Arguing Semantics - sugar addiction

Before I discuss my thoughts, I wanted to let everyone know, this thread is not the place to discuss your displeasure or express your concerns over MFP and/or the moderation team or employees of MFP. There are platforms for that (surveys, user panels, and you can send your thoughts to a moderator that you trust and/or an admin). This subforum was set up in response to the overwhelming request of many users who wanted to area to have in depth discussions on nutrition. Overall, we are trying to provide some delineation from the main forum (GW&D) to allow members to have a place to get some answer without having their thread hijacked everything someone uses words like: sugar addiction, Paleo, low carb, etc... This does NOT mean that if someone asked about the next big "fat burning" supplement, or Dr. Oz diet, that one should not provide them a scientific response answer. In an essence, we are trying to mitigate some of the debates over semantics in favor of OP's getting helped. As too often, the moment a person uses those words, the thread gets hijacking and taken down that path to never receive answers.

This leads me to my thoughts on semantics and some of the problems I have with some of these threads... it's the absolutism that is applied. But before I expand on what I mean, let me first state that I have not seen a human study that would suggest that physical sugar addiction exist. And i firmly believe that "food addiction" is more behavioral than anything else. I also firmly believe that just because one thinks they have an addiction to "xx" doesn't mean they are using that as an excuse. Many people use it a means of telling oneself that something has to change (i.e. - they join MFP to make better choices and lose that weight they finally wanted to).

This leads me to my main point. The discussion of semantics is based on context... no different than diet. If the subject is about a news article or a thread like that, then yes, semantics matter. But for a large in part, as a newbie in the GD&W section, I see semantics mean less than the plan itself. Why? Because most noobs, have so much information overload already going-on, that 20 pages of debating semantics is not going to give them what they need. Now, let me also state, that there are exceptions to every rule (again, no absolutes) who actually care about semantics... but I see them as the minority around here. Do I like semantics.. absolutely. I love to see emerging science. But when I am working with people, 99% of them don't care about them. They just want a plan to get them on the right path.

snowflake954 wrote: »

psulemon wrote: »

Before I discuss my thoughts, I wanted to let everyone know, this thread is not the place to discuss your displeasure or express your concerns over MFP and/or the moderation team or employees of MFP. There are platforms for that (surveys, user panels, and you can send your thoughts to a moderator that you trust and/or an admin). This subforum was set up in response to the overwhelming request of many users who wanted to area to have in depth discussions on nutrition. Overall, we are trying to provide some delineation from the main forum (GW&D) to allow members to have a place to get some answer without having their thread hijacked everything someone uses words like: sugar addiction, Paleo, low carb, etc... This does NOT mean that if someone asked about the next big "fat burning" supplement, or Dr. Oz diet, that one should not provide them a scientific response answer. In an essence, we are trying to mitigate some of the debates over semantics in favor of OP's getting helped. As too often, the moment a person uses those words, the thread gets hijacking and taken down that path to never receive answers.

This leads me to my thoughts on semantics and some of the problems I have with some of these threads... it's the absolutism that is applied. But before I expand on what I mean, let me first state that I have not seen a human study that would suggest that physical sugar addiction exist. And i firmly believe that "food addiction" is more behavioral than anything else. I also firmly believe that just because one thinks they have an addiction to "xx" doesn't mean they are using that as an excuse. Many people use it a means of telling oneself that something has to change (i.e. - they join MFP to make better choices and lose that weight they finally wanted to).

This leads me to my main point. The discussion of semantics is based on context... no different than diet. If the subject is about a news article or a thread like that, then yes, semantics matter. But for a large in part, as a newbie in the GD&W section, I see semantics mean less than the plan itself. Why? Because most noobs, have so much information overload already going-on, that 20 pages of debating semantics is not going to give them what they need. Now, let me also state, that there are exceptions to every rule (again, no absolutes) who actually care about semantics... but I see them as the minority around here. Do I like semantics.. absolutely. I love to see emerging science. But when I am working with people, 99% of them don't care about them. They just want a plan to get them on the right path.

However, not all of us are noobs, and having got past all the basic stuff--with success we hope, and some knowledge picked up along the way, we need to delve into deeper arguments. Sometimes we're sick of all the training wheel stuff. That can lead to heavy debate that a noob doesn't understand or have any interest in, I'm aware of that. I hope this site can also cater to the "vets" and their needs. With respect, as always.

This is exactly why I said it's all about context. I treat people different based on their knowledge of such subject and their associated situation. I can tell you, in the gaining weight section, my post are significantly different and more systematic. But when I am dealing with a person with low count, who hasn't been on this forum long, it's a different. Albeit, if the OP (even with low count) demonstrates a higher knowledge of the situation, I will get down to more specifics.

Panda_brat wrote: »

AS a former smoker and some one who went from 335 to 168 pounds, cutting back on food is a lot easier. I can have a piece of candy or junk food once in a while and not have to going back to my old ways of over eating. I will not tack one puff of cigarette in fear of relapsing, i will not even hang around people who are smoking. Lack of self control is not the same as addiction.

#TRUTH

For me, it always feels like someone is dismissing the struggles people with addiction have to deal with. If you had to go one day without something sweet, yeah you'll crave it, but you'll be fine. Going one day without smoking, espically if you smoke a lot in a day, sucks HARD. The only reason my dad quit smoking is that he was in the hospital for a mild heart attack, and shortly after he got home (as in next day) he had to go back for pneumonia. My dad's a retired Navy chief, so you know he's got a strong will, but wasn't able to stop smoking before then. It took him being in the hospital for a couple of weeks and then being sent home with a nebulizer for another few weeks so that he could breathe to be able to quit. THAT is what overcoming addiction looks like. And someone trying to get off heroin has it worse than that! So for me, when someone says they're addicted to sugar, in my mind, it trivializes what real addiction is.

And something just occurred to me. The 'semantics' argument is kinda valid because a lot of times, people use 'addiction' without truly understanding it. They're getting it confused with cravings or a psychological issue, so pointing that out should be done. If we're not using words as they're supposed to be used, it can cause a lot more confusion in the long run.

I don't think it requires a full argument, though.

WinoGelato wrote: »

msf74 wrote: »

Nikion901 wrote: »

senecarr wrote: »

summerkissed wrote: »

A good example of this is kids, young kids with no knowledge of nutrition....why do we have kids throwing tantrums for junk foods, sodas, sweets? Why do kids have hyper outbursts over these foods....then massive downers??? Why do we have behavioral problems linked to additives in these foods?? We don't have these issues with fruit and veg or lean meats?? You argue over is food/sugar addiction real and one of the arguments is its not a chemical addiction but could it actually be just that....could it?? Could it not be a physical addiction could it be a chemical addiction?? The more I think about what we missed out on as kids the more I look deeper into the types of foods consumed the types of food brought? It wasn't a healthy diet at all? What was it about the highly processed, the high sugar, high salt and high fat combined with colors and flavors?

Kids get excited about certain foods. It is purely psychological. Repeated studies that were properly double blind have never found sugar added to foods lead to signs of hyperactivity in children.

I have to take exception with your statement here ... as a parent, aunt, grandparent, great grandaunt, friend of childrens parents ... from countless observations of child behavior .... they get hyper active to the point of (at one time) having to be scolded by their parents to 'simmer down' when they eat a lot of sweet stuff ... be it candy or soda pop that they never exhibit when they eat tons of other carb, like mashed potatoes or pasta. I know all carbs convert to glucose, but the kids never misbehave after eating a lot of that. At any get together, you'd hear one parent or another comment about the unruly child ... 'What do you expect, he (she) is haveing a 'sugar high' and will calm down in a bit" ... when several small kids were together and they got that rambunctious behavior after ingesting candy, cake and ice cream at parties someone would end up in tears, and then the kids would crash and sleep and be very moody when they woke up.

Now-a-days it seems that 'gone wild' kids behavior is blamed on ADHD instead of overeating on sweets. ... just my observation ... so please don't jump down my throat over it.

I think the questions to be answered comes down to "is it the sugar, is it the situation, or is it the combination of the two?"

The answer appears to be it is purely situational. Parents generally allow kids the "good stuff" on special occasions where they are prone to be excitable anyway due to the situation - birthday parties, Christmas, that type of gig. In addition there is an expectation or tacit social permission for kids acting out (in reality being true to their nature without heavy handed socialisation being enforced on them) in that kind of scenario. Kids then act according to type. Parents put it down to the "sugar rush".

This is exactly what I was going to say. Are my kids more out of control at birthday parties and then they "crash" afterwards? Absolutely. Is it because of the sugar, or because they are surrounded by all their friends being encouraged to run around like lunatics, bouncing on huge inflatables, drink pop, eat pizza and cake, watch a friend open 20 toys prompting insane fits of jealousy, then send them home with their parents to manage the aftermath...

I never once thought that their excitement and subsequent hitting of the wall was related to the dixie cup of soda and the single cupcake they ate. They eat sugar on a regular basis - they pretty much live on fruit and milk, and we have a piece of candy or a small cookie or a bag of mini muffins in the evenings as well. They don't suddenly start running around screaming like lunatics literally bouncing off the walls because of that... why would I think that the sugar is what prompted the out of control nature at the party? It's the environment, not a physical substance...

Well said. This is what I have noticed with my daughter as well, when she was little.

brianpperkins wrote: »

msf74 wrote: »

brianpperkins wrote: »

it is MFP taking a clear position where logic lost to feels.

To be fair to my MFP this direction is being taken all over social media from Facebook to Twitter to Instagram.

Hurt feelings trump facts. It is decidedly anti-intellectual, it can be profoundly harmful especially in an area so vitally dependent on good science to provide informed views, but it is the agreed consensus view.

Just because others are wrong does not mean MFP must emulate them. It is a choice. It's almost as though we are experiencing the whimper T.S. Elliot wrote about.

If it's not inappropriate for me to say, this made me fall in love with you a little bit.

singingflutelady wrote: »

Another word that gets misused is binge. I see non ed people using it interchangeably with overeat. They say they binged but they mean they overate. As someone who is a recovering anorexic binge/purge subtype binge means something else. It typically is in the order of thousands of calories. I have known bulimics who would eat approximately 5000 calories in one sitting, get rid of it, eat 5000 more, get rid of it over and over. In my head a binge is also a total lack of control and stuffing food down quickly and without really tasting it. It doesn't mean that you overate during your Christmas dinner or cheat meal or whatever.

As someone with a history of binges, I cringe when I see "binge" used that way. I understand the events being described are usually upsetting to the posters who are writing, so I try to be mindful of their experience and not project my past on to them, but really -- seeing it used to describe eating an box of crackers or some pizza . . . no.

dubird wrote: »

And something just occurred to me. The 'semantics' argument is kinda valid because a lot of times, people use 'addiction' without truly understanding it. They're getting it confused with cravings or a psychological issue, so pointing that out should be done. If we're not using words as they're supposed to be used, it can cause a lot more confusion in the long run.

I don't think it requires a full argument, though.

This is actually how I try to respond in the main section. I feel compelled to say "I don't think addiction is the right word, but I also have felt out of control with my eating and this is how I handled it, blah, blah" (well, obviously I say something intended to be substantive, vs. blah, blah).

Often people are really invested in the idea that sugar is worse than heroin or whatever (sigh) and jump in and so an argument ends up raging, as people feel compelled to correct the misinformation (like the suggestion that sugar, but not other foods, has some special effect on the brain or my favorite, that "processed" foods are somehow more hard to resist than other foods). Usually it's not the OP who gets into the argument, although sometimes the OP is also invested.

I think a lot of this is garbage on the internet and spread by diet gurus telling people they are addicts or aren't normal or must figure out how to stop wanting to eat sweet foods, and that's one reason I think it is important to respond, as those are bad ideas that should be countered with opposing speech.

But I'm personally okay with doing it over here, where it's less likely someone's feelings are going to be wrapped up in the addict thing.

[Edited to correct typo.]

shell1005 wrote: »

psulemon wrote: »

Before I discuss my thoughts, I wanted to let everyone know, this thread is not the place to discuss your displeasure or express your concerns over MFP and/or the moderation team or employees of MFP. There are platforms for that (surveys, user panels, and you can send your thoughts to a moderator that you trust and/or an admin). This subforum was set up in response to the overwhelming request of many users who wanted to area to have in depth discussions on nutrition. Overall, we are trying to provide some delineation from the main forum (GW&D) to allow members to have a place to get some answer without having their thread hijacked everything someone uses words like: sugar addiction, Paleo, low carb, etc... This does NOT mean that if someone asked about the next big "fat burning" supplement, or Dr. Oz diet, that one should not provide them a scientific response answer. In an essence, we are trying to mitigate some of the debates over semantics in favor of OP's getting helped. As too often, the moment a person uses those words, the thread gets hijacking and taken down that path to never receive answers.

This leads me to my thoughts on semantics and some of the problems I have with some of these threads... it's the absolutism that is applied. But before I expand on what I mean, let me first state that I have not seen a human study that would suggest that physical sugar addiction exist. And i firmly believe that "food addiction" is more behavioral than anything else. I also firmly believe that just because one thinks they have an addiction to "xx" doesn't mean they are using that as an excuse. Many people use it a means of telling oneself that something has to change (i.e. - they join MFP to make better choices and lose that weight they finally wanted to).

This leads me to my main point. The discussion of semantics is based on context... no different than diet. If the subject is about a news article or a thread like that, then yes, semantics matter. But for a large in part, as a newbie in the GD&W section, I see semantics mean less than the plan itself. Why? Because most noobs, have so much information overload already going-on, that 20 pages of debating semantics is not going to give them what they need. Now, let me also state, that there are exceptions to every rule (again, no absolutes) who actually care about semantics... but I see them as the minority around here. Do I like semantics.. absolutely. I love to see emerging science. But when I am working with people, 99% of them don't care about them. They just want a plan to get them on the right path.

Or maybe when some people were new....like I was...they could have their incorrect beliefs about food addiction challenged, learn the actual science/truth of it all and be better for it. Placating someone's incorrect beliefs isn't about semantics, it's about the belief above all else that everyone's beliefs and feelings must be protected above all else.

I know why MFP takes that stance and I don't respect it, but not my circus...not my monkeys. MFP will get their forever customers and I'll help whoever I can elsewhere.

No one is suggesting to not correct misstatements but not all threads need to divulge into a debate over semantics. Its generally not helpful to the OP.

If people could correct poor informationand provide solutions to an issue, this place would have less issues.

psulemon wrote: »

shell1005 wrote: »

psulemon wrote: »

Before I discuss my thoughts, I wanted to let everyone know, this thread is not the place to discuss your displeasure or express your concerns over MFP and/or the moderation team or employees of MFP. There are platforms for that (surveys, user panels, and you can send your thoughts to a moderator that you trust and/or an admin). This subforum was set up in response to the overwhelming request of many users who wanted to area to have in depth discussions on nutrition. Overall, we are trying to provide some delineation from the main forum (GW&D) to allow members to have a place to get some answer without having their thread hijacked everything someone uses words like: sugar addiction, Paleo, low carb, etc... This does NOT mean that if someone asked about the next big "fat burning" supplement, or Dr. Oz diet, that one should not provide them a scientific response answer. In an essence, we are trying to mitigate some of the debates over semantics in favor of OP's getting helped. As too often, the moment a person uses those words, the thread gets hijacking and taken down that path to never receive answers.

This leads me to my thoughts on semantics and some of the problems I have with some of these threads... it's the absolutism that is applied. But before I expand on what I mean, let me first state that I have not seen a human study that would suggest that physical sugar addiction exist. And i firmly believe that "food addiction" is more behavioral than anything else. I also firmly believe that just because one thinks they have an addiction to "xx" doesn't mean they are using that as an excuse. Many people use it a means of telling oneself that something has to change (i.e. - they join MFP to make better choices and lose that weight they finally wanted to).

This leads me to my main point. The discussion of semantics is based on context... no different than diet. If the subject is about a news article or a thread like that, then yes, semantics matter. But for a large in part, as a newbie in the GD&W section, I see semantics mean less than the plan itself. Why? Because most noobs, have so much information overload already going-on, that 20 pages of debating semantics is not going to give them what they need. Now, let me also state, that there are exceptions to every rule (again, no absolutes) who actually care about semantics... but I see them as the minority around here. Do I like semantics.. absolutely. I love to see emerging science. But when I am working with people, 99% of them don't care about them. They just want a plan to get them on the right path.

Or maybe when some people were new....like I was...they could have their incorrect beliefs about food addiction challenged, learn the actual science/truth of it all and be better for it. Placating someone's incorrect beliefs isn't about semantics, it's about the belief above all else that everyone's beliefs and feelings must be protected above all else.

I know why MFP takes that stance and I don't respect it, but not my circus...not my monkeys. MFP will get their forever customers and I'll help whoever I can elsewhere.

No one is suggesting to not correct misstatements but not all threads need to divulge into a debate over semantics. Its generally not helpful to the OP.

If people could correct poor informationand provide solutions to an issue, this place would have less issues.

Here's the problem though:

lemurcat12 wrote: »

Often people are really invested in the idea that sugar is worse than heroin or whatever (sigh) and jump in and so an argument ends up raging, as people feel compelled to correct the misinformation (like the suggestion that sugar, but not other foods, has some special effect on the brain or my favorite, that "processed" foods are somehow more hard to resist than other foods). Usually it's not the OP who gets into the argument, although sometimes the OP is also invested.

More often than not, the OP makes an unfortunate word choice...someone (as lemurcat described) gently corrects him/her, and then in comes the brigade of rat studies from completely unrelated (and often new) users. So those posters also need to be corrected, and on down the rabbit hole we go until inevitably someone shouts "SEMANTICS!" and the thread gets locked.

It is unfortunate that most of the time, the OP's actual concerns get overshadowed. I'm not sure what the right answer is. I do think that stifling the correction of misinformation is NOT the right answer though.