Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Food Addiction - A Different Perspective
Options
Replies
-
Food addiction is a real thing, no matter the term or name you use. The evidence is how certain foods affect the brain in relation to how drugs affect the brain: the dopamine reward centers. When a substance causes a significant increase in these receptors, the person desires it more. Eventually you need more and more in order to feel the same satisfaction and less dopamine increases from "healthier" foods do not satisfy like they used to. If this unbalanced diet started in youth, it's a more deeply rooted addiction. You don't have to be fat to have a food addiction, but just like drugs if there's no interruption in quality of life then it's not typically identified. Here's some sources that review current evidence for it.
Neurobiology of food addiction
http://journals.lww.com/co-clinicalnutrition/Abstract/2010/07000/Neurobiology_of_food_addiction.3.aspx
Summary: First, work presented in this review strongly supports the notion that food addiction is a real phenomenon. Second, although food and drugs of abuse act on the same central networks, food consumption is also regulated by peripheral signaling systems, which adds to the complexity of understanding how the body regulates eating, and of treating pathological eating habits. Third, neurobiological research reviewed here indicates that traditional pharmacological and behavioral interventions for other substance-use disorders may prove useful in treating obesity.
Food addiction: true or false?
http://journals.lww.com/co-gastroenterology/Abstract/2010/03000/Food_addiction__true_or_false_.16.aspx
Summary: Recent findings have strengthened the case for food addiction. These findings may serve to validate the perception of food addiction in patients and inform psychoeducational, cognitive-behavioral, and/or pharmacological treatment for chronic food cravings, compulsive overeating, and binge eating that may represent a phenotype of obesity. Screening for food addiction has the potential to identify people with eating difficulties that seriously compromise weight management efforts. Future research should include a focus on human food addiction research; evaluating the impact of treatment on underlying neurochemistry; and prevention or reversal of food addiction in humans.
With all due respect, the description in your first paragraph has been addressed repeatedly in this thread.
Secondly, the two articles you cite are from 2010, and while they represent good research, they're also pretty typical of research in the very early years of investigating the "is food addictive?" question. Subsequent research has been much more nuanced (and interesting).
Ah, my apologies for being redundant, I just find it interesting how just the existence of a food addiction is still questioned. By definition, an addiction is a condition where performing an activity or ingesting something that can be pleasurable becomes compulsive and/or interferes with ordinary life responsibilities, such as work, relationships, or health. The dopamine receptor research is simply supplemental information on how it causes a chemical imbalance and has also been reproducible. I just chose the some random scholar.google.com search on food addiction and posted the first couple that had the research I consider most compelling. Here's a more recent one- http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11920-015-0563-3
In the medical field, I understand that food addiction, or addiction to anything that has a dopamine reaction, is just not questioned in terms of existence. It's existence of a diagnosis tho (especially since it's not a billable diagnosis) is simply to learn how to better treat it.
Although many people associate the term "addict" with so many negative connotations, that's more of an example of the mental health stigma that is unfortunately pushed on society today. Anyone can call it whatever they want, but the important thing to take away from it is how to address the problem. It can also keep bodybuilders from shaming those who are obese since there's a HUGE difference in how food effects them. Someone who was obese and lost weight will have a harder time keeping it off than someone who has always been fit.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »vivmom2014 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Here are two potential responses to someone who wants to eliminate M&Ms because they think they are addicted:
1. Some people learn to moderate over time and prefer this approach. Others like to not have trigger foods in the house. Experiment and see what works for you. If you want to try moderation, you could check to see if it fits in your calorie goals, weigh out one serving, and put the bag out of sight. Eat it slowly and mindfully, savoring every bit.
2. No, you're not addicted to M&Ms.
I prefer to focus on the strategy rather than the label.
But I think you can offer both! And both usually are offered.
The point of offering Choice #2 above is to let the person know that the food in question doesn't hold some iron physical grip over them that is insurmountable. I also think that Choice #2 can be said in an insensitive, superior way at times, which is unfortunate. Ultimately, what I've seen on these boards is that people sincerely do want to help others.
I wouldn't object to a post that included # 2 if they also mentioned # 1. I also don't object to posts that differentiate between behavioral and physical addiction. What I mind is people dropping # 2 and stopping. That just leads to an unhelpful semantics debate.
I also think posts like @shell1005's story below would be quite helpful. But focusing on the terminology and stopping there is likely to be invalidating and unhelpful. If the OP gets defensive, communication ceases.
Agree. I'm not entirely sure what or who responses like #2 are for, really.
Whether the substance or experience prompting addictive behaviour itself has inherently addictive properties that are exactly comparable to amphetamine or alcohol** is irrelevant, as far as I'm concerned. Dopamine chasing is real enough to count for me. Gambling and sex addiction and obesity can ruin people's lives in a real way.
Whether M&Ms or potato chips mimic physical addictions or not, it does seem to be the case that many, many people have trouble restricting consumption of those foods that are hyperpalatable and are *not* satiety-promoting, and in fact behave in compulsive ways with those foods. The composition of those foods absolutely plays a role in that compulsive behaviour, whether one wants to call it addiction or not.
And it's well established now that protein, fat, and fiber together do help people to control their hunger and eat less. (Most people, ok, yes, some say they are content with waffles and pasta or what have you and what can you do but believe them. But most or at least many people do better with more protein, fat, and fiber.) *Whatever* people do to succeed at safe and sustainable weight loss and maintenance - including "bottom-up" strategies like addressing the food - is completely fine with me and imo should be supported. The point isn't to develop "willpower", the point is to help an individual *manage their obesity*. Very often, once this occurs through a bottom-up strategy, "willpower" magically appears anyway.
** and obviously, not all people become addicted to alcohol. We differ in vulnerability to all these things. If a substance has to be inherently and universally addictive to count as "addictive", alcohol doesn't meet the criterion, either. What does, I don't know, heroin and amphetamines, maybe.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »susan100df wrote: »thorsmom01 wrote: »I believe that some use the " food addict" card as an excuse. Its easier for those people to claim they are addicted to candy then to admit they just aren't ready to change . rather then use food as comfort.
I see many posts like this on MFP regarding addiction to food and/or sugar. It puzzles me because I assume that if someone has bothered to make an account on MFP and post on a forum, they are looking for help to change. I don't think people are looking for "oh poor you, just eat thousands of calories of candy since you can't help it". Maybe some want to be told to have at it but not most. Not if they are on a calorie counting site.
I think they are looking to talk about how others have overcome bad issues around food. Those discussions are difficult to have on this forum. For some their "help me" post might be the very first time they have ever talked about it. To have the thread go crazy is a disservice to all that have issues around food.
Right, no one who starts a thread and says they have a food addiction wants to only be told "poor you" - they post because they want to change and are seeking advice. And no one who believes in food as a behavioral addiction says "poor you" and leaves it at that.
It's only the posters who don't think food is addictive who think self proclaimed "food addicts" are going to use this as an excuse for not being able to change.
I think they are trying to claim that unlike other fat people it's not their fault. And there definitely are posters here who claim they cannot change because they are "addicted."
Anyway, fact is there's nothing in the foods that are "addictive" and the foods they have no reaction to are made up of the same basic substances, so it's a behaviorial or habit thing. More significantly, I think some thing that others have no desire to eat more than they should so it must be "addiction" if they do, and that's a fantasy.
My issue with the book Salt, Sugar, Fat (which is a good book), is that it suggests that storebought food is more tempting and for anyone with taste (yes, that's snobby) it's not, it's just that it's closer than it used to be and cheap and available.
I honestly think it's both. There's the group that claims to be addicted and come up with every excuse in the book when given many viable options to address the issue and then there's the group that accepts one or more pieces of advice given. I think the latter group gets less attention, though, because it doesn't spiral out of control.
I think there could be tons of reasons why people make a help i am addicted to "xx". Sometimes, it can be tough and cheek. I do that all the time with diet dew. Some might believe they do have addiction due to whatever article they read or study they saw... some might just not have a better way of asking for help and are looking to grab the attention of members.
In any case, i feel its beneficial to get to the route of the problem and provide a path to success and maybe on the way show them this thread or more science. This way both the OP and lurkers benefit.
@Caitwn said it best... it doesn't really matter what the label is, as long as there is a solution and a way to lead them down the right path.0 -
Food addiction is a real thing, no matter the term or name you use. The evidence is how certain foods affect the brain in relation to how drugs affect the brain: the dopamine reward centers. When a substance causes a significant increase in these receptors, the person desires it more. Eventually you need more and more in order to feel the same satisfaction and less dopamine increases from "healthier" foods do not satisfy like they used to. If this unbalanced diet started in youth, it's a more deeply rooted addiction. You don't have to be fat to have a food addiction, but just like drugs if there's no interruption in quality of life then it's not typically identified. Here's some sources that review current evidence for it.
Neurobiology of food addiction
http://journals.lww.com/co-clinicalnutrition/Abstract/2010/07000/Neurobiology_of_food_addiction.3.aspx
Summary: First, work presented in this review strongly supports the notion that food addiction is a real phenomenon. Second, although food and drugs of abuse act on the same central networks, food consumption is also regulated by peripheral signaling systems, which adds to the complexity of understanding how the body regulates eating, and of treating pathological eating habits. Third, neurobiological research reviewed here indicates that traditional pharmacological and behavioral interventions for other substance-use disorders may prove useful in treating obesity.
Food addiction: true or false?
http://journals.lww.com/co-gastroenterology/Abstract/2010/03000/Food_addiction__true_or_false_.16.aspx
Summary: Recent findings have strengthened the case for food addiction. These findings may serve to validate the perception of food addiction in patients and inform psychoeducational, cognitive-behavioral, and/or pharmacological treatment for chronic food cravings, compulsive overeating, and binge eating that may represent a phenotype of obesity. Screening for food addiction has the potential to identify people with eating difficulties that seriously compromise weight management efforts. Future research should include a focus on human food addiction research; evaluating the impact of treatment on underlying neurochemistry; and prevention or reversal of food addiction in humans.
With all due respect, the description in your first paragraph has been addressed repeatedly in this thread.
Secondly, the two articles you cite are from 2010, and while they represent good research, they're also pretty typical of research in the very early years of investigating the "is food addictive?" question. Subsequent research has been much more nuanced (and interesting).
Ah, my apologies for being redundant, I just find it interesting how just the existence of a food addiction is still questioned. By definition, an addiction is a condition where performing an activity or ingesting something that can be pleasurable becomes compulsive and/or interferes with ordinary life responsibilities, such as work, relationships, or health. The dopamine receptor research is simply supplemental information on how it causes a chemical imbalance and has also been reproducible. I just chose the some random scholar.google.com search on food addiction and posted the first couple that had the research I consider most compelling. Here's a more recent one- http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11920-015-0563-3
In the medical field, I understand that food addiction, or addiction to anything that has a dopamine reaction, is just not questioned in terms of existence. It's existence of a diagnosis tho (especially since it's not a billable diagnosis) is simply to learn how to better treat it.
Although many people associate the term "addict" with so many negative connotations, that's more of an example of the mental health stigma that is unfortunately pushed on society today. Anyone can call it whatever they want, but the important thing to take away from it is how to address the problem. It can also keep bodybuilders from shaming those who are obese since there's a HUGE difference in how food effects them. Someone who was obese and lost weight will have a harder time keeping it off than someone who has always been fit.
I have two reasons why i believe food isnt addictive; 1. Its required for life (drugs for example) are not and 2. dopamine is released with anything pleasurable so i am not sure it would be the most ideal indictor.0 -
Food addiction is a real thing, no matter the term or name you use. The evidence is how certain foods affect the brain in relation to how drugs affect the brain: the dopamine reward centers. When a substance causes a significant increase in these receptors, the person desires it more. Eventually you need more and more in order to feel the same satisfaction and less dopamine increases from "healthier" foods do not satisfy like they used to. If this unbalanced diet started in youth, it's a more deeply rooted addiction. You don't have to be fat to have a food addiction, but just like drugs if there's no interruption in quality of life then it's not typically identified. Here's some sources that review current evidence for it.
Neurobiology of food addiction
http://journals.lww.com/co-clinicalnutrition/Abstract/2010/07000/Neurobiology_of_food_addiction.3.aspx
Summary: First, work presented in this review strongly supports the notion that food addiction is a real phenomenon. Second, although food and drugs of abuse act on the same central networks, food consumption is also regulated by peripheral signaling systems, which adds to the complexity of understanding how the body regulates eating, and of treating pathological eating habits. Third, neurobiological research reviewed here indicates that traditional pharmacological and behavioral interventions for other substance-use disorders may prove useful in treating obesity.
Food addiction: true or false?
http://journals.lww.com/co-gastroenterology/Abstract/2010/03000/Food_addiction__true_or_false_.16.aspx
Summary: Recent findings have strengthened the case for food addiction. These findings may serve to validate the perception of food addiction in patients and inform psychoeducational, cognitive-behavioral, and/or pharmacological treatment for chronic food cravings, compulsive overeating, and binge eating that may represent a phenotype of obesity. Screening for food addiction has the potential to identify people with eating difficulties that seriously compromise weight management efforts. Future research should include a focus on human food addiction research; evaluating the impact of treatment on underlying neurochemistry; and prevention or reversal of food addiction in humans.
With all due respect, the description in your first paragraph has been addressed repeatedly in this thread.
Secondly, the two articles you cite are from 2010, and while they represent good research, they're also pretty typical of research in the very early years of investigating the "is food addictive?" question. Subsequent research has been much more nuanced (and interesting).
Ah, my apologies for being redundant, I just find it interesting how just the existence of a food addiction is still questioned. By definition, an addiction is a condition where performing an activity or ingesting something that can be pleasurable becomes compulsive and/or interferes with ordinary life responsibilities, such as work, relationships, or health. The dopamine receptor research is simply supplemental information on how it causes a chemical imbalance and has also been reproducible. I just chose the some random scholar.google.com search on food addiction and posted the first couple that had the research I consider most compelling. Here's a more recent one- http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11920-015-0563-3
In the medical field, I understand that food addiction, or addiction to anything that has a dopamine reaction, is just not questioned in terms of existence. It's existence of a diagnosis tho (especially since it's not a billable diagnosis) is simply to learn how to better treat it.
Although many people associate the term "addict" with so many negative connotations, that's more of an example of the mental health stigma that is unfortunately pushed on society today. Anyone can call it whatever they want, but the important thing to take away from it is how to address the problem. It can also keep bodybuilders from shaming those who are obese since there's a HUGE difference in how food effects them. Someone who was obese and lost weight will have a harder time keeping it off than someone who has always been fit.
I have two reasons why i believe food isnt addictive; 1. Its required for life (drugs for example) are not and 2. dopamine is released with anything pleasurable so i am not sure it would be the most ideal indictor.
So is gambling a real addiction or not?0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »susan100df wrote: »thorsmom01 wrote: »I believe that some use the " food addict" card as an excuse. Its easier for those people to claim they are addicted to candy then to admit they just aren't ready to change . rather then use food as comfort.
I see many posts like this on MFP regarding addiction to food and/or sugar. It puzzles me because I assume that if someone has bothered to make an account on MFP and post on a forum, they are looking for help to change. I don't think people are looking for "oh poor you, just eat thousands of calories of candy since you can't help it". Maybe some want to be told to have at it but not most. Not if they are on a calorie counting site.
I think they are looking to talk about how others have overcome bad issues around food. Those discussions are difficult to have on this forum. For some their "help me" post might be the very first time they have ever talked about it. To have the thread go crazy is a disservice to all that have issues around food.
Right, no one who starts a thread and says they have a food addiction wants to only be told "poor you" - they post because they want to change and are seeking advice. And no one who believes in food as a behavioral addiction says "poor you" and leaves it at that.
It's only the posters who don't think food is addictive who think self proclaimed "food addicts" are going to use this as an excuse for not being able to change.
I think they are trying to claim that unlike other fat people it's not their fault. And there definitely are posters here who claim they cannot change because they are "addicted."
Anyway, fact is there's nothing in the foods that are "addictive" and the foods they have no reaction to are made up of the same basic substances, so it's a behaviorial or habit thing. More significantly, I think some thing that others have no desire to eat more than they should so it must be "addiction" if they do, and that's a fantasy.
My issue with the book Salt, Sugar, Fat (which is a good book), is that it suggests that storebought food is more tempting and for anyone with taste (yes, that's snobby) it's not, it's just that it's closer than it used to be and cheap and available.
I honestly think it's both. There's the group that claims to be addicted and come up with every excuse in the book when given many viable options to address the issue and then there's the group that accepts one or more pieces of advice given. I think the latter group gets less attention, though, because it doesn't spiral out of control.
I think there could be tons of reasons why people make a help i am addicted to "xx". Sometimes, it can be tough and cheek. I do that all the time with diet dew. Some might believe they do have addiction due to whatever article they read or study they saw... some might just not have a better way of asking for help and are looking to grab the attention of members.
In any case, i feel its beneficial to get to the route of the problem and provide a path to success and maybe on the way show them this thread or more science. This way both the OP and lurkers benefit.
@Caitwn said it best... it doesn't really matter what the label is, as long as there is a solution and a way to lead them down the right path.
For awhile, I would tell people that if they seriously believed they were addicted that they should seek professional help. I still believe this to be the case but people also don't want to hear that. The stigma around mental health is a large part in all of this, though probably not quite on topic here.0 -
Food addiction is a real thing, no matter the term or name you use. The evidence is how certain foods affect the brain in relation to how drugs affect the brain: the dopamine reward centers. When a substance causes a significant increase in these receptors, the person desires it more. Eventually you need more and more in order to feel the same satisfaction and less dopamine increases from "healthier" foods do not satisfy like they used to. If this unbalanced diet started in youth, it's a more deeply rooted addiction. You don't have to be fat to have a food addiction, but just like drugs if there's no interruption in quality of life then it's not typically identified. Here's some sources that review current evidence for it.
Neurobiology of food addiction
http://journals.lww.com/co-clinicalnutrition/Abstract/2010/07000/Neurobiology_of_food_addiction.3.aspx
Summary: First, work presented in this review strongly supports the notion that food addiction is a real phenomenon. Second, although food and drugs of abuse act on the same central networks, food consumption is also regulated by peripheral signaling systems, which adds to the complexity of understanding how the body regulates eating, and of treating pathological eating habits. Third, neurobiological research reviewed here indicates that traditional pharmacological and behavioral interventions for other substance-use disorders may prove useful in treating obesity.
Food addiction: true or false?
http://journals.lww.com/co-gastroenterology/Abstract/2010/03000/Food_addiction__true_or_false_.16.aspx
Summary: Recent findings have strengthened the case for food addiction. These findings may serve to validate the perception of food addiction in patients and inform psychoeducational, cognitive-behavioral, and/or pharmacological treatment for chronic food cravings, compulsive overeating, and binge eating that may represent a phenotype of obesity. Screening for food addiction has the potential to identify people with eating difficulties that seriously compromise weight management efforts. Future research should include a focus on human food addiction research; evaluating the impact of treatment on underlying neurochemistry; and prevention or reversal of food addiction in humans.
With all due respect, the description in your first paragraph has been addressed repeatedly in this thread.
Secondly, the two articles you cite are from 2010, and while they represent good research, they're also pretty typical of research in the very early years of investigating the "is food addictive?" question. Subsequent research has been much more nuanced (and interesting).
Ah, my apologies for being redundant, I just find it interesting how just the existence of a food addiction is still questioned. By definition, an addiction is a condition where performing an activity or ingesting something that can be pleasurable becomes compulsive and/or interferes with ordinary life responsibilities, such as work, relationships, or health. The dopamine receptor research is simply supplemental information on how it causes a chemical imbalance and has also been reproducible. I just chose the some random scholar.google.com search on food addiction and posted the first couple that had the research I consider most compelling. Here's a more recent one- http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11920-015-0563-3
In the medical field, I understand that food addiction, or addiction to anything that has a dopamine reaction, is just not questioned in terms of existence. It's existence of a diagnosis tho (especially since it's not a billable diagnosis) is simply to learn how to better treat it.
Although many people associate the term "addict" with so many negative connotations, that's more of an example of the mental health stigma that is unfortunately pushed on society today. Anyone can call it whatever they want, but the important thing to take away from it is how to address the problem. It can also keep bodybuilders from shaming those who are obese since there's a HUGE difference in how food effects them. Someone who was obese and lost weight will have a harder time keeping it off than someone who has always been fit.
I have two reasons why i believe food isnt addictive; 1. Its required for life (drugs for example) are not and 2. dopamine is released with anything pleasurable so i am not sure it would be the most ideal indictor.
So is gambling a real addiction or not?
A physical addiction, I don't believe so. I thought it feel under behavioral dependency. But I haven't researched gambling.0 -
Food addiction is a real thing, no matter the term or name you use. The evidence is how certain foods affect the brain in relation to how drugs affect the brain: the dopamine reward centers. When a substance causes a significant increase in these receptors, the person desires it more. Eventually you need more and more in order to feel the same satisfaction and less dopamine increases from "healthier" foods do not satisfy like they used to. If this unbalanced diet started in youth, it's a more deeply rooted addiction. You don't have to be fat to have a food addiction, but just like drugs if there's no interruption in quality of life then it's not typically identified. Here's some sources that review current evidence for it.
Neurobiology of food addiction
http://journals.lww.com/co-clinicalnutrition/Abstract/2010/07000/Neurobiology_of_food_addiction.3.aspx
Summary: First, work presented in this review strongly supports the notion that food addiction is a real phenomenon. Second, although food and drugs of abuse act on the same central networks, food consumption is also regulated by peripheral signaling systems, which adds to the complexity of understanding how the body regulates eating, and of treating pathological eating habits. Third, neurobiological research reviewed here indicates that traditional pharmacological and behavioral interventions for other substance-use disorders may prove useful in treating obesity.
Food addiction: true or false?
http://journals.lww.com/co-gastroenterology/Abstract/2010/03000/Food_addiction__true_or_false_.16.aspx
Summary: Recent findings have strengthened the case for food addiction. These findings may serve to validate the perception of food addiction in patients and inform psychoeducational, cognitive-behavioral, and/or pharmacological treatment for chronic food cravings, compulsive overeating, and binge eating that may represent a phenotype of obesity. Screening for food addiction has the potential to identify people with eating difficulties that seriously compromise weight management efforts. Future research should include a focus on human food addiction research; evaluating the impact of treatment on underlying neurochemistry; and prevention or reversal of food addiction in humans.
With all due respect, the description in your first paragraph has been addressed repeatedly in this thread.
Secondly, the two articles you cite are from 2010, and while they represent good research, they're also pretty typical of research in the very early years of investigating the "is food addictive?" question. Subsequent research has been much more nuanced (and interesting).
Ah, my apologies for being redundant, I just find it interesting how just the existence of a food addiction is still questioned. By definition, an addiction is a condition where performing an activity or ingesting something that can be pleasurable becomes compulsive and/or interferes with ordinary life responsibilities, such as work, relationships, or health. The dopamine receptor research is simply supplemental information on how it causes a chemical imbalance and has also been reproducible. I just chose the some random scholar.google.com search on food addiction and posted the first couple that had the research I consider most compelling. Here's a more recent one- http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11920-015-0563-3
In the medical field, I understand that food addiction, or addiction to anything that has a dopamine reaction, is just not questioned in terms of existence. It's existence of a diagnosis tho (especially since it's not a billable diagnosis) is simply to learn how to better treat it.
Although many people associate the term "addict" with so many negative connotations, that's more of an example of the mental health stigma that is unfortunately pushed on society today. Anyone can call it whatever they want, but the important thing to take away from it is how to address the problem. It can also keep bodybuilders from shaming those who are obese since there's a HUGE difference in how food effects them. Someone who was obese and lost weight will have a harder time keeping it off than someone who has always been fit.
I have two reasons why i believe food isnt addictive; 1. Its required for life (drugs for example) are not and 2. dopamine is released with anything pleasurable so i am not sure it would be the most ideal indictor.
So is gambling a real addiction or not?
A physical addiction, I don't believe so. I thought it feel under behavioral dependency. But I haven't researched gambling.
Right, it's behavioural - though it does involve physical processes in the brain. But does it have to be an initially physical addiction to be dysfunctional? I think most would say no.0 -
Food addiction is a real thing, no matter the term or name you use. The evidence is how certain foods affect the brain in relation to how drugs affect the brain: the dopamine reward centers. When a substance causes a significant increase in these receptors, the person desires it more. Eventually you need more and more in order to feel the same satisfaction and less dopamine increases from "healthier" foods do not satisfy like they used to. If this unbalanced diet started in youth, it's a more deeply rooted addiction. You don't have to be fat to have a food addiction, but just like drugs if there's no interruption in quality of life then it's not typically identified. Here's some sources that review current evidence for it.
Neurobiology of food addiction
http://journals.lww.com/co-clinicalnutrition/Abstract/2010/07000/Neurobiology_of_food_addiction.3.aspx
Summary: First, work presented in this review strongly supports the notion that food addiction is a real phenomenon. Second, although food and drugs of abuse act on the same central networks, food consumption is also regulated by peripheral signaling systems, which adds to the complexity of understanding how the body regulates eating, and of treating pathological eating habits. Third, neurobiological research reviewed here indicates that traditional pharmacological and behavioral interventions for other substance-use disorders may prove useful in treating obesity.
Food addiction: true or false?
http://journals.lww.com/co-gastroenterology/Abstract/2010/03000/Food_addiction__true_or_false_.16.aspx
Summary: Recent findings have strengthened the case for food addiction. These findings may serve to validate the perception of food addiction in patients and inform psychoeducational, cognitive-behavioral, and/or pharmacological treatment for chronic food cravings, compulsive overeating, and binge eating that may represent a phenotype of obesity. Screening for food addiction has the potential to identify people with eating difficulties that seriously compromise weight management efforts. Future research should include a focus on human food addiction research; evaluating the impact of treatment on underlying neurochemistry; and prevention or reversal of food addiction in humans.
With all due respect, the description in your first paragraph has been addressed repeatedly in this thread.
Secondly, the two articles you cite are from 2010, and while they represent good research, they're also pretty typical of research in the very early years of investigating the "is food addictive?" question. Subsequent research has been much more nuanced (and interesting).
Ah, my apologies for being redundant, I just find it interesting how just the existence of a food addiction is still questioned. By definition, an addiction is a condition where performing an activity or ingesting something that can be pleasurable becomes compulsive and/or interferes with ordinary life responsibilities, such as work, relationships, or health. The dopamine receptor research is simply supplemental information on how it causes a chemical imbalance and has also been reproducible. I just chose the some random scholar.google.com search on food addiction and posted the first couple that had the research I consider most compelling. Here's a more recent one- http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11920-015-0563-3
In the medical field, I understand that food addiction, or addiction to anything that has a dopamine reaction, is just not questioned in terms of existence. It's existence of a diagnosis tho (especially since it's not a billable diagnosis) is simply to learn how to better treat it.
Although many people associate the term "addict" with so many negative connotations, that's more of an example of the mental health stigma that is unfortunately pushed on society today. Anyone can call it whatever they want, but the important thing to take away from it is how to address the problem. It can also keep bodybuilders from shaming those who are obese since there's a HUGE difference in how food effects them. Someone who was obese and lost weight will have a harder time keeping it off than someone who has always been fit.
I have two reasons why i believe food isnt addictive; 1. Its required for life (drugs for example) are not and 2. dopamine is released with anything pleasurable so i am not sure it would be the most ideal indictor.
So is gambling a real addiction or not?
A physical addiction, I don't believe so. I thought it feel under behavioral dependency. But I haven't researched gambling.
Right, it's behavioural - though it does involve physical processes in the brain. But does it have to be an initially physical addiction to be dysfunctional? I think most would say no.
There are a wide range of physical, emotional, behavioral, and psychological addictions and disorders. They all come with their own inherent issues and require treatment. Some of those treatments can have overlapping treatment options.
0 -
For any meaningful conversation about addiction I would draw on my (and your) individual experiences and say that my own experience is more valid when it comes to my life than your experience is to my life. Conversely your experience is more valid to your life than my experience is to your life. People that say they believe this or that because of their own experience is cool as long as they don't automatically extrapolate their belief onto other people, especially when their belief about themselves doesn't fit the other person's experience. Its crazy to discount someone else's experience because it is different to my own. The other factor that is often missing in these threads is scientific research. For example there is plenty of research which shows that beta endorphin spikes and drops below a datum when sugar is ingested. This along with the fact Serotonin follows the same course in at least some people coupled with the fact that people's insulin response can become knackered when eating sugar can lead to sugar addiction. Not everyone suffers from this, in fact I guess most people don't. But there is a large minority of people are addicted to sugar to the extent the will get withdrawal symptoms similar to a mild opiate withdrawal between eating sugar and if they stop. For these people the only real safe way is total abidance. This may sound controversial here but there is sufficient science and lived experience to convince me and a load of scientists this is real and it can have serious adverse effects on people (the effects I am talking about are psychological such as depression and anxiety as much as obesity).
Also an argument against food addiction is that it is natural and we need to eat therefore we can't really get addicted is a strawman argument as the foods that people tend to get addicted to are not natural but man made. I am sure almost no-one can get addicted to fruit and nuts or off the bone meat because we have eaten it for thousands of years. What is addictive to some people is (at least) man made simple carbs such as sucrose and the most up to date research shows that this becomes a serious problem for some people when mixed with a large proportion of fat (bowls of table sugar are far less appealing than tubs of icecream). I'll just add I understand the effect of sugar sensitive both first hand and scientifically but I don't know about other food addictions. There may be some and if people tell me they are addicted I would believe them initially because they are describing something which I have no knowledge of - their lived experience.
0 -
susan100df wrote: »YES!!!!!! Completely explains why it's pointless to debate whether food addiction exists in order to help someone. I hope that other posters see the benefit and apply it when they are responding to posters who are reaching out to discuss their issues around food.
Thank you for starting the thread @PeachyCarol. I appreciate all of the posts and different perspectives. I understand a little better why addiction threads get so nutty.
@susan100df did all the bolding for me, lol.
Thanks for another great post @Caitwn!
Because I find the whole, "Hi, I'm kshama and I'm an alcoholic" dis-empowering, I don't refer to myself as an alcoholic. However, my MSW mother certainly considered me to have been one back in the day. I did realize I had a problem, and fixed it. Mom went to a Smart/Rational Recovery meeting or two with me. We didn't have to agree on a label.[/quote]
For me a better definition would be "I'm Dave and I'm alcoholic". It is a characteristic rather than a personal definition i.e. I'm Dave and I'm 48, I'm Dave and I have brown Eyes. - just my view and if your view is different and works for you then that's just as cool as my view :-)0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »
I also think that it leads down a road to the answer to obesity that is caused by addiction is elimination a la abstinence model. I hear it often in the sugar threads.
Here are two potential responses to someone who wants to eliminate M&Ms because they think they are addicted:
1. Some people learn to moderate over time and prefer this approach. Others like to not have trigger foods in the house. Experiment and see what works for you. If you want to try moderation, you could check to see if it fits in your calorie goals, weigh out one serving, and put the bag out of sight. Eat it slowly and mindfully, savoring every bit.
2. No, you're not addicted to M&Ms.
I prefer to focus on the strategy rather than the label.[/quote]
Whatever strategy works to help people get moving on the problem. I always want to help people find the "why" in the behavior and develop a strategy to respond to that--otherwise, many times people trade the M&Ms for something else.0 -
So is gambling a real addiction or not?
It is real in the sense it is technically diagnosable as a behavioral disorder (added to the DSM V). In the previous edition, it was under "Impulse Control Disorders." Research conducted between the DSM IV and the DSM V revealed enough data including brain imaging studies and neurochemical tests showed gambling produced similar physical reactions as drug use. Sex addiction has not reached the same critical mass of data and conclusion for inclusion and internet addiction is being researched.
Is the DSM perfect? Nope. But it is the frame of reference by which help and treatment can be offered using consistent criteria. And it is always evolving. Another poster pointed out homosexuality was previously listed as a disorder in the DSM. It was (thankfully) removed in 1973.
Just because something isn't "real" (diagnosable under the DSM) doesn't mean there aren't concerning behaviors and reasons behind those behaviors that need help and support. It's important to remember it feels real tot he person talking about it. There are many real problems and behaviors impacting people's lives that aren't technically diagnosable as a type of mental illness. I would hazard a guess the majority of people have habits that aren't the healthiest that they'd like/need to change.
That's why many of us are here. ME!
0 -
For any meaningful conversation about addiction I would draw on my (and your) individual experiences and say that my own experience is more valid when it comes to my life than your experience is to my life. Conversely your experience is more valid to your life than my experience is to your life. People that say they believe this or that because of their own experience is cool as long as they don't automatically extrapolate their belief onto other people, especially when their belief about themselves doesn't fit the other person's experience. Its crazy to discount someone else's experience because it is different to my own. The other factor that is often missing in these threads is scientific research. For example there is plenty of research which shows that beta endorphin spikes and drops below a datum when sugar is ingested. This along with the fact Serotonin follows the same course in at least some people coupled with the fact that people's insulin response can become knackered when eating sugar can lead to sugar addiction. Not everyone suffers from this, in fact I guess most people don't. But there is a large minority of people are addicted to sugar to the extent the will get withdrawal symptoms similar to a mild opiate withdrawal between eating sugar and if they stop. For these people the only real safe way is total abidance. This may sound controversial here but there is sufficient science and lived experience to convince me and a load of scientists this is real and it can have serious adverse effects on people (the effects I am talking about are psychological such as depression and anxiety as much as obesity).
Also an argument against food addiction is that it is natural and we need to eat therefore we can't really get addicted is a strawman argument as the foods that people tend to get addicted to are not natural but man made. I am sure almost no-one can get addicted to fruit and nuts or off the bone meat because we have eaten it for thousands of years. What is addictive to some people is (at least) man made simple carbs such as sucrose and the most up to date research shows that this becomes a serious problem for some people when mixed with a large proportion of fat (bowls of table sugar are far less appealing than tubs of icecream). I'll just add I understand the effect of sugar sensitive both first hand and scientifically but I don't know about other food addictions. There may be some and if people tell me they are addicted I would believe them initially because they are describing something which I have no knowledge of - their lived experience.
Firstly, but I'm not going to go round and round on this, in the research review posted upthread, it clearly stated that a review of all the literature found absolutely no basis for physical addiction in humans.
Here's a link to that again. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763414002140
Secondly, I'll recount my experience again, to walk you through what goes down.
I was sure I was addicted to carbs, especially sugar. I read The Carbohydrate Addicts Diet and Sugar Busters and boy, did it all resonate with me.
So I gave them up. And I was sure I experienced withdrawal.
I will spare you the long, boring story, so the short story is that I ate no starchy carbs and no sugar for almost 10 years.
You know what eventually happened?
I started really, really, really overeating avocados, egg salad, chicken legs, cheese, and almonds with whipping cream.
All of the problems I used to have with carbs and sugar started to manifest themselves with those foods. I could not stop myself. I used to pack up the kids and drive to the store and buy multiple family packs of chicken legs, bake them up and eat my way through them in an afternoon because I had to have them and couldn't stop thinking about them until I got them. Or I'd do the same with the kids but get cartons of eggs and some mayo and celery to make egg salad. And then eat it all.
So yeah, people do act that way with food that is "natural".
Why?
Well, the reason why is because I had a deeply problematic relationship with food, but a strong determination to avoid a certain group of foods, so I simply substituting one type of food for another. The problem was behavior-based. It had nothing to do with what food I used, it had everything to do with how and why I was using the food.
After getting to the bottom of all my issues with food, it's really interesting that I can now eat cookies, chocolate, brownies, and egg salad in reasonable portions.
I'm sure my body still has the same biochemical reactions it always had. I'm positive that I no longer have the emotional/behavioral baggage I used to. That has made all the difference.0 -
Food addiction is a real thing, no matter the term or name you use. The evidence is how certain foods affect the brain in relation to how drugs affect the brain: the dopamine reward centers. When a substance causes a significant increase in these receptors, the person desires it more. Eventually you need more and more in order to feel the same satisfaction and less dopamine increases from "healthier" foods do not satisfy like they used to. If this unbalanced diet started in youth, it's a more deeply rooted addiction. You don't have to be fat to have a food addiction, but just like drugs if there's no interruption in quality of life then it's not typically identified. Here's some sources that review current evidence for it.
Neurobiology of food addiction
http://journals.lww.com/co-clinicalnutrition/Abstract/2010/07000/Neurobiology_of_food_addiction.3.aspx
Summary: First, work presented in this review strongly supports the notion that food addiction is a real phenomenon. Second, although food and drugs of abuse act on the same central networks, food consumption is also regulated by peripheral signaling systems, which adds to the complexity of understanding how the body regulates eating, and of treating pathological eating habits. Third, neurobiological research reviewed here indicates that traditional pharmacological and behavioral interventions for other substance-use disorders may prove useful in treating obesity.
Food addiction: true or false?
http://journals.lww.com/co-gastroenterology/Abstract/2010/03000/Food_addiction__true_or_false_.16.aspx
Summary: Recent findings have strengthened the case for food addiction. These findings may serve to validate the perception of food addiction in patients and inform psychoeducational, cognitive-behavioral, and/or pharmacological treatment for chronic food cravings, compulsive overeating, and binge eating that may represent a phenotype of obesity. Screening for food addiction has the potential to identify people with eating difficulties that seriously compromise weight management efforts. Future research should include a focus on human food addiction research; evaluating the impact of treatment on underlying neurochemistry; and prevention or reversal of food addiction in humans.
With all due respect, the description in your first paragraph has been addressed repeatedly in this thread.
Secondly, the two articles you cite are from 2010, and while they represent good research, they're also pretty typical of research in the very early years of investigating the "is food addictive?" question. Subsequent research has been much more nuanced (and interesting).
Ah, my apologies for being redundant, I just find it interesting how just the existence of a food addiction is still questioned. By definition, an addiction is a condition where performing an activity or ingesting something that can be pleasurable becomes compulsive and/or interferes with ordinary life responsibilities, such as work, relationships, or health. The dopamine receptor research is simply supplemental information on how it causes a chemical imbalance and has also been reproducible. I just chose the some random scholar.google.com search on food addiction and posted the first couple that had the research I consider most compelling. Here's a more recent one- http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11920-015-0563-3
In the medical field, I understand that food addiction, or addiction to anything that has a dopamine reaction, is just not questioned in terms of existence. It's existence of a diagnosis tho (especially since it's not a billable diagnosis) is simply to learn how to better treat it.
Although many people associate the term "addict" with so many negative connotations, that's more of an example of the mental health stigma that is unfortunately pushed on society today. Anyone can call it whatever they want, but the important thing to take away from it is how to address the problem. It can also keep bodybuilders from shaming those who are obese since there's a HUGE difference in how food effects them. Someone who was obese and lost weight will have a harder time keeping it off than someone who has always been fit.
I have two reasons why i believe food isnt addictive; 1. Its required for life (drugs for example) are not and 2. dopamine is released with anything pleasurable so i am not sure it would be the most ideal indictor.
Yes, food is required for life, but you're arguing semantics in terms of what an addiction is based on YOUR opinion vs the opinion of those who have studied addictions over the past century. The experiments of cocaine addicts show that when they are on it, the dopamine receptors are lit up through fMRIs. Now the problem comes from when they are NOT on it: they are hypoactive compared to control subjects. The SAME thing happens in people with food, gambling, etc. It's essentially having a numbing effect on anything else that would usually satisfy you. That is why D2 receptor activity specifically in the limbic system is an indicator for addiction. There is a balance that is usually met when it's not too active or hypoactive from any one thing. This is why some people are considered to have "addictive" personalities, it all boils down to the physiology.
So believe what you want, but when you say it isn't something and fault someone for just "choosing" to eat crappy, on top of the environmental factors like socioeconomic status, support, education, etc., they're difficulty adhering to a healthy diet is WAAAYYYY different then someone else who doesn't have a problem eating healthy.
If someone thinks that anyone who labels themselves or is labeled as a food addict, arguing against it is just someone assuming that they are using it as a crutch or excuse. How they are using the label is their problem, but bashing at it and calling it fake when someone is just trying to figure out how to get passed it themselves is just rude.0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »For any meaningful conversation about addiction I would draw on my (and your) individual experiences and say that my own experience is more valid when it comes to my life than your experience is to my life. Conversely your experience is more valid to your life than my experience is to your life. People that say they believe this or that because of their own experience is cool as long as they don't automatically extrapolate their belief onto other people, especially when their belief about themselves doesn't fit the other person's experience. Its crazy to discount someone else's experience because it is different to my own. The other factor that is often missing in these threads is scientific research. For example there is plenty of research which shows that beta endorphin spikes and drops below a datum when sugar is ingested. This along with the fact Serotonin follows the same course in at least some people coupled with the fact that people's insulin response can become knackered when eating sugar can lead to sugar addiction. Not everyone suffers from this, in fact I guess most people don't. But there is a large minority of people are addicted to sugar to the extent the will get withdrawal symptoms similar to a mild opiate withdrawal between eating sugar and if they stop. For these people the only real safe way is total abidance. This may sound controversial here but there is sufficient science and lived experience to convince me and a load of scientists this is real and it can have serious adverse effects on people (the effects I am talking about are psychological such as depression and anxiety as much as obesity).
Also an argument against food addiction is that it is natural and we need to eat therefore we can't really get addicted is a strawman argument as the foods that people tend to get addicted to are not natural but man made. I am sure almost no-one can get addicted to fruit and nuts or off the bone meat because we have eaten it for thousands of years. What is addictive to some people is (at least) man made simple carbs such as sucrose and the most up to date research shows that this becomes a serious problem for some people when mixed with a large proportion of fat (bowls of table sugar are far less appealing than tubs of icecream). I'll just add I understand the effect of sugar sensitive both first hand and scientifically but I don't know about other food addictions. There may be some and if people tell me they are addicted I would believe them initially because they are describing something which I have no knowledge of - their lived experience.
Firstly, but I'm not going to go round and round on this, in the research review posted upthread, it clearly stated that a review of all the literature found absolutely no basis for physical addiction in humans.
Here's a link to that again. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763414002140
Secondly, I'll recount my experience again, to walk you through what goes down.
I was sure I was addicted to carbs, especially sugar. I read The Carbohydrate Addicts Diet and Sugar Busters and boy, did it all resonate with me.
So I gave them up. And I was sure I experienced withdrawal.
I will spare you the long, boring story, so the short story is that I ate no starchy carbs and no sugar for almost 10 years.
You know what eventually happened?
I started really, really, really overeating avocados, egg salad, chicken legs, cheese, and almonds with whipping cream.
All of the problems I used to have with carbs and sugar started to manifest themselves with those foods. I could not stop myself. I used to pack up the kids and drive to the store and buy multiple family packs of chicken legs, bake them up and eat my way through them in an afternoon because I had to have them and couldn't stop thinking about them until I got them. Or I'd do the same with the kids but get cartons of eggs and some mayo and celery to make egg salad. And then eat it all.
So yeah, people do act that way with food that is "natural".
Why?
Well, the reason why is because I had a deeply problematic relationship with food, but a strong determination to avoid a certain group of foods, so I simply substituting one type of food for another. The problem was behavior-based. It had nothing to do with what food I used, it had everything to do with how and why I was using the food.
After getting to the bottom of all my issues with food, it's really interesting that I can now eat cookies, chocolate, brownies, and egg salad in reasonable portions.
I'm sure my body still has the same biochemical reactions it always had. I'm positive that I no longer have the emotional/behavioral baggage I used to. That has made all the difference.
Oh interesting, I didn't see that one. Yes, it says that "food addiction" is a misnomer because there is too much ambiguity with specific "foods" so "eating addiction" is a more accurate term.
0 -
Food addiction is a real thing, no matter the term or name you use. The evidence is how certain foods affect the brain in relation to how drugs affect the brain: the dopamine reward centers. When a substance causes a significant increase in these receptors, the person desires it more. Eventually you need more and more in order to feel the same satisfaction and less dopamine increases from "healthier" foods do not satisfy like they used to. If this unbalanced diet started in youth, it's a more deeply rooted addiction. You don't have to be fat to have a food addiction, but just like drugs if there's no interruption in quality of life then it's not typically identified. Here's some sources that review current evidence for it.
Neurobiology of food addiction
http://journals.lww.com/co-clinicalnutrition/Abstract/2010/07000/Neurobiology_of_food_addiction.3.aspx
Summary: First, work presented in this review strongly supports the notion that food addiction is a real phenomenon. Second, although food and drugs of abuse act on the same central networks, food consumption is also regulated by peripheral signaling systems, which adds to the complexity of understanding how the body regulates eating, and of treating pathological eating habits. Third, neurobiological research reviewed here indicates that traditional pharmacological and behavioral interventions for other substance-use disorders may prove useful in treating obesity.
Food addiction: true or false?
http://journals.lww.com/co-gastroenterology/Abstract/2010/03000/Food_addiction__true_or_false_.16.aspx
Summary: Recent findings have strengthened the case for food addiction. These findings may serve to validate the perception of food addiction in patients and inform psychoeducational, cognitive-behavioral, and/or pharmacological treatment for chronic food cravings, compulsive overeating, and binge eating that may represent a phenotype of obesity. Screening for food addiction has the potential to identify people with eating difficulties that seriously compromise weight management efforts. Future research should include a focus on human food addiction research; evaluating the impact of treatment on underlying neurochemistry; and prevention or reversal of food addiction in humans.
With all due respect, the description in your first paragraph has been addressed repeatedly in this thread.
Secondly, the two articles you cite are from 2010, and while they represent good research, they're also pretty typical of research in the very early years of investigating the "is food addictive?" question. Subsequent research has been much more nuanced (and interesting).
Ah, my apologies for being redundant, I just find it interesting how just the existence of a food addiction is still questioned. By definition, an addiction is a condition where performing an activity or ingesting something that can be pleasurable becomes compulsive and/or interferes with ordinary life responsibilities, such as work, relationships, or health. The dopamine receptor research is simply supplemental information on how it causes a chemical imbalance and has also been reproducible. I just chose the some random scholar.google.com search on food addiction and posted the first couple that had the research I consider most compelling. Here's a more recent one- http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11920-015-0563-3
In the medical field, I understand that food addiction, or addiction to anything that has a dopamine reaction, is just not questioned in terms of existence. It's existence of a diagnosis tho (especially since it's not a billable diagnosis) is simply to learn how to better treat it.
Although many people associate the term "addict" with so many negative connotations, that's more of an example of the mental health stigma that is unfortunately pushed on society today. Anyone can call it whatever they want, but the important thing to take away from it is how to address the problem. It can also keep bodybuilders from shaming those who are obese since there's a HUGE difference in how food effects them. Someone who was obese and lost weight will have a harder time keeping it off than someone who has always been fit.
I have two reasons why i believe food isnt addictive; 1. Its required for life (drugs for example) are not and 2. dopamine is released with anything pleasurable so i am not sure it would be the most ideal indictor.
So is gambling a real addiction or not?
A physical addiction, I don't believe so. I thought it feel under behavioral dependency. But I haven't researched gambling.
Similarly many of us are saying there is an eating addiction but not a food addiction.0 -
Food addiction is a real thing, no matter the term or name you use. The evidence is how certain foods affect the brain in relation to how drugs affect the brain: the dopamine reward centers. When a substance causes a significant increase in these receptors, the person desires it more. Eventually you need more and more in order to feel the same satisfaction and less dopamine increases from "healthier" foods do not satisfy like they used to. If this unbalanced diet started in youth, it's a more deeply rooted addiction. You don't have to be fat to have a food addiction, but just like drugs if there's no interruption in quality of life then it's not typically identified. Here's some sources that review current evidence for it.
Neurobiology of food addiction
http://journals.lww.com/co-clinicalnutrition/Abstract/2010/07000/Neurobiology_of_food_addiction.3.aspx
Summary: First, work presented in this review strongly supports the notion that food addiction is a real phenomenon. Second, although food and drugs of abuse act on the same central networks, food consumption is also regulated by peripheral signaling systems, which adds to the complexity of understanding how the body regulates eating, and of treating pathological eating habits. Third, neurobiological research reviewed here indicates that traditional pharmacological and behavioral interventions for other substance-use disorders may prove useful in treating obesity.
Food addiction: true or false?
http://journals.lww.com/co-gastroenterology/Abstract/2010/03000/Food_addiction__true_or_false_.16.aspx
Summary: Recent findings have strengthened the case for food addiction. These findings may serve to validate the perception of food addiction in patients and inform psychoeducational, cognitive-behavioral, and/or pharmacological treatment for chronic food cravings, compulsive overeating, and binge eating that may represent a phenotype of obesity. Screening for food addiction has the potential to identify people with eating difficulties that seriously compromise weight management efforts. Future research should include a focus on human food addiction research; evaluating the impact of treatment on underlying neurochemistry; and prevention or reversal of food addiction in humans.
With all due respect, the description in your first paragraph has been addressed repeatedly in this thread.
Secondly, the two articles you cite are from 2010, and while they represent good research, they're also pretty typical of research in the very early years of investigating the "is food addictive?" question. Subsequent research has been much more nuanced (and interesting).
Ah, my apologies for being redundant, I just find it interesting how just the existence of a food addiction is still questioned. By definition, an addiction is a condition where performing an activity or ingesting something that can be pleasurable becomes compulsive and/or interferes with ordinary life responsibilities, such as work, relationships, or health. The dopamine receptor research is simply supplemental information on how it causes a chemical imbalance and has also been reproducible. I just chose the some random scholar.google.com search on food addiction and posted the first couple that had the research I consider most compelling. Here's a more recent one- http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11920-015-0563-3
In the medical field, I understand that food addiction, or addiction to anything that has a dopamine reaction, is just not questioned in terms of existence. It's existence of a diagnosis tho (especially since it's not a billable diagnosis) is simply to learn how to better treat it.
Although many people associate the term "addict" with so many negative connotations, that's more of an example of the mental health stigma that is unfortunately pushed on society today. Anyone can call it whatever they want, but the important thing to take away from it is how to address the problem. It can also keep bodybuilders from shaming those who are obese since there's a HUGE difference in how food effects them. Someone who was obese and lost weight will have a harder time keeping it off than someone who has always been fit.
I have two reasons why i believe food isnt addictive; 1. Its required for life (drugs for example) are not and 2. dopamine is released with anything pleasurable so i am not sure it would be the most ideal indictor.
Yes, food is required for life, but you're arguing semantics in terms of what an addiction is based on YOUR opinion vs the opinion of those who have studied addictions over the past century. The experiments of cocaine addicts show that when they are on it, the dopamine receptors are lit up through fMRIs. Now the problem comes from when they are NOT on it: they are hypoactive compared to control subjects. The SAME thing happens in people with food, gambling, etc. It's essentially having a numbing effect on anything else that would usually satisfy you. That is why D2 receptor activity specifically in the limbic system is an indicator for addiction. There is a balance that is usually met when it's not too active or hypoactive from any one thing. This is why some people are considered to have "addictive" personalities, it all boils down to the physiology.
Nope, the dopamine thing happens with everyone and is why we all like eating. There's really no such thing as an "addictive personality." If there was, yeah, I have one, so stop going on about how this is harder for others.So believe what you want, but when you say it isn't something and fault someone for just "choosing" to eat crappy, on top of the environmental factors like socioeconomic status, support, education, etc., they're difficulty adhering to a healthy diet is WAAAYYYY different then someone else who doesn't have a problem eating healthy.
How someone chooses to eat is a decision and not harder or less hard based on "addictive personality." Seems like some hate veg (seems to be the reason some like Atkins or keto). Doesn't mean that eating veg is harder, and similarly being into food certainly doesn't make eating veg or "natural" foods harder. If someone fails to, that person is at fault, yeah.If someone thinks that anyone who labels themselves or is labeled as a food addict, arguing against it is just someone assuming that they are using it as a crutch or excuse. How they are using the label is their problem, but bashing at it and calling it fake when someone is just trying to figure out how to get passed it themselves is just rude.
Nope, don't agree. Personal responsibility exists.0 -
People do steal food, people do eat out of garbage cans, people do steal money and spend money that is for other things on food, people do isolate themselves and even call out work to binge/-you just don't realize this...you havent been so sick from eating "hungover" that you didn't go to work, or quit out of embarrassment of people finding out your addiction..hiding food...lying to others...withdrawal is real also I just think you don't understand, ignorance....obsession...
Do you understand the difference between a behavioral addiction and a chemical addiction? My ex-husband is addicted to shopping. He drove us to the brink of bankruptcy several times, would hide his purchases, had anxiety if he could not shop, he has a scar on his arm from donating blood so he could afford to buy things. We are talking about an actual diagnosed "addiction". He is not addicted to cardboard, plastic, fabric, or whatever the things were made out of that he is purchasing. He is addicted to the elation he feels when he finds something, and purchases it. Two different things.
This is an interesting share on addiction, especially the part about being addicted to that feeling, if you will, one gets from that compulsive behavior. It seems to me being addicted to those feelings, negative or positive, would also extend to being addicted to eating. Personally, I have a difficult time believing that any type of food can be addictive, or that we can be addicted to the food itself, but I do believe in eating addiction, which would be similar to a shopping or gambling addiction.0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »For any meaningful conversation about addiction I would draw on my (and your) individual experiences and say that my own experience is more valid when it comes to my life than your experience is to my life. Conversely your experience is more valid to your life than my experience is to your life. People that say they believe this or that because of their own experience is cool as long as they don't automatically extrapolate their belief onto other people, especially when their belief about themselves doesn't fit the other person's experience. Its crazy to discount someone else's experience because it is different to my own. The other factor that is often missing in these threads is scientific research. For example there is plenty of research which shows that beta endorphin spikes and drops below a datum when sugar is ingested. This along with the fact Serotonin follows the same course in at least some people coupled with the fact that people's insulin response can become knackered when eating sugar can lead to sugar addiction. Not everyone suffers from this, in fact I guess most people don't. But there is a large minority of people are addicted to sugar to the extent the will get withdrawal symptoms similar to a mild opiate withdrawal between eating sugar and if they stop. For these people the only real safe way is total abidance. This may sound controversial here but there is sufficient science and lived experience to convince me and a load of scientists this is real and it can have serious adverse effects on people (the effects I am talking about are psychological such as depression and anxiety as much as obesity).
Also an argument against food addiction is that it is natural and we need to eat therefore we can't really get addicted is a strawman argument as the foods that people tend to get addicted to are not natural but man made. I am sure almost no-one can get addicted to fruit and nuts or off the bone meat because we have eaten it for thousands of years. What is addictive to some people is (at least) man made simple carbs such as sucrose and the most up to date research shows that this becomes a serious problem for some people when mixed with a large proportion of fat (bowls of table sugar are far less appealing than tubs of icecream). I'll just add I understand the effect of sugar sensitive both first hand and scientifically but I don't know about other food addictions. There may be some and if people tell me they are addicted I would believe them initially because they are describing something which I have no knowledge of - their lived experience.
Firstly, but I'm not going to go round and round on this, in the research review posted upthread, it clearly stated that a review of all the literature found absolutely no basis for physical addiction in humans.
Here's a link to that again. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763414002140
Secondly, I'll recount my experience again, to walk you through what goes down.
I was sure I was addicted to carbs, especially sugar. I read The Carbohydrate Addicts Diet and Sugar Busters and boy, did it all resonate with me.
So I gave them up. And I was sure I experienced withdrawal.
I will spare you the long, boring story, so the short story is that I ate no starchy carbs and no sugar for almost 10 years.
You know what eventually happened?
I started really, really, really overeating avocados, egg salad, chicken legs, cheese, and almonds with whipping cream.
All of the problems I used to have with carbs and sugar started to manifest themselves with those foods. I could not stop myself. I used to pack up the kids and drive to the store and buy multiple family packs of chicken legs, bake them up and eat my way through them in an afternoon because I had to have them and couldn't stop thinking about them until I got them. Or I'd do the same with the kids but get cartons of eggs and some mayo and celery to make egg salad. And then eat it all.
So yeah, people do act that way with food that is "natural".
Why?
Well, the reason why is because I had a deeply problematic relationship with food, but a strong determination to avoid a certain group of foods, so I simply substituting one type of food for another. The problem was behavior-based. It had nothing to do with what food I used, it had everything to do with how and why I was using the food.
After getting to the bottom of all my issues with food, it's really interesting that I can now eat cookies, chocolate, brownies, and egg salad in reasonable portions.
I'm sure my body still has the same biochemical reactions it always had. I'm positive that I no longer have the emotional/behavioral baggage I used to. That has made all the difference.
Oh interesting, I didn't see that one. Yes, it says that "food addiction" is a misnomer because there is too much ambiguity with specific "foods" so "eating addiction" is a more accurate term.
I am much more comfortable embracing the notion of an eating addiction.
Even though I don't feel that I crossed the line into full-blown addiction, I do feel my personal experience would better fit under the description of a problem with eating rather than a problem with any specific food or food group.
Of course, that is something I know now in hindsight.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 911 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions