote: »What I see a lot that I consider unhelpful (and annoying) is people assuming that there is something special about them that makes this a lot harder than for others -- that they are compelled to eat when others are not. (And I have definitely seen defeatist attitudes related to that -- I think many don't really want to do what they need to do to lose weight but feel like they should or others are judging them for not, and so they post "I'm addicted.")
Anyway, I don't see hedonic hunger as about addiction at all. In fact, I think it's probably just being a human for the most part, for the reasons I posted above. I agree with Caitwn that understanding it and learning to deal is important, but not this idea that if one experiences it -- which I think most do -- one has something special wrong with them or is an "addict." I also think the key thing to consider is that we live in an environment that makes it an issue to deal with and encourages it. But liking to eat tasty food does not mean you have something wrong with you, even if you easily eat in excess. The problem is that people have trouble distinguishing between real hunger and wanting to eat for other reasons. (I find it helpful to eat to a schedule and just remind myself of when I'm eating again, which makes the notion of real hunger ridiculous most of the time.)
I don't know if "addiction" is quite the right frame for this whole idea, but surely there's such a thing as individual variability, though, no? Some people are more likely to be addicted to cigarettes, for example, because their nicotinic receptors are basically really primed (because there are more of them, or they're more sensitive, or involved in some particularly sharp state of biological readiness) to love nicotine when it comes in, more so than some other people's. What is odd to me is the assumption of genetic homogeneity!0 -
To me, the value of discovering vulnerabilities where they exist is not that it gives people "excuses". Instead it might give them tools to address these vulnerabilities.
E.g. again with smoking. Some research suggests that people with those hungry receptors tend to do better with cessation methods involving NRTs and other drug approaches than with alternative methods. Doesn't mean they don't want to quit (or won't quit!).
Extending that to weight management, it may be that some people will do better with particular approaches than others. I mean we know that's the case, people tell us that, it's just no one wants to believe them. (Although it's true that with humans there's all kinds of room for various psychological effects.) But this research could be a partial explanation as to why approach X might work for people X. Maybe we shouldn't just dismiss people's experiences out of hand. Maybe what they're doing is describing an actual real thing.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »@middlehaitch and @rabbitjb - you are both people I very much respect on these boards, but I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. The article looks at the possibility of shifting the focus from the currently popular (and misinformed, in my opinion) idea that "sugar/carbs/fat/whatever are EVIL and BAD and ADDICTIVE" and instead look at eating patterns overall.
It's true that sugar/fat/salt makes foods far more palatable, and palatable foods are most likely to be part of hedonic eating, but they are not the entirety of the problem...and that's the point of the article.
When people focus only on (for example) sugar, they tend to focus away from eating patterns overall, and they think that if they could only cut sugar out of their diet, then their weight problems would be solved.
But appetite - and specifically hedonic hunger - are driven by many factors that are specific to each individual: things like memory, association, aromas, social settings, beliefs, advertisements, and emotions (just to name a few).
I'd argue that increasing our understanding of hedonic hunger and how it plays into our personal eating patterns is indeed taking responsibility for our eating choices.
I just wanted to throw those thoughts out here because admittedly I find the research on appetite to be so interesting...and I think as we grow to better understand it, we'll have more tools to help people who are struggling with weight and eating disorders.
Good comment as always caitwn..
I'll agree and disagree.
In the context you provided (using the study to further understand, etc) I agree can be empowering.
But I'm afraid too many (probably likely with the 'help' of click bait website headlines) will simply latch on to the label and concept that 'oh noes...my brain's been rewired, I can't help myself from eating this entire box of chocolates'
I haven't noticed that attitude here. When people think they are addicted, they post looking for help. I think the same would be true if people thought they were wired for chocolate - "I'm wired for chocolate - how do I rewire my brain?"
I do agree that @Caitwn has great comments!
+1
I don't understand why people just wrote off the research until it was explained by Caitwn. I mean I do, people are worried about the idea of responsibility etc. being threatened by research, or just don't want to believe that it ever possibly could be, and are concerned about some audience or other misreading the research to support their own idea or bias or whatever. Which I find a little ironic.lemurcat12 wrote: »What I see a lot that I consider unhelpful (and annoying) is people assuming that there is something special about them that makes this a lot harder than for others -- that they are compelled to eat when others are not. (And I have definitely seen defeatist attitudes related to that -- I think many don't really want to do what they need to do to lose weight but feel like they should or others are judging them for not, and so they post "I'm addicted.")
Anyway, I don't see hedonic hunger as about addiction at all. In fact, I think it's probably just being a human for the most part, for the reasons I posted above. I agree with Caitwn that understanding it and learning to deal is important, but not this idea that if one experiences it -- which I think most do -- one has something special wrong with them or is an "addict." I also think the key thing to consider is that we live in an environment that makes it an issue to deal with and encourages it. But liking to eat tasty food does not mean you have something wrong with you, even if you easily eat in excess. The problem is that people have trouble distinguishing between real hunger and wanting to eat for other reasons. (I find it helpful to eat to a schedule and just remind myself of when I'm eating again, which makes the notion of real hunger ridiculous most of the time.)
I don't know if "addiction" is quite the right frame for this whole idea, but surely there's such a thing as individual variability, though, no?
There may be, but how could you ever know if it was harder for you than some other person, especially someone you don't know that well (as with all of us here). I think people (some posters, not those who have studied hedonic hunger) are trying to label as a disorder something that is just normal human experience and only a problem because of our unusual environment. It doesn't make someone either special or messed up that they might have trouble opening a bag of chips and eating just a couple -- it's completely unsurprising, which is why eating out of a bag is a bad idea. It's similarly not surprising that if you allow eating for pleasure at all times to be normal with no structure to control it that you will want to eat more cookies than you should or often will (if someone who likes cookies).
To claim that this is hard for you (hypothetical you) and not others is presumptuous and generally untrue in a population of people who have become overweight or obese.
As we've discussed before, I do think there are some not prone to hedonic eating (I know a few people completely uninterested in food), but they are the exception, not those of us who are prone to it -- which makes total sense if one thinks about what would have been evolutionarily advantageous. And thus in an environment where food is cheap and available and we've lost most of the cultural structure that regulated eating, the obesity rate is what it is. Unsurprising, but this new environment is something we have to adjust to so as to control the obesity rate. (My preferred solution is reimposing structure for myself, as I said above, as well as leading an active life, but everyone should figure out what works for them, agreed. One reason I like the structure + activity solution is I look at people I know who have avoided being overweight despite also seeming to enjoy eating for pleasure, not merely based on real hunger, and that's what they do.)0 -
middlehaitch wrote: »Lets face it it is just a nice way of saying a person is leading an hedonistic life with a focus on food.
I can't see anything that is revelatory, just a re-wording with a new label.
Cheers, h.
I think you're misunderstanding the etymology of the word. Both hedonic hunger and hedomism have the hedon- root word in them because it comes from pleasure, having a connotation of the physical. It also isn't necessarily an insult to be hedonist, though that is what has become of the term, largely in American culture, with its origin in self-denial as virtue going back towards Puritan times (though the Puritans weren't as puritanical as we portray them in popular media).
So hedonic hunger isn't meant as a judgement. In deed, by focusing on food as the source of the problem, hedonic hunger hypothesis of obesity are actually casting less judgement on the individual as failing, not more.0 -
Now you know I've always been interested in the concept of eating addiction and annoyed by the use of "food addiction" as an excuse. I also dislike the underpinning rat studies. I know you have experience in the field of addiction and I only speak as a layman but I do believe that the treatment options differ from substance addiction to behavioural and that is an important distinction
But I think I still stand by my comments: for most, taking responsibility for their actions around food, internalising rather than externalising can go a long way to changing overeating
And I do think "hedonistic eating" risks becoming a pretty label to latch on to that implies that it's not my fault
There is too much it's not your fault and not enough "take responsibility, make the changes, commit and it gradually becomes easier as your habits change"
I tend to think using terms like fault isn't particularly helpful. Obviously we'd be lying to ourselves and others to say weight, particularly obesity levels, doesn't have health consequences. I also think losing weight acknowledges saying it something under our control, but I see a subtle distinguish between saying "it is under our control to change it for the better", and saying "having been this way is our fault." They both sound very close to saying the same thing, but I feel calling it fault makes it sound like viewing oneself or others as bad people for being overweight, that there is something worth blaming or judging.
In the case of the hedonic hunger concept, I think it can be just one way of looking at things. Some people will probably hold out that there's a miracle pill, or magic surgery that ends all mental sense of hunger, but I don't think that's ultimately what the article or the people proposing the hypothesis are saying is by any means the only way to lose weight. The article mentions that in some instances, it produces behavorial strategies that some find useful - plenty that wouldn't look out of place as decent advise here on MFP, some that looks like advise I'd tell someone is a decent start, but that I don't think is the best in mental health as permanent changes, like food avoidance as a long term strategy.0 -
middlehaitch wrote: »Lets face it it is just a nice way of saying a person is leading an hedonistic life with a focus on food.
I can't see anything that is revelatory, just a re-wording with a new label.
Cheers, h.
I think you're misunderstanding the etymology of the word. Both hedonic hunger and hedomism have the hedon- root word in them because it comes from pleasure, having a connotation of the physical. It also isn't necessarily an insult to be hedonist, though that is what has become of the term, largely in American culture, with its origin in self-denial as virtue going back towards Puritan times (though the Puritans weren't as puritanical as we portray them in popular media).
So hedonic hunger isn't meant as a judgement. In deed, by focusing on food as the source of the problem, hedonic hunger hypothesis of obesity are actually casting less judgement on the individual as failing, not more.
That's assuming that the opposite of hedonism is self-denial. To me, the opposite of hedonism is seeking to please others, rather than yourself. Hedonism is, by definition, a selfish pursuit. Self-denial, while probably not hedonistic, is also probably not a selfless pursuit.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »@middlehaitch and @rabbitjb - you are both people I very much respect on these boards, but I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. The article looks at the possibility of shifting the focus from the currently popular (and misinformed, in my opinion) idea that "sugar/carbs/fat/whatever are EVIL and BAD and ADDICTIVE" and instead look at eating patterns overall.
It's true that sugar/fat/salt makes foods far more palatable, and palatable foods are most likely to be part of hedonic eating, but they are not the entirety of the problem...and that's the point of the article.
When people focus only on (for example) sugar, they tend to focus away from eating patterns overall, and they think that if they could only cut sugar out of their diet, then their weight problems would be solved.
But appetite - and specifically hedonic hunger - are driven by many factors that are specific to each individual: things like memory, association, aromas, social settings, beliefs, advertisements, and emotions (just to name a few).
I'd argue that increasing our understanding of hedonic hunger and how it plays into our personal eating patterns is indeed taking responsibility for our eating choices.
I just wanted to throw those thoughts out here because admittedly I find the research on appetite to be so interesting...and I think as we grow to better understand it, we'll have more tools to help people who are struggling with weight and eating disorders.
Good comment as always caitwn..
I'll agree and disagree.
In the context you provided (using the study to further understand, etc) I agree can be empowering.
But I'm afraid too many (probably likely with the 'help' of click bait website headlines) will simply latch on to the label and concept that 'oh noes...my brain's been rewired, I can't help myself from eating this entire box of chocolates'
I haven't noticed that attitude here. When people think they are addicted, they post looking for help. I think the same would be true if people thought they were wired for chocolate - "I'm wired for chocolate - how do I rewire my brain?"
I do agree that @Caitwn has great comments!
+1
I don't understand why people just wrote off the research until it was explained by Caitwn. I mean I do, people are worried about the idea of responsibility etc. being threatened by research, or just don't want to believe that it ever possibly could be, and are concerned about some audience or other misreading the research to support their own idea or bias or whatever. Which I find a little ironic.lemurcat12 wrote: »What I see a lot that I consider unhelpful (and annoying) is people assuming that there is something special about them that makes this a lot harder than for others -- that they are compelled to eat when others are not. (And I have definitely seen defeatist attitudes related to that -- I think many don't really want to do what they need to do to lose weight but feel like they should or others are judging them for not, and so they post "I'm addicted.")
Anyway, I don't see hedonic hunger as about addiction at all. In fact, I think it's probably just being a human for the most part, for the reasons I posted above. I agree with Caitwn that understanding it and learning to deal is important, but not this idea that if one experiences it -- which I think most do -- one has something special wrong with them or is an "addict." I also think the key thing to consider is that we live in an environment that makes it an issue to deal with and encourages it. But liking to eat tasty food does not mean you have something wrong with you, even if you easily eat in excess. The problem is that people have trouble distinguishing between real hunger and wanting to eat for other reasons. (I find it helpful to eat to a schedule and just remind myself of when I'm eating again, which makes the notion of real hunger ridiculous most of the time.)
I don't know if "addiction" is quite the right frame for this whole idea, but surely there's such a thing as individual variability, though, no?
There may be, but how could you ever know if it was harder for you than some other person, especially someone you don't know that well (as with all of us here). I think people (some posters, not those who have studied hedonic hunger) are trying to label as a disorder something that is just normal human experience and only a problem because of our unusual environment. It doesn't make someone either special or messed up that they might have trouble opening a bag of chips and eating just a couple -- it's completely unsurprising, which is why eating out of a bag is a bad idea. It's similarly not surprising that if you allow eating for pleasure at all times to be normal with no structure to control it that you will want to eat more cookies than you should or often will (if someone who likes cookies).
To claim that this is hard for you (hypothetical you) and not others is presumptuous and generally untrue in a population of people who have become overweight or obese.
As we've discussed before, I do think there are some not prone to hedonic eating (I know a few people completely uninterested in food), but they are the exception, not those of us who are prone to it -- which makes total sense if one thinks about what would have been evolutionarily advantageous. And thus in an environment where food is cheap and available and we've lost most of the cultural structure that regulated eating, the obesity rate is what it is. Unsurprising, but this new environment is something we have to adjust to so as to control the obesity rate. (My preferred solution is reimposing structure for myself, as I said above, as well as leading an active life, but everyone should figure out what works for them, agreed. One reason I like the structure + activity solution is I look at people I know who have avoided being overweight despite also seeming to enjoy eating for pleasure, not merely based on real hunger, and that's what they do.)
I don't think you do know, other than by reflecting on experience and going with trial and error. I don't know that it necessarily needs to be pathologized as addiction, particularly, but recognition that some differences between people exist seems like not a huge problem to me.
Agree, the food most readily available (in the quantities it is) in our environment is part of the problem.
By cultural structure, you mean set meal times, right? Some other constraints than the food? I'm sure it can help. More activity is always good.0 -
Now you know I've always been interested in the concept of eating addiction and annoyed by the use of "food addiction" as an excuse. I also dislike the underpinning rat studies. I know you have experience in the field of addiction and I only speak as a layman but I do believe that the treatment options differ from substance addiction to behavioural and that is an important distinction
But I think I still stand by my comments: for most, taking responsibility for their actions around food, internalising rather than externalising can go a long way to changing overeating
And I do think "hedonistic eating" risks becoming a pretty label to latch on to that implies that it's not my fault
There is too much it's not your fault and not enough "take responsibility, make the changes, commit and it gradually becomes easier as your habits change"
I tend to think using terms like fault isn't particularly helpful. Obviously we'd be lying to ourselves and others to say weight, particularly obesity levels, doesn't have health consequences. I also think losing weight acknowledges saying it something under our control, but I see a subtle distinguish between saying "it is under our control to change it for the better", and saying "having been this way is our fault." They both sound very close to saying the same thing, but I feel calling it fault makes it sound like viewing oneself or others as bad people for being overweight, that there is something worth blaming or judging.
In the case of the hedonic hunger concept, I think it can be just one way of looking at things. Some people will probably hold out that there's a miracle pill, or magic surgery that ends all mental sense of hunger, but I don't think that's ultimately what the article or the people proposing the hypothesis are saying is by any means the only way to lose weight. The article mentions that in some instances, it produces behavorial strategies that some find useful - plenty that wouldn't look out of place as decent advise here on MFP, some that looks like advise I'd tell someone is a decent start, but that I don't think is the best in mental health as permanent changes, like food avoidance as a long term strategy.
I agree with all this. By appreciating and addressing the mechanisms involved, we can stop asking people who struggle with simple caloric restriction ("willpower") to suffer and punish themselves, and support them in their goals in a way that actually meets their needs. And yeah, the strategies suggested are all low-risk, I mean there's no reason not to recommend them as worth trying.
As far as mental health of long-term food avoidance - in my experience, and for many, managing exposure to food means there's *less* mental distress around hunger. Because there *is* no struggle. The hunger just isn't there, because I've eaten foods that actually hit the spot. I'm not depleting willpower (or time or energy) in trying to manage hunger (because I don't feel it), and I don't even think about food I don't see. It's a million times easier than trying to fit in, and restrict, those challenging foods on a daily basis. And if I've eaten "well" for most of the day, I'm in a much better position to limit intake (again, just not hungry). Like it's no sweat, is what I'm trying to say. Easy.
For myself, food avoidance 80% of the time greatly increases my chances of staying on track. (I know this from several years of experience in monitoring my intake.) So practically speaking, for me, that means limiting the number of meals in a row that feature challenging foods, also the number of days in a row those meals occur, and simply not bringing them into the house. Though I do have them very occasionally in highly restrictive conditions off my home turf.
Understanding (via experience) that this happens has also meant that I've been able to stay cool when I've gone over. I haven't interpreted those occasions as a personal failure (e.g. of "willpower"), it just means I need to correct my technique. Which makes it a total non-issue as far as emotional impact.
I also don't demonize the challenging foods - I just know that they are what they are, and I'm better equipped to respond to them. You'll never hear me bash a McD's quarter pounder. I have them! I just am not going to put myself in the position of having to fight them off on a daily basis, because I want to succeed.
In the end what matters is success and sustainability; and I can tell you from personal experience that this kind of thing really is sustainable for people over the long haul.
So if this works for some people, why insist it doesn't or shouldn't? I definitely don't see a reason for morality to come into it.0 -
VykkDraygoVPR wrote: »middlehaitch wrote: »Lets face it it is just a nice way of saying a person is leading an hedonistic life with a focus on food.
I can't see anything that is revelatory, just a re-wording with a new label.
Cheers, h.
I think you're misunderstanding the etymology of the word. Both hedonic hunger and hedomism have the hedon- root word in them because it comes from pleasure, having a connotation of the physical. It also isn't necessarily an insult to be hedonist, though that is what has become of the term, largely in American culture, with its origin in self-denial as virtue going back towards Puritan times (though the Puritans weren't as puritanical as we portray them in popular media).
So hedonic hunger isn't meant as a judgement. In deed, by focusing on food as the source of the problem, hedonic hunger hypothesis of obesity are actually casting less judgement on the individual as failing, not more.
That's assuming that the opposite of hedonism is self-denial. To me, the opposite of hedonism is seeking to please others, rather than yourself. Hedonism is, by definition, a selfish pursuit. Self-denial, while probably not hedonistic, is also probably not a selfless pursuit.
Hedonism literally means pleasure, not self pleasure. If pleasing others pleases you, it too, would be hedonistic. This gets into the question of if there is such a thing as selflessly pleasing or caring for others. I disagree with the Stirner philosophy that there are no selfless acts, but I wouldn't say pleasing others is the opposite of hedonism.0 -
Now you know I've always been interested in the concept of eating addiction and annoyed by the use of "food addiction" as an excuse. I also dislike the underpinning rat studies. I know you have experience in the field of addiction and I only speak as a layman but I do believe that the treatment options differ from substance addiction to behavioural and that is an important distinction
But I think I still stand by my comments: for most, taking responsibility for their actions around food, internalising rather than externalising can go a long way to changing overeating
And I do think "hedonistic eating" risks becoming a pretty label to latch on to that implies that it's not my fault
There is too much it's not your fault and not enough "take responsibility, make the changes, commit and it gradually becomes easier as your habits change"
I tend to think using terms like fault isn't particularly helpful. Obviously we'd be lying to ourselves and others to say weight, particularly obesity levels, doesn't have health consequences. I also think losing weight acknowledges saying it something under our control, but I see a subtle distinguish between saying "it is under our control to change it for the better", and saying "having been this way is our fault." They both sound very close to saying the same thing, but I feel calling it fault makes it sound like viewing oneself or others as bad people for being overweight, that there is something worth blaming or judging.
In the case of the hedonic hunger concept, I think it can be just one way of looking at things. Some people will probably hold out that there's a miracle pill, or magic surgery that ends all mental sense of hunger, but I don't think that's ultimately what the article or the people proposing the hypothesis are saying is by any means the only way to lose weight. The article mentions that in some instances, it produces behavorial strategies that some find useful - plenty that wouldn't look out of place as decent advise here on MFP, some that looks like advise I'd tell someone is a decent start, but that I don't think is the best in mental health as permanent changes, like food avoidance as a long term strategy.
For me "fault" is actually a useful term...I had a faulty perception of myself and my level of contentment at being overweight ...the fault of my obesity was down to my laziness and overconsumption. For me, taking responsibility was part of the solution, whether I wanted to or not...I am the only one living in my body, I am the only one to blame for the state my body was in...blaming something external is unhelpful to me. And my success at overcoming it is mine too.
It is my fault I made bad choices. The rest is a semantic argument in my opinion.
I don't say what works for me, speaks to everyone. But it is as valid an approach.0 -
Now you know I've always been interested in the concept of eating addiction and annoyed by the use of "food addiction" as an excuse. I also dislike the underpinning rat studies. I know you have experience in the field of addiction and I only speak as a layman but I do believe that the treatment options differ from substance addiction to behavioural and that is an important distinction
But I think I still stand by my comments: for most, taking responsibility for their actions around food, internalising rather than externalising can go a long way to changing overeating
And I do think "hedonistic eating" risks becoming a pretty label to latch on to that implies that it's not my fault
There is too much it's not your fault and not enough "take responsibility, make the changes, commit and it gradually becomes easier as your habits change"
I tend to think using terms like fault isn't particularly helpful. Obviously we'd be lying to ourselves and others to say weight, particularly obesity levels, doesn't have health consequences. I also think losing weight acknowledges saying it something under our control, but I see a subtle distinguish between saying "it is under our control to change it for the better", and saying "having been this way is our fault." They both sound very close to saying the same thing, but I feel calling it fault makes it sound like viewing oneself or others as bad people for being overweight, that there is something worth blaming or judging.
In the case of the hedonic hunger concept, I think it can be just one way of looking at things. Some people will probably hold out that there's a miracle pill, or magic surgery that ends all mental sense of hunger, but I don't think that's ultimately what the article or the people proposing the hypothesis are saying is by any means the only way to lose weight. The article mentions that in some instances, it produces behavorial strategies that some find useful - plenty that wouldn't look out of place as decent advise here on MFP, some that looks like advise I'd tell someone is a decent start, but that I don't think is the best in mental health as permanent changes, like food avoidance as a long term strategy.
For me "fault" is actually a useful term...I had a faulty perception of myself and my level of contentment at being overweight ...the fault of my obesity was down to my laziness and overconsumption. For me, taking responsibility was part of the solution, whether I wanted to or not...I am the only one living in my body, I am the only one to blame for the state my body was in...blaming something external is unhelpful to me. And my success at overcoming it is mine too.
It is my fault I made bad choices. The rest is a semantic argument in my opinion.
I don't say what works for me, speaks to everyone. But it is as valid an approach.
I'm not saying to deny responsibility, that would be self-delusion. Like I said, it is a hard line to draw. To me fault sounds like a negative thing, and honestly, it doesn't necessarily imply the ability to change. A person can be at fault for things while still not being in control of it, like accidents.
Instead, my preference is to think of it as choosing - passively and with consequences for sure, but not fault because being overweight had become wrong for me, not something that was wrong in general or wrong morally or wrong towards.others.
I see it as semantics that carry connotations that do matter, and some psychological research supports the view helping most people.0 -
VykkDraygoVPR wrote: »middlehaitch wrote: »Lets face it it is just a nice way of saying a person is leading an hedonistic life with a focus on food.
I can't see anything that is revelatory, just a re-wording with a new label.
Cheers, h.
I think you're misunderstanding the etymology of the word. Both hedonic hunger and hedomism have the hedon- root word in them because it comes from pleasure, having a connotation of the physical. It also isn't necessarily an insult to be hedonist, though that is what has become of the term, largely in American culture, with its origin in self-denial as virtue going back towards Puritan times (though the Puritans weren't as puritanical as we portray them in popular media).
So hedonic hunger isn't meant as a judgement. In deed, by focusing on food as the source of the problem, hedonic hunger hypothesis of obesity are actually casting less judgement on the individual as failing, not more.
That's assuming that the opposite of hedonism is self-denial. To me, the opposite of hedonism is seeking to please others, rather than yourself. Hedonism is, by definition, a selfish pursuit. Self-denial, while probably not hedonistic, is also probably not a selfless pursuit.
Hedonism literally means pleasure, not self pleasure. If pleasing others pleases you, it too, would be hedonistic. This gets into the question of if there is such a thing as selflessly pleasing or caring for others. I disagree with the Stirner philosophy that there are no selfless acts, but I wouldn't say pleasing others is the opposite of hedonism.
Karma Yoga - one of the yoga systems/practices described by Krishna to Arjuna in the Bhagavad Gita. Karma yoga is often understood as a yoga of selfless (altruistic) service.
I volunteered in a Karma yoga program at the Kripalu Center for Yoga and Health. It wasn't perfectly selfless service, but I enjoyed the journey.0 -
I'm not saying to deny responsibility, that would be self-delusion. Like I said, it is a hard line to draw. To me fault sounds like a negative thing, and honestly, it doesn't necessarily imply the ability to change. A person can be at fault for things while still not being in control of it, like accidents.
Instead, my preference is to think of it as choosing - passively and with consequences for sure, but not fault because being overweight had become wrong for me, not something that was wrong in general or wrong morally or wrong towards.others.
I see it as semantics that carry connotations that do matter, and some psychological research supports the view helping most people.
Yes, this is how I think of it too. Not fault (if I was okay being overweight, that wasn't something that I should feel bad about), but ultimately a choice. Realizing I was making a choice, prioritizing some things and not others, gave me the ability to make difference choices, also.0 -
Now you know I've always been interested in the concept of eating addiction and annoyed by the use of "food addiction" as an excuse. I also dislike the underpinning rat studies. I know you have experience in the field of addiction and I only speak as a layman but I do believe that the treatment options differ from substance addiction to behavioural and that is an important distinction
But I think I still stand by my comments: for most, taking responsibility for their actions around food, internalising rather than externalising can go a long way to changing overeating
And I do think "hedonistic eating" risks becoming a pretty label to latch on to that implies that it's not my fault
There is too much it's not your fault and not enough "take responsibility, make the changes, commit and it gradually becomes easier as your habits change"
I tend to think using terms like fault isn't particularly helpful. Obviously we'd be lying to ourselves and others to say weight, particularly obesity levels, doesn't have health consequences. I also think losing weight acknowledges saying it something under our control, but I see a subtle distinguish between saying "it is under our control to change it for the better", and saying "having been this way is our fault." They both sound very close to saying the same thing, but I feel calling it fault makes it sound like viewing oneself or others as bad people for being overweight, that there is something worth blaming or judging.
In the case of the hedonic hunger concept, I think it can be just one way of looking at things. Some people will probably hold out that there's a miracle pill, or magic surgery that ends all mental sense of hunger, but I don't think that's ultimately what the article or the people proposing the hypothesis are saying is by any means the only way to lose weight. The article mentions that in some instances, it produces behavorial strategies that some find useful - plenty that wouldn't look out of place as decent advise here on MFP, some that looks like advise I'd tell someone is a decent start, but that I don't think is the best in mental health as permanent changes, like food avoidance as a long term strategy.
For me "fault" is actually a useful term...I had a faulty perception of myself and my level of contentment at being overweight ...the fault of my obesity was down to my laziness and overconsumption. For me, taking responsibility was part of the solution, whether I wanted to or not...I am the only one living in my body, I am the only one to blame for the state my body was in...blaming something external is unhelpful to me. And my success at overcoming it is mine too.
It is my fault I made bad choices. The rest is a semantic argument in my opinion.
I don't say what works for me, speaks to everyone. But it is as valid an approach.
I'm not saying to deny responsibility, that would be self-delusion. Like I said, it is a hard line to draw. To me fault sounds like a negative thing, and honestly, it doesn't necessarily imply the ability to change. A person can be at fault for things while still not being in control of it, like accidents.
Instead, my preference is to think of it as choosing - passively and with consequences for sure, but not fault because being overweight had become wrong for me, not something that was wrong in general or wrong morally or wrong towards.others.
I see it as semantics that carry connotations that do matter, and some psychological research supports the view helping most people.
You mean we have a responsibility in how we term our own failings merely because it fits into some other persons spectrum of definition
Your connotations are yours...do I have a responsibility to think of every possibly connotation you may attribute before I communicate ...or do you have a responsibility to consider my use of language at face value and any connotation you attribute to be personal to you and deal with that.
...I doubt that I am alone in my personal definitions or use of language, in fact I find language an important part of my own success or failings ...and maybe it's a cross-cultural issue ...but then black box theory of mind and cross cultural communication issues are inherently fascinating
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »@middlehaitch and @rabbitjb - you are both people I very much respect on these boards, but I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. The article looks at the possibility of shifting the focus from the currently popular (and misinformed, in my opinion) idea that "sugar/carbs/fat/whatever are EVIL and BAD and ADDICTIVE" and instead look at eating patterns overall.
It's true that sugar/fat/salt makes foods far more palatable, and palatable foods are most likely to be part of hedonic eating, but they are not the entirety of the problem...and that's the point of the article.
When people focus only on (for example) sugar, they tend to focus away from eating patterns overall, and they think that if they could only cut sugar out of their diet, then their weight problems would be solved.
But appetite - and specifically hedonic hunger - are driven by many factors that are specific to each individual: things like memory, association, aromas, social settings, beliefs, advertisements, and emotions (just to name a few).
I'd argue that increasing our understanding of hedonic hunger and how it plays into our personal eating patterns is indeed taking responsibility for our eating choices.
I just wanted to throw those thoughts out here because admittedly I find the research on appetite to be so interesting...and I think as we grow to better understand it, we'll have more tools to help people who are struggling with weight and eating disorders.
Good comment as always caitwn..
I'll agree and disagree.
In the context you provided (using the study to further understand, etc) I agree can be empowering.
But I'm afraid too many (probably likely with the 'help' of click bait website headlines) will simply latch on to the label and concept that 'oh noes...my brain's been rewired, I can't help myself from eating this entire box of chocolates'
I haven't noticed that attitude here. When people think they are addicted, they post looking for help. I think the same would be true if people thought they were wired for chocolate - "I'm wired for chocolate - how do I rewire my brain?"
I do agree that @Caitwn has great comments!
+1
I don't understand why people just wrote off the research until it was explained by Caitwn. I mean I do, people are worried about the idea of responsibility etc. being threatened by research, or just don't want to believe that it ever possibly could be, and are concerned about some audience or other misreading the research to support their own idea or bias or whatever. Which I find a little ironic.lemurcat12 wrote: »What I see a lot that I consider unhelpful (and annoying) is people assuming that there is something special about them that makes this a lot harder than for others -- that they are compelled to eat when others are not. (And I have definitely seen defeatist attitudes related to that -- I think many don't really want to do what they need to do to lose weight but feel like they should or others are judging them for not, and so they post "I'm addicted.")
Anyway, I don't see hedonic hunger as about addiction at all. In fact, I think it's probably just being a human for the most part, for the reasons I posted above. I agree with Caitwn that understanding it and learning to deal is important, but not this idea that if one experiences it -- which I think most do -- one has something special wrong with them or is an "addict." I also think the key thing to consider is that we live in an environment that makes it an issue to deal with and encourages it. But liking to eat tasty food does not mean you have something wrong with you, even if you easily eat in excess. The problem is that people have trouble distinguishing between real hunger and wanting to eat for other reasons. (I find it helpful to eat to a schedule and just remind myself of when I'm eating again, which makes the notion of real hunger ridiculous most of the time.)
I don't know if "addiction" is quite the right frame for this whole idea, but surely there's such a thing as individual variability, though, no?
There may be, but how could you ever know if it was harder for you than some other person, especially someone you don't know that well (as with all of us here). I think people (some posters, not those who have studied hedonic hunger) are trying to label as a disorder something that is just normal human experience and only a problem because of our unusual environment. It doesn't make someone either special or messed up that they might have trouble opening a bag of chips and eating just a couple -- it's completely unsurprising, which is why eating out of a bag is a bad idea. It's similarly not surprising that if you allow eating for pleasure at all times to be normal with no structure to control it that you will want to eat more cookies than you should or often will (if someone who likes cookies).
To claim that this is hard for you (hypothetical you) and not others is presumptuous and generally untrue in a population of people who have become overweight or obese.
As we've discussed before, I do think there are some not prone to hedonic eating (I know a few people completely uninterested in food), but they are the exception, not those of us who are prone to it -- which makes total sense if one thinks about what would have been evolutionarily advantageous. And thus in an environment where food is cheap and available and we've lost most of the cultural structure that regulated eating, the obesity rate is what it is. Unsurprising, but this new environment is something we have to adjust to so as to control the obesity rate. (My preferred solution is reimposing structure for myself, as I said above, as well as leading an active life, but everyone should figure out what works for them, agreed. One reason I like the structure + activity solution is I look at people I know who have avoided being overweight despite also seeming to enjoy eating for pleasure, not merely based on real hunger, and that's what they do.)
I don't think you do know, other than by reflecting on experience and going with trial and error. I don't know that it necessarily needs to be pathologized as addiction, particularly, but recognition that some differences between people exist seems like not a huge problem to me.
Fair enough, but again if we are talking a population of people who have become overweight or even obese, a subset of people insisting "but it's so much harder for me" as I often see here, is rather irritating. I think focusing on how you are facing such a harder time than others is a good way to subconsciously say "I can't" or doom yourself to failure, also. And given what we see about how easily a significant majority in our population will become overweight and obese given the right environment, I think it's rather silly to assume that people who feel tempted, etc., are the outliers. And that smaller amount not that into food probably have other things they struggle with, of course.Agree, the food most readily available (in the quantities it is) in our environment is part of the problem.
Yes, we have to learn to deal with it.By cultural structure, you mean set meal times, right? Some other constraints than the food? I'm sure it can help. More activity is always good.
Basically -- cultural restrictions on how we eat in general. Like when I grew up you ate 3 meals and maybe a set snack after school and pretty much not between meals (you'd spoil dinner!). You would have reasonable size portions or one serving. And what the meals looked like was within certain parameters -- the SAD meant meat, veg, and starch for dinner back then, for example. People didn't drink soda constantly and it wasn't considered good parenting to let the family eat at a fast food restaurant every day -- it was a rare treat. These are cultural restrictions. There are different ones in different places. I think the fact that there were more engrained cultural associations with eating in Europe is perhaps why they lag behind the US in obesity, in part -- the US tends to jettison traditions to "do what feels right to you" more easily, or push individualism in lip service, at least. Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with that, but it removes a check that kept us from gobbling chips and cookies at all hours of the day or deciding that if you don't like veg, why eat them.
My subculture really isn't nearly as fat as the US as a whole, and what I see are lots of parents committed to these same kinds of ideas, as well as activity being important.
Okay, back to Christmas cooking! (Note: the old structure/cultural regulations allowed for pleasant exceptions like Christmas without people getting all freaked out about them, also.)0 -
Now you know I've always been interested in the concept of eating addiction and annoyed by the use of "food addiction" as an excuse. I also dislike the underpinning rat studies. I know you have experience in the field of addiction and I only speak as a layman but I do believe that the treatment options differ from substance addiction to behavioural and that is an important distinction
But I think I still stand by my comments: for most, taking responsibility for their actions around food, internalising rather than externalising can go a long way to changing overeating
And I do think "hedonistic eating" risks becoming a pretty label to latch on to that implies that it's not my fault
There is too much it's not your fault and not enough "take responsibility, make the changes, commit and it gradually becomes easier as your habits change"
I tend to think using terms like fault isn't particularly helpful. Obviously we'd be lying to ourselves and others to say weight, particularly obesity levels, doesn't have health consequences. I also think losing weight acknowledges saying it something under our control, but I see a subtle distinguish between saying "it is under our control to change it for the better", and saying "having been this way is our fault." They both sound very close to saying the same thing, but I feel calling it fault makes it sound like viewing oneself or others as bad people for being overweight, that there is something worth blaming or judging.
In the case of the hedonic hunger concept, I think it can be just one way of looking at things. Some people will probably hold out that there's a miracle pill, or magic surgery that ends all mental sense of hunger, but I don't think that's ultimately what the article or the people proposing the hypothesis are saying is by any means the only way to lose weight. The article mentions that in some instances, it produces behavorial strategies that some find useful - plenty that wouldn't look out of place as decent advise here on MFP, some that looks like advise I'd tell someone is a decent start, but that I don't think is the best in mental health as permanent changes, like food avoidance as a long term strategy.
For me "fault" is actually a useful term...I had a faulty perception of myself and my level of contentment at being overweight ...the fault of my obesity was down to my laziness and overconsumption. For me, taking responsibility was part of the solution, whether I wanted to or not...I am the only one living in my body, I am the only one to blame for the state my body was in...blaming something external is unhelpful to me. And my success at overcoming it is mine too.
It is my fault I made bad choices. The rest is a semantic argument in my opinion.
I don't say what works for me, speaks to everyone. But it is as valid an approach.
+++ it is, barring untreated medical conditions, or force feeding/starvation, ones fault that one is at a weight that is not healthy. The alternate receptors, according to the original article, are developed, not genetic.
Fault is a heavy, cruel word to accept, but it is a true assessment for quite a lot of people.
It can be coated as taking responsibility/or not over ones life.
Cheers, h.
0 -
Now you know I've always been interested in the concept of eating addiction and annoyed by the use of "food addiction" as an excuse. I also dislike the underpinning rat studies. I know you have experience in the field of addiction and I only speak as a layman but I do believe that the treatment options differ from substance addiction to behavioural and that is an important distinction
But I think I still stand by my comments: for most, taking responsibility for their actions around food, internalising rather than externalising can go a long way to changing overeating
And I do think "hedonistic eating" risks becoming a pretty label to latch on to that implies that it's not my fault
There is too much it's not your fault and not enough "take responsibility, make the changes, commit and it gradually becomes easier as your habits change"
I tend to think using terms like fault isn't particularly helpful. Obviously we'd be lying to ourselves and others to say weight, particularly obesity levels, doesn't have health consequences. I also think losing weight acknowledges saying it something under our control, but I see a subtle distinguish between saying "it is under our control to change it for the better", and saying "having been this way is our fault." They both sound very close to saying the same thing, but I feel calling it fault makes it sound like viewing oneself or others as bad people for being overweight, that there is something worth blaming or judging.
In the case of the hedonic hunger concept, I think it can be just one way of looking at things. Some people will probably hold out that there's a miracle pill, or magic surgery that ends all mental sense of hunger, but I don't think that's ultimately what the article or the people proposing the hypothesis are saying is by any means the only way to lose weight. The article mentions that in some instances, it produces behavorial strategies that some find useful - plenty that wouldn't look out of place as decent advise here on MFP, some that looks like advise I'd tell someone is a decent start, but that I don't think is the best in mental health as permanent changes, like food avoidance as a long term strategy.
For me "fault" is actually a useful term...I had a faulty perception of myself and my level of contentment at being overweight ...the fault of my obesity was down to my laziness and overconsumption. For me, taking responsibility was part of the solution, whether I wanted to or not...I am the only one living in my body, I am the only one to blame for the state my body was in...blaming something external is unhelpful to me. And my success at overcoming it is mine too.
It is my fault I made bad choices. The rest is a semantic argument in my opinion.
I don't say what works for me, speaks to everyone. But it is as valid an approach.
I'm not saying to deny responsibility, that would be self-delusion. Like I said, it is a hard line to draw. To me fault sounds like a negative thing, and honestly, it doesn't necessarily imply the ability to change. A person can be at fault for things while still not being in control of it, like accidents.
Instead, my preference is to think of it as choosing - passively and with consequences for sure, but not fault because being overweight had become wrong for me, not something that was wrong in general or wrong morally or wrong towards.others.
I see it as semantics that carry connotations that do matter, and some psychological research supports the view helping most people.
You mean we have a responsibility in how we term our own failings merely because it fits into some other persons spectrum of definition
Your connotations are yours...do I have a responsibility to think of every possibly connotation you may attribute before I communicate ...or do you have a responsibility to consider my use of language at face value and any connotation you attribute to be personal to you and deal with that.
...I doubt that I am alone in my personal definitions or use of language, in fact I find language an important part of my own success or failings ...and maybe it's a cross-cultural issue ...but then black box theory of mind and cross cultural communication issues are inherently fascinating
No. I don't term being overweight a failing. I find calling it a choice relieves quite a bit of anxiety around the situation. I watched a TV show, I realized I would have preferred spending my time otherwise, I might regret, but I didn't fail at spending my time. I was overweight, I find I prefer weighing less even though I have to eat less than I had, and spend more time in physical activity. I hadn't failed to eat less, move more.
The language problem comes up when discussing the article or weight loss in general because the implication is now you're calling it a fault on others, or their failure to take responsibility. Earlier you stated that there is "too much it's not your fault" in regards to the research, and that the research could be bad for letting people respond to it that way.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »@middlehaitch and @rabbitjb - you are both people I very much respect on these boards, but I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. The article looks at the possibility of shifting the focus from the currently popular (and misinformed, in my opinion) idea that "sugar/carbs/fat/whatever are EVIL and BAD and ADDICTIVE" and instead look at eating patterns overall.
It's true that sugar/fat/salt makes foods far more palatable, and palatable foods are most likely to be part of hedonic eating, but they are not the entirety of the problem...and that's the point of the article.
When people focus only on (for example) sugar, they tend to focus away from eating patterns overall, and they think that if they could only cut sugar out of their diet, then their weight problems would be solved.
But appetite - and specifically hedonic hunger - are driven by many factors that are specific to each individual: things like memory, association, aromas, social settings, beliefs, advertisements, and emotions (just to name a few).
I'd argue that increasing our understanding of hedonic hunger and how it plays into our personal eating patterns is indeed taking responsibility for our eating choices.
I just wanted to throw those thoughts out here because admittedly I find the research on appetite to be so interesting...and I think as we grow to better understand it, we'll have more tools to help people who are struggling with weight and eating disorders.
Good comment as always caitwn..
I'll agree and disagree.
In the context you provided (using the study to further understand, etc) I agree can be empowering.
But I'm afraid too many (probably likely with the 'help' of click bait website headlines) will simply latch on to the label and concept that 'oh noes...my brain's been rewired, I can't help myself from eating this entire box of chocolates'
I haven't noticed that attitude here. When people think they are addicted, they post looking for help. I think the same would be true if people thought they were wired for chocolate - "I'm wired for chocolate - how do I rewire my brain?"
I do agree that @Caitwn has great comments!
+1
I don't understand why people just wrote off the research until it was explained by Caitwn. I mean I do, people are worried about the idea of responsibility etc. being threatened by research, or just don't want to believe that it ever possibly could be, and are concerned about some audience or other misreading the research to support their own idea or bias or whatever. Which I find a little ironic.lemurcat12 wrote: »What I see a lot that I consider unhelpful (and annoying) is people assuming that there is something special about them that makes this a lot harder than for others -- that they are compelled to eat when others are not. (And I have definitely seen defeatist attitudes related to that -- I think many don't really want to do what they need to do to lose weight but feel like they should or others are judging them for not, and so they post "I'm addicted.")
Anyway, I don't see hedonic hunger as about addiction at all. In fact, I think it's probably just being a human for the most part, for the reasons I posted above. I agree with Caitwn that understanding it and learning to deal is important, but not this idea that if one experiences it -- which I think most do -- one has something special wrong with them or is an "addict." I also think the key thing to consider is that we live in an environment that makes it an issue to deal with and encourages it. But liking to eat tasty food does not mean you have something wrong with you, even if you easily eat in excess. The problem is that people have trouble distinguishing between real hunger and wanting to eat for other reasons. (I find it helpful to eat to a schedule and just remind myself of when I'm eating again, which makes the notion of real hunger ridiculous most of the time.)
I don't know if "addiction" is quite the right frame for this whole idea, but surely there's such a thing as individual variability, though, no?
There may be, but how could you ever know if it was harder for you than some other person, especially someone you don't know that well (as with all of us here). I think people (some posters, not those who have studied hedonic hunger) are trying to label as a disorder something that is just normal human experience and only a problem because of our unusual environment. It doesn't make someone either special or messed up that they might have trouble opening a bag of chips and eating just a couple -- it's completely unsurprising, which is why eating out of a bag is a bad idea. It's similarly not surprising that if you allow eating for pleasure at all times to be normal with no structure to control it that you will want to eat more cookies than you should or often will (if someone who likes cookies).
To claim that this is hard for you (hypothetical you) and not others is presumptuous and generally untrue in a population of people who have become overweight or obese.
As we've discussed before, I do think there are some not prone to hedonic eating (I know a few people completely uninterested in food), but they are the exception, not those of us who are prone to it -- which makes total sense if one thinks about what would have been evolutionarily advantageous. And thus in an environment where food is cheap and available and we've lost most of the cultural structure that regulated eating, the obesity rate is what it is. Unsurprising, but this new environment is something we have to adjust to so as to control the obesity rate. (My preferred solution is reimposing structure for myself, as I said above, as well as leading an active life, but everyone should figure out what works for them, agreed. One reason I like the structure + activity solution is I look at people I know who have avoided being overweight despite also seeming to enjoy eating for pleasure, not merely based on real hunger, and that's what they do.)
I don't think you do know, other than by reflecting on experience and going with trial and error. I don't know that it necessarily needs to be pathologized as addiction, particularly, but recognition that some differences between people exist seems like not a huge problem to me.
Fair enough, but again if we are talking a population of people who have become overweight or even obese, a subset of people insisting "but it's so much harder for me" as I often see here, is rather irritating. I think focusing on how you are facing such a harder time than others is a good way to subconsciously say "I can't" or doom yourself to failure, also. And given what we see about how easily a significant majority in our population will become overweight and obese given the right environment, I think it's rather silly to assume that people who feel tempted, etc., are the outliers. And that smaller amount not that into food probably have other things they struggle with, of course.
/quote]
But what if it is, actually, harder for some than others? You can be irritated by that if you want to, but you might as well be annoyed that some people are taller than others. I don't see how work that highlights why and how things are hard removes freedom - on the contrary, knowledge like that equips people with tools to widen the scope of their freedom.
I agree with you that the ubiquity of chips and cookies etc., the fact that just going to work exposes people to a caloric free-for-all that's become *normalized* is a major factor, the other being that many people have a hard time with restriction of this food, in an environment that stacks the deck against them, because their normal hunger/satiety controls get jacked.0 -
Now you know I've always been interested in the concept of eating addiction and annoyed by the use of "food addiction" as an excuse. I also dislike the underpinning rat studies. I know you have experience in the field of addiction and I only speak as a layman but I do believe that the treatment options differ from substance addiction to behavioural and that is an important distinction
But I think I still stand by my comments: for most, taking responsibility for their actions around food, internalising rather than externalising can go a long way to changing overeating
And I do think "hedonistic eating" risks becoming a pretty label to latch on to that implies that it's not my fault
There is too much it's not your fault and not enough "take responsibility, make the changes, commit and it gradually becomes easier as your habits change"
I tend to think using terms like fault isn't particularly helpful. Obviously we'd be lying to ourselves and others to say weight, particularly obesity levels, doesn't have health consequences. I also think losing weight acknowledges saying it something under our control, but I see a subtle distinguish between saying "it is under our control to change it for the better", and saying "having been this way is our fault." They both sound very close to saying the same thing, but I feel calling it fault makes it sound like viewing oneself or others as bad people for being overweight, that there is something worth blaming or judging.
In the case of the hedonic hunger concept, I think it can be just one way of looking at things. Some people will probably hold out that there's a miracle pill, or magic surgery that ends all mental sense of hunger, but I don't think that's ultimately what the article or the people proposing the hypothesis are saying is by any means the only way to lose weight. The article mentions that in some instances, it produces behavorial strategies that some find useful - plenty that wouldn't look out of place as decent advise here on MFP, some that looks like advise I'd tell someone is a decent start, but that I don't think is the best in mental health as permanent changes, like food avoidance as a long term strategy.
For me "fault" is actually a useful term...I had a faulty perception of myself and my level of contentment at being overweight ...the fault of my obesity was down to my laziness and overconsumption. For me, taking responsibility was part of the solution, whether I wanted to or not...I am the only one living in my body, I am the only one to blame for the state my body was in...blaming something external is unhelpful to me. And my success at overcoming it is mine too.
It is my fault I made bad choices. The rest is a semantic argument in my opinion.
I don't say what works for me, speaks to everyone. But it is as valid an approach.
I really don't see how a person who uses any of the methods described in the article to lose weight, and maintain that loss for years, in total psychological comfort, has "failed to take responsibility". That accusation is nonsensical (since they clearly have taken responsibility) and is really beside the point, as far as I'm concerned.
I also don't see how recognizing the influence of larger social factors, like the ones described by @lemurcat12 , detracts from success at combating them. In fact it's quite helpful to know what they are.
Seeing people dismiss research not on its merits, but for ideological reasons, saddens me.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 391 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
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions