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
Replies
-
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 -
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.
A. Some drugs like cocaine actually prevent dopamine reuptake, as well as work on multiple neurotransmitters.
B. Food itself doesn't cause dopamine reaction, food anticipation does. You could addict someone to cocaine or heroin while they are unconscious because of chemical reactivity.
C. As it appears to be based on actually eating, if one was to label addiction, it would be better to say eating addiction as it is behavioral, not physiological addiction to the substance - for example, I don't see many "sugar addicts" skipping chocolate to mainline packs of dextrose.
D. Link seems to be a review. I see a lot of references to sugar studies, but to date my understanding is many sugar studies use rats which are faulty for predicting how something with frugivore ancestors deals with sugar.0 -
I am engaged to a recovering drug addict/alcoholic. He's been clean and sober for almost 9 years. He is on the other end of things now and is a public speaker and very involved in recovery as well as completing a degree to become a drug and alcohol therapist. I also have multiple family members that have struggled with addiction as well. So I'm no stranger to it, and honestly since my fiancé is so active in the community regarding the subject I would even say that it's a huge part of my family and everyday life. All that being said...I think this argument is just plain silly. The argument that food is not physically addicting doesn't make sense to me. Well no, it's not physically addicting...but my fiancé hasn't had a drug or alcoholic beverage in his body in almost 9 years and he STILL struggles with the addiction. The physical symptoms of addiction are loooong gone. Does that mean he no longer struggles with addiction? Of course he does. He will struggle til the day he dies. Does the physical part come into play because maybe the drugs and alcohol permanently altered his brain to physically be addicted? I don't know. Who cares? I don't go around arguing that there is or isn't such thing as a food addiction. I don't know. What frustrates me is that if someone is feeling powerless over something, who cares whether YOU feel that they are just lacking self control? You think they're just not being accountable? Who. Cares. If they call it an addiction, they're obviously feeling like they're completely lacking control. That is sad, regardless of what you wanna call it, and they need help. I don't know if there's a technical "food addiction". But if someone tells me they're addicted to something, my heart goes out to them. Whether YOU believe they can snap themselves out of it and are making excuses is irrelevant. Whatever you want to call it, the struggle is real. Let's worry about being kind to one another and supporting others on their journeys, even if they differ from ours or we have different views.0
-
PeachyCarol wrote: »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.
This has been my experience as well, even though there were many a time when I convinced myself that I was addicted to M & M's, or chocolate, or sugar, and perhaps even bran cereal, but I realized later on that overeating or bingeing on those foods was never about the food itself, but about validating those feelings of self-hatred I had for myself.
This thread absolutely rocks.0 -
Something I see over and over in this thread from people that want to argue for food addiction: "well, you guys are all just jerks who think we're lazy, have no willpower, and don't care about us."
Think about it for a while. Seriously think about it. You're on a site about weight loss with most of the people here having been in the same boat. A lot of spent a long time writing, and even longer researching these issues, in hopes of having it help people.
Like if this thread was about depression not be a form of fungal infection, people in here would be arguing how cruel people are for saying fungal infections aren't bad - except no one was saying fungal infections aren't bad, just that they aren't the cause of depression - diflucan isn't going to fix it. Disclaimer: I have depression before I hear anyone complain about the example, but I don't actively have a fungal infection if someone wants to say I don't care about people with them because I mentioned them.
I feel compelled to say this because I've read a couple posts that say people are saying things like we're saying the people who don't lose weight just don't have willpower, and if anyone wants to say that's what I believe when I say food addiction as a chemical dependency doesn't exist, you've misrepresented me, and I'm honestly offended. I 100% believe that losing weight through willpower is like repairing your car by busting the foot area out and trying to operate it Flintstones style: yeah, you'll get somewhere until you get sick of pushing a car under your own power instead of using an engine! If anyone feels they've lost weight via shear willpower, congratulations, I think you're an inhumanely better than me, let me know if there is a a mere mortal like me can achieve your greatness. Meanwhile, all the weight I've lost with the most ease has come from planning and skill, things a human aren't terribly liable to run out of.
And so, I post on this board. I don't want people to feel they're stuck struggling with an addiction that steals willpower all day in some Sisyphean exercise. I want people to succeed and have some of the happiness my own success has given me.
I've said this several times on this board. I'll validate anyone's feeling (you feel addicted, I'm sorry you're struggling), but I don't validate all facts, I hold those to empirical standards.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.
A. Some drugs like cocaine actually prevent dopamine reuptake, as well as work on multiple neurotransmitters.
B. Food itself doesn't cause dopamine reaction, food anticipation does. You could addict someone to cocaine or heroin while they are unconscious because of chemical reactivity.
C. As it appears to be based on actually eating, if one was to label addiction, it would be better to say eating addiction as it is behavioral, not physiological addiction to the substance - for example, I don't see many "sugar addicts" skipping chocolate to mainline packs of dextrose.
D. Link seems to be a review. I see a lot of references to sugar studies, but to date my understanding is many sugar studies use rats which are faulty for predicting how something with frugivore ancestors deals with sugar.
A: dopamine reuptake inhibition causes dopamine to activate receptors longer by allowing them to be I the synaptic cleft longer
B. Food anticipation and food can cause dopamine reactions. Ie: Pavlov dogs and chocolate to some people. The physical addiction which results in withdrawals from heroin is caused by a down regulation of mu receptors and cocaine upregulates some noradrenergic receptors and down regulates others. There's many more biochemical effects aside from the ones i mentioned that together makes those drugs way more addictive than food.
C. I will let you know when I meet them. So far high schoolers have snorted smarties so I'm waiting to see where that goes, lol
D. I'm referencing review papers from quick searches, but most of my info is based on what i learned in med school which was usually a review of the latest research.
0 -
Something I see over and over in this thread from people that want to argue for food addiction: "well, you guys are all just jerks who think we're lazy, have no willpower, and don't care about us."
Think about it for a while. Seriously think about it. You're on a site about weight loss with most of the people here having been in the same boat. A lot of spent a long time writing, and even longer researching these issues, in hopes of having it help people.
Like if this thread was about depression not be a form of fungal infection, people in here would be arguing how cruel people are for saying fungal infections aren't bad - except no one was saying fungal infections aren't bad, just that they aren't the cause of depression - diflucan isn't going to fix it. Disclaimer: I have depression before I hear anyone complain about the example, but I don't actively have a fungal infection if someone wants to say I don't care about people with them because I mentioned them.
I feel compelled to say this because I've read a couple posts that say people are saying things like we're saying the people who don't lose weight just don't have willpower, and if anyone wants to say that's what I believe when I say food addiction as a chemical dependency doesn't exist, you've misrepresented me, and I'm honestly offended. I 100% believe that losing weight through willpower is like repairing your car by busting the foot area out and trying to operate it Flintstones style: yeah, you'll get somewhere until you get sick of pushing a car under your own power instead of using an engine! If anyone feels they've lost weight via shear willpower, congratulations, I think you're an inhumanely better than me, let me know if there is a a mere mortal like me can achieve your greatness. Meanwhile, all the weight I've lost with the most ease has come from planning and skill, things a human aren't terribly liable to run out of.
And so, I post on this board. I don't want people to feel they're stuck struggling with an addiction that steals willpower all day in some Sisyphean exercise. I want people to succeed and have some of the happiness my own success has given me.
I've said this several times on this board. I'll validate anyone's feeling (you feel addicted, I'm sorry you're struggling), but I don't validate all facts, I hold those to empirical standards.
Great post.0 -
I think Caitwn's post a couple of pages back is being missed. You don't have to agree on what to call something in order to help.
I've clicked some urls senecarr posts around addiction. Not all because it becomes exhausting and the thread gets deleted before I get to them. While very interesting reading, science around food addiction hasn't changed anything for me. The white knuckle effect I'm feeling from not stuffing my face with food when not physically hungry is "something". When a discussion is able to sneak in without the back and forth on whether food addiction exists, I've learned a few strategies that help. Just knowing that I'm not the only one has helped. I don't believe I'm unique. There's others that feel the same way.0 -
Something I see over and over in this thread from people that want to argue for food addiction: "well, you guys are all just jerks who think we're lazy, have no willpower, and don't care about us."
Think about it for a while. Seriously think about it. You're on a site about weight loss with most of the people here having been in the same boat. A lot of spent a long time writing, and even longer researching these issues, in hopes of having it help people.
Like if this thread was about depression not be a form of fungal infection, people in here would be arguing how cruel people are for saying fungal infections aren't bad - except no one was saying fungal infections aren't bad, just that they aren't the cause of depression - diflucan isn't going to fix it. Disclaimer: I have depression before I hear anyone complain about the example, but I don't actively have a fungal infection if someone wants to say I don't care about people with them because I mentioned them.
I feel compelled to say this because I've read a couple posts that say people are saying things like we're saying the people who don't lose weight just don't have willpower, and if anyone wants to say that's what I believe when I say food addiction as a chemical dependency doesn't exist, you've misrepresented me, and I'm honestly offended. I 100% believe that losing weight through willpower is like repairing your car by busting the foot area out and trying to operate it Flintstones style: yeah, you'll get somewhere until you get sick of pushing a car under your own power instead of using an engine! If anyone feels they've lost weight via shear willpower, congratulations, I think you're an inhumanely better than me, let me know if there is a a mere mortal like me can achieve your greatness. Meanwhile, all the weight I've lost with the most ease has come from planning and skill, things a human aren't terribly liable to run out of.
And so, I post on this board. I don't want people to feel they're stuck struggling with an addiction that steals willpower all day in some Sisyphean exercise. I want people to succeed and have some of the happiness my own success has given me.
I've said this several times on this board. I'll validate anyone's feeling (you feel addicted, I'm sorry you're struggling), but I don't validate all facts, I hold those to empirical standards.
Very well said, indeed.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.
A. Some drugs like cocaine actually prevent dopamine reuptake, as well as work on multiple neurotransmitters.
B. Food itself doesn't cause dopamine reaction, food anticipation does. You could addict someone to cocaine or heroin while they are unconscious because of chemical reactivity.
C. As it appears to be based on actually eating, if one was to label addiction, it would be better to say eating addiction as it is behavioral, not physiological addiction to the substance - for example, I don't see many "sugar addicts" skipping chocolate to mainline packs of dextrose.
D. Link seems to be a review. I see a lot of references to sugar studies, but to date my understanding is many sugar studies use rats which are faulty for predicting how something with frugivore ancestors deals with sugar.
A: dopamine reuptake inhibition causes dopamine to activate receptors longer by allowing them to be I the synaptic cleft longer
B. Food anticipation and food can cause dopamine reactions. Ie: Pavlov dogs and chocolate to some people. The physical addiction which results in withdrawals from heroin is caused by a down regulation of mu receptors and cocaine upregulates some noradrenergic receptors and down regulates others. There's many more biochemical effects aside from the ones i mentioned that together makes those drugs way more addictive than food.
C. I will let you know when I meet them. So far high schoolers have snorted smarties so I'm waiting to see where that goes, lol
D. I'm referencing review papers from quick searches, but most of my info is based on what i learned in med school which was usually a review of the latest research.
A. Yeah, except you said they actually cause dopamine release. It isn't technically accurate to say a reuptake inhibitor is the same a releasing the neurotransmitter.
B. No, eating food causes the release of serotonin and leads to a clearance of dopamine. It isn't a Pavlovian response. Dopamine is now often thought of not as the reward neurotransmitter, but the reward anticipation neurotransmitter. In the case of food, it is a system that is balanced towards having animals seek food at greater levels the less recently they've eat, while food at hand leads to settling behavior to sit and actually eat, while lowering the risks associated with finding more food. By comparison cocaine not only causes dopamine reuptake inhibition, it also does so for serotonin and norepinephrine (as you mentioned as noradrenaline). It's a combination of neurotransmitters that wouldn't normally fire together in such a way - both enjoyment, agitation, and anticipation.
C. It's a contrast. Normal substance addiction tends to lead to take more potent and direct forms of the substance. We don't see this happen in food because it isn't substance based, it is behavioral. Hence eating addiction, not food addiction.
D. Depending on when you were in med school the latest research might have been the initial rat studies that started the idea of sugar addiction, but later was found to be lacking in humans.
E. Chemically, we have what are dubbed opiate receptors because we realized they'll accept opiates before we had discovered the opoids in the body that they're actually intended to take, but we don't tend to have issues on MFP of people talking about how much exercise is like heroin. Odd absence, isn't it?0 -
Something I see over and over in this thread from people that want to argue for food addiction: "well, you guys are all just jerks who think we're lazy, have no willpower, and don't care about us."
Think about it for a while. Seriously think about it. You're on a site about weight loss with most of the people here having been in the same boat. A lot of spent a long time writing, and even longer researching these issues, in hopes of having it help people.
Like if this thread was about depression not be a form of fungal infection, people in here would be arguing how cruel people are for saying fungal infections aren't bad - except no one was saying fungal infections aren't bad, just that they aren't the cause of depression - diflucan isn't going to fix it. Disclaimer: I have depression before I hear anyone complain about the example, but I don't actively have a fungal infection if someone wants to say I don't care about people with them because I mentioned them.
I feel compelled to say this because I've read a couple posts that say people are saying things like we're saying the people who don't lose weight just don't have willpower, and if anyone wants to say that's what I believe when I say food addiction as a chemical dependency doesn't exist, you've misrepresented me, and I'm honestly offended. I 100% believe that losing weight through willpower is like repairing your car by busting the foot area out and trying to operate it Flintstones style: yeah, you'll get somewhere until you get sick of pushing a car under your own power instead of using an engine! If anyone feels they've lost weight via shear willpower, congratulations, I think you're an inhumanely better than me, let me know if there is a a mere mortal like me can achieve your greatness. Meanwhile, all the weight I've lost with the most ease has come from planning and skill, things a human aren't terribly liable to run out of.
And so, I post on this board. I don't want people to feel they're stuck struggling with an addiction that steals willpower all day in some Sisyphean exercise. I want people to succeed and have some of the happiness my own success has given me.
I've said this several times on this board. I'll validate anyone's feeling (you feel addicted, I'm sorry you're struggling), but I don't validate all facts, I hold those to empirical standards.
Great post0 -
Something I see over and over in this thread from people that want to argue for food addiction: "well, you guys are all just jerks who think we're lazy, have no willpower, and don't care about us."
Think about it for a while. Seriously think about it. You're on a site about weight loss with most of the people here having been in the same boat. A lot of spent a long time writing, and even longer researching these issues, in hopes of having it help people.
Like if this thread was about depression not be a form of fungal infection, people in here would be arguing how cruel people are for saying fungal infections aren't bad - except no one was saying fungal infections aren't bad, just that they aren't the cause of depression - diflucan isn't going to fix it. Disclaimer: I have depression before I hear anyone complain about the example, but I don't actively have a fungal infection if someone wants to say I don't care about people with them because I mentioned them.
I feel compelled to say this because I've read a couple posts that say people are saying things like we're saying the people who don't lose weight just don't have willpower, and if anyone wants to say that's what I believe when I say food addiction as a chemical dependency doesn't exist, you've misrepresented me, and I'm honestly offended. I 100% believe that losing weight through willpower is like repairing your car by busting the foot area out and trying to operate it Flintstones style: yeah, you'll get somewhere until you get sick of pushing a car under your own power instead of using an engine! If anyone feels they've lost weight via shear willpower, congratulations, I think you're an inhumanely better than me, let me know if there is a a mere mortal like me can achieve your greatness. Meanwhile, all the weight I've lost with the most ease has come from planning and skill, things a human aren't terribly liable to run out of.
And so, I post on this board. I don't want people to feel they're stuck struggling with an addiction that steals willpower all day in some Sisyphean exercise. I want people to succeed and have some of the happiness my own success has given me.
I've said this several times on this board. I'll validate anyone's feeling (you feel addicted, I'm sorry you're struggling), but I don't validate all facts, I hold those to empirical standards.
:::Applause:::
0 -
Something I see over and over in this thread from people that want to argue for food addiction: "well, you guys are all just jerks who think we're lazy, have no willpower, and don't care about us."
Think about it for a while. Seriously think about it. You're on a site about weight loss with most of the people here having been in the same boat. A lot of spent a long time writing, and even longer researching these issues, in hopes of having it help people.
Like if this thread was about depression not be a form of fungal infection, people in here would be arguing how cruel people are for saying fungal infections aren't bad - except no one was saying fungal infections aren't bad, just that they aren't the cause of depression - diflucan isn't going to fix it. Disclaimer: I have depression before I hear anyone complain about the example, but I don't actively have a fungal infection if someone wants to say I don't care about people with them because I mentioned them.
I feel compelled to say this because I've read a couple posts that say people are saying things like we're saying the people who don't lose weight just don't have willpower, and if anyone wants to say that's what I believe when I say food addiction as a chemical dependency doesn't exist, you've misrepresented me, and I'm honestly offended. I 100% believe that losing weight through willpower is like repairing your car by busting the foot area out and trying to operate it Flintstones style: yeah, you'll get somewhere until you get sick of pushing a car under your own power instead of using an engine! If anyone feels they've lost weight via shear willpower, congratulations, I think you're an inhumanely better than me, let me know if there is a a mere mortal like me can achieve your greatness. Meanwhile, all the weight I've lost with the most ease has come from planning and skill, things a human aren't terribly liable to run out of.
And so, I post on this board. I don't want people to feel they're stuck struggling with an addiction that steals willpower all day in some Sisyphean exercise. I want people to succeed and have some of the happiness my own success has given me.
I've said this several times on this board. I'll validate anyone's feeling (you feel addicted, I'm sorry you're struggling), but I don't validate all facts, I hold those to empirical standards.
0 -
So, would it then follow that when a non medical person in a non medical environment uses a word that has multiple definitions that we should interpret using the non medical definition?
Cool.
0 -
I'm sensing you're trying to be sarcastic, but I don't understand to what you're referring or what triggered the attempt at sarcasm.0
-
-
So, would it then follow that when a non medical person in a non medical environment uses a word that has multiple definitions that we should interpret using the non medical definition?
Cool.
Or would it follow to ask them in what sense they mean it? Or when they say "well there was a study that showed the brain lights happen the same in sugar as the brain lights for heroin", are we supposed to assume they mean a non-medical definition, and ignore their own verbiage?
Be like Fonzi, and what's Fonzi?0 -
So, would it then follow that when a non medical person in a non medical environment uses a word that has multiple definitions that we should interpret using the non medical definition?
Cool.
OMG! I'm like addicted to shoes!
Yeah, if that's what people mean, whatever, but when they go on about cocaine or heroin I think it's a reasonable assumption they mean something else.1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »So, would it then follow that when a non medical person in a non medical environment uses a word that has multiple definitions that we should interpret using the non medical definition?
Cool.
OMG! I'm like addicted to shoes!
Yeah, if that's what people mean, whatever, but when they go on about cocaine or heroin I think it's a reasonable assumption they mean something else. 0 -
Time for a bump0
-
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions