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.
Arguing Semantics - sugar addiction
Options
Replies
-
janejellyroll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »There are definitely some users who seem to be using it as an excuse. I recall an OP who posted "can't diet because addicted to junk food. If I have it at home I will eat it, and if I don't I will go out and buy it."
I think a lot of this is that people who aren't yet ready or internally motivated to lose the weight get messages, either from loved ones and friends or society in general, that they SHOULD lose the weight, and they feel compelled to go through the motions of trying but don't really want to change their habits, so they assert that they cannot.
I think that kind of thing is really common human behavior.
I don't deny that there aren't people who are either just looking for sympathy or are using it as an excuse, but labeling the majority based on the minority is ridiculous. And that is what is happening. Our first response is people are using it as an excuse, and if they don't agree, we suggest therapy..
If someone finds themselves unable to control what they eat, I think therapy is a really good idea. If it is an actual addiction, professionals are probably the best source of help. If it isn't an actual addiction and it is another type of compulsive behavior, professionals are still probably the best source of help.
I would agree that therapy is an option, but not the default answer to everyone who mentions sugar addiction on this board. Especially, when that said answer, comes from a very vague post by the OP.
But if someone points out that there are very good reasons to suspect whether sugar addiction is real and OP responds "Yes, but I can't control how much sugar I eat" (or a variation thereof), therapy probably is the best (and kindest) recommendation.
Maybe I'm not fully understanding the situations that you're talking about. But I think if someone thinks sugar addiction is real and that it is impacting their life, therapy is a good choice *regardless of the factual truth of "sugar addiction."*0 -
diannethegeek wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »There are definitely some users who seem to be using it as an excuse. I recall an OP who posted "can't diet because addicted to junk food. If I have it at home I will eat it, and if I don't I will go out and buy it."
I think a lot of this is that people who aren't yet ready or internally motivated to lose the weight get messages, either from loved ones and friends or society in general, that they SHOULD lose the weight, and they feel compelled to go through the motions of trying but don't really want to change their habits, so they assert that they cannot.
I think that kind of thing is really common human behavior.
I don't deny that there aren't people who are either just looking for sympathy or are using it as an excuse, but labeling the majority based on the minority is ridiculous. And that is what is happening. Our first response is people are using it as an excuse, and if they don't agree, we suggest therapy..
I do wish that you wouldn't group everyone together in your posts. As someone who's been through therapy and used it to work through food issues and advised people on these boards to seek therapy or help when it seems like it would help (as we're discussing above) it's not my go-to advice AND it's not insulting to suggest someone seek outside help.
Why do you assume I am talking about you?
According to some, in this thread, if you have an addiction to anything, you need therapy (regardless if it's a self proclaimed one or not).
You may not realize it, but that's how your posts read -- like you are accusing everyone and saying those are the only kinds of responses given: "Our first response is people are using it as an excuse, and if they don't agree, we suggest therapy."0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »There are definitely some users who seem to be using it as an excuse. I recall an OP who posted "can't diet because addicted to junk food. If I have it at home I will eat it, and if I don't I will go out and buy it."
I think a lot of this is that people who aren't yet ready or internally motivated to lose the weight get messages, either from loved ones and friends or society in general, that they SHOULD lose the weight, and they feel compelled to go through the motions of trying but don't really want to change their habits, so they assert that they cannot.
I think that kind of thing is really common human behavior.
I don't deny that there aren't people who are either just looking for sympathy or are using it as an excuse, but labeling the majority based on the minority is ridiculous. And that is what is happening. Our first response is people are using it as an excuse, and if they don't agree, we suggest therapy..
I do wish that you wouldn't group everyone together in your posts. As someone who's been through therapy and used it to work through food issues and advised people on these boards to seek therapy or help when it seems like it would help (as we're discussing above) it's not my go-to advice AND it's not insulting to suggest someone seek outside help.
Why do you assume I am talking about you?
According to some, in this thread, if you have an addiction to anything, you need therapy (regardless if it's a self proclaimed one or not).
You may not realize it, but that's how your posts read -- like you are accusing everyone and saying those are the only kinds of responses given: "Our first response is people are using it as an excuse, and if they don't agree, we suggest therapy."
The answer is always going to be "Not you. I meant those other people."0 -
diannethegeek wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »There are definitely some users who seem to be using it as an excuse. I recall an OP who posted "can't diet because addicted to junk food. If I have it at home I will eat it, and if I don't I will go out and buy it."
I think a lot of this is that people who aren't yet ready or internally motivated to lose the weight get messages, either from loved ones and friends or society in general, that they SHOULD lose the weight, and they feel compelled to go through the motions of trying but don't really want to change their habits, so they assert that they cannot.
I think that kind of thing is really common human behavior.
I don't deny that there aren't people who are either just looking for sympathy or are using it as an excuse, but labeling the majority based on the minority is ridiculous. And that is what is happening. Our first response is people are using it as an excuse, and if they don't agree, we suggest therapy..
I do wish that you wouldn't group everyone together in your posts. As someone who's been through therapy and used it to work through food issues and advised people on these boards to seek therapy or help when it seems like it would help (as we're discussing above) it's not my go-to advice AND it's not insulting to suggest someone seek outside help.
Why do you assume I am talking about you?
According to some, in this thread, if you have an addiction to anything, you need therapy (regardless if it's a self proclaimed one or not).
You used the words "we" and "our" which I took to mean either those of us in this thread or those of us on these boards, either of which includes me. You've been generalizing all over this thread, and as I say in every mean people thread: when you make posts like this without examples or qualifications it just ends up pointing fingers at everyone.
I don't doubt that some people do jump to therapy. I'm not asking you to deny they exist. I'm simply asking that you might want to step back a smidge and consider your language in this thread lest you paint everyone with the same broad brush. It makes it harder to debate your actual points.
Those I suppose maybe that's just a matter of semantics to you.
If you haven't spoken in absolutes, then you should not infer you are a part of the collective "we" or "our". At times, generalizes are required. In many cases within this thread, several members have made absolute recommendations regardless of the available information (e.g. -the word addiction was used, so therapy is the answer). IMO, it's a non helpful recommendation because there are a variety of circumstances that will drive the results. This would be no different than suggesting one dietary choice for ALL situations. Heck, I say I am addicted to golf, does that mean I need therapy... maybe, but not for my addiction
If one demonstrates true signs of ED behavior, then therapy is a solid answer, especially if a history of that existing prior (something fairly common in the gaining weight section).0 -
-
diannethegeek wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »There are definitely some users who seem to be using it as an excuse. I recall an OP who posted "can't diet because addicted to junk food. If I have it at home I will eat it, and if I don't I will go out and buy it."
I think a lot of this is that people who aren't yet ready or internally motivated to lose the weight get messages, either from loved ones and friends or society in general, that they SHOULD lose the weight, and they feel compelled to go through the motions of trying but don't really want to change their habits, so they assert that they cannot.
I think that kind of thing is really common human behavior.
I don't deny that there aren't people who are either just looking for sympathy or are using it as an excuse, but labeling the majority based on the minority is ridiculous. And that is what is happening. Our first response is people are using it as an excuse, and if they don't agree, we suggest therapy..
I do wish that you wouldn't group everyone together in your posts. As someone who's been through therapy and used it to work through food issues and advised people on these boards to seek therapy or help when it seems like it would help (as we're discussing above) it's not my go-to advice AND it's not insulting to suggest someone seek outside help.
Why do you assume I am talking about you?
According to some, in this thread, if you have an addiction to anything, you need therapy (regardless if it's a self proclaimed one or not).
You used the words "we" and "our" which I took to mean either those of us in this thread or those of us on these boards, either of which includes me. You've been generalizing all over this thread, and as I say in every mean people thread: when you make posts like this without examples or qualifications it just ends up pointing fingers at everyone.
I don't doubt that some people do jump to therapy. I'm not asking you to deny they exist. I'm simply asking that you might want to step back a smidge and consider your language in this thread lest you paint everyone with the same broad brush. It makes it harder to debate your actual points.
Those I suppose maybe that's just a matter of semantics to you.
If you haven't spoken in absolutes, then you should not infer you are a part of the collective "we" or "our". At times, generalizes are required. In many cases within this thread, several members have made absolute recommendations regardless of the available information (e.g. -the word addiction was used, so therapy is the answer). IMO, it's a non helpful recommendation because there are a variety of circumstances that will drive the results. This would be no different than suggesting one dietary choice for ALL situations. Heck, I say I am addicted to golf, does that mean I need therapy... maybe, but not for my addiction
If one demonstrates true signs of ED behavior, then therapy is a solid answer, especially if a history of that existing prior (something fairly common in the gaining weight section).
If you don't think that's helpful advice, then don't give it. You don't get to be the final arbiter of what is helpful and what is not. I've had conversations around this topic where the therapy suggestion is actually the light-bulb moment where a person says, "hey, maybe it's not an addiction."0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »There are definitely some users who seem to be using it as an excuse. I recall an OP who posted "can't diet because addicted to junk food. If I have it at home I will eat it, and if I don't I will go out and buy it."
I think a lot of this is that people who aren't yet ready or internally motivated to lose the weight get messages, either from loved ones and friends or society in general, that they SHOULD lose the weight, and they feel compelled to go through the motions of trying but don't really want to change their habits, so they assert that they cannot.
I think that kind of thing is really common human behavior.
I don't deny that there aren't people who are either just looking for sympathy or are using it as an excuse, but labeling the majority based on the minority is ridiculous. And that is what is happening. Our first response is people are using it as an excuse, and if they don't agree, we suggest therapy..
I would add that looking for sympathy isn't a character flaw.
I think that looking for compassion and empathy is not. On a site like this, where pretty much everyone has struggled with weight in some form or another looking for sympathy based on the idea that your struggles are supposedly much worse (not saying you personally are doing this, but hypothetically), does strike me as something of a character flaw.
I disagree. Wanting to discuss that dieting is hard doesn't mean they are dismissing the struggles of all. I also think that losing weight is harder and easier for some. People react to situations differently.
Looking for support isn't a bad thing.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »There are definitely some users who seem to be using it as an excuse. I recall an OP who posted "can't diet because addicted to junk food. If I have it at home I will eat it, and if I don't I will go out and buy it."
I think a lot of this is that people who aren't yet ready or internally motivated to lose the weight get messages, either from loved ones and friends or society in general, that they SHOULD lose the weight, and they feel compelled to go through the motions of trying but don't really want to change their habits, so they assert that they cannot.
I think that kind of thing is really common human behavior.
I don't deny that there aren't people who are either just looking for sympathy or are using it as an excuse, but labeling the majority based on the minority is ridiculous. And that is what is happening. Our first response is people are using it as an excuse, and if they don't agree, we suggest therapy..
You keep generalizing about what "we" do. I never say "you are using it as an excuse" (even though often people are -- and I disagree it's necessarily the minority) and I've never once suggested therapy. That said, the situations that I think genuinely are like addictions -- EDs and true eating addiction such as that the morbidly obese may have -- almost certainly would benefit from therapy and probably need it.
I think most people who use the term "addiction" are using it either casually (I really love and want to overeat X foods, I feel out of control in my eating habits) or have been told by irresponsible diet gurus, websites, and the moronic media noise surrounding the issue (especially if one is not experienced in reading the media skeptically and critically) that they are abnormal and have "addictions" if they tend to overeat certain kinds of foods, and buy into it. Therefore, I normally (as stated about 500 times now) simply note that I don't think addiction is the right or a helpful term except in some rare cases (and re eating, not sugar), and go through what helped me and what I think is helpful to consider (when you overeat, what you overeat, what's going on when you overeat, if you get enough protein, sleep, a good overall diet, have certain attachments or association with eating or certain foods, etc.).
That said, I think that when people say I CANNOT control my eating, what they are really saying is "at this time I am not willing to make the sacrifices I think would be required." Often, the sacrifices required are really quite a bit less than they imagine they are, which is why I think pointing out that you can lose weight while continuing to enjoy foods you love and without being hungry can be really helpful to people with the kind of idea of dieting that is too prevalent in our culture.
A good question that I usually do not pursue but maybe should is "what is the importance to you of the addiction label?" or, similarly, "let's say you are addicted? What difference do you think that makes?"
My impression is that people frequently think it means that if they do the right thing they will automatically stop feeling compelled to overeat and eating a low cal healthful diet with no cravings for "bad food" will become trivially easy for them (I think this is the idea behind the "detox" and "juice fast" and "reboot" stuff too). The other underlying idea often is that of course other people can successfully lose weight by they are different and it is easier for them. (That's the idea I find rather annoying -- that others were just fat because they were gluttons, but I'm different, I'm an addict and could not help it. If a recovering drug or alcohol addict failed to take personal responsibility in this way, that would not be tolerated in my personal experience with recovery groups.)
Well said.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »There are definitely some users who seem to be using it as an excuse. I recall an OP who posted "can't diet because addicted to junk food. If I have it at home I will eat it, and if I don't I will go out and buy it."
I think a lot of this is that people who aren't yet ready or internally motivated to lose the weight get messages, either from loved ones and friends or society in general, that they SHOULD lose the weight, and they feel compelled to go through the motions of trying but don't really want to change their habits, so they assert that they cannot.
I think that kind of thing is really common human behavior.
I don't deny that there aren't people who are either just looking for sympathy or are using it as an excuse, but labeling the majority based on the minority is ridiculous. And that is what is happening. Our first response is people are using it as an excuse, and if they don't agree, we suggest therapy..
You keep generalizing about what "we" do. I never say "you are using it as an excuse" (even though often people are -- and I disagree it's necessarily the minority) and I've never once suggested therapy. That said, the situations that I think genuinely are like addictions -- EDs and true eating addiction such as that the morbidly obese may have -- almost certainly would benefit from therapy and probably need it.
I think most people who use the term "addiction" are using it either casually (I really love and want to overeat X foods, I feel out of control in my eating habits) or have been told by irresponsible diet gurus, websites, and the moronic media noise surrounding the issue (especially if one is not experienced in reading the media skeptically and critically) that they are abnormal and have "addictions" if they tend to overeat certain kinds of foods, and buy into it. Therefore, I normally (as stated about 500 times now) simply note that I don't think addiction is the right or a helpful term except in some rare cases (and re eating, not sugar), and go through what helped me and what I think is helpful to consider (when you overeat, what you overeat, what's going on when you overeat, if you get enough protein, sleep, a good overall diet, have certain attachments or association with eating or certain foods, etc.).
That said, I think that when people say I CANNOT control my eating, what they are really saying is "at this time I am not willing to make the sacrifices I think would be required." Often, the sacrifices required are really quite a bit less than they imagine they are, which is why I think pointing out that you can lose weight while continuing to enjoy foods you love and without being hungry can be really helpful to people with the kind of idea of dieting that is too prevalent in our culture.
A good question that I usually do not pursue but maybe should is "what is the importance to you of the addiction label?" or, similarly, "let's say you are addicted? What difference do you think that makes?"
My impression is that people frequently think it means that if they do the right thing they will automatically stop feeling compelled to overeat and eating a low cal healthful diet with no cravings for "bad food" will become trivially easy for them (I think this is the idea behind the "detox" and "juice fast" and "reboot" stuff too). The other underlying idea often is that of course other people can successfully lose weight by they are different and it is easier for them. (That's the idea I find rather annoying -- that others were just fat because they were gluttons, but I'm different, I'm an addict and could not help it. If a recovering drug or alcohol addict failed to take personal responsibility in this way, that would not be tolerated in my personal experience with recovery groups.)
This is a very good, and I think accurate, observation. It is why so often the reason for following X diet is because 'so-and-so said their cravings went away'.
I think many are under the impression that cravings are too difficult to tackle - and if you can't resist them whenever you choose then that means you are either addicted or weak. No one wants to paint themselves as being weak.0 -
@lemurcat12 or that other people are lean because they are naturally thin. I hate that. I work hard, I lift heavy, I don't overeat usually and make sacrifices too so I guess all that doesn't matter because I'm "naturally" thin. I don't laze around and eat everything I want all day. I work to maintain my weight even though I have never been overweight.0
-
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »
Righteous pagan. The Divine Comedy is really inconsistent as to how it treats suicides. Lucan (also a suicide) is also there, along with some others, but Circle 7 of Hell is where suicides in general go (I suppose you can nitpick that some are intended as violence against self and some are not), whereas Judas and Brutus in the 9th circle nearly at the bottom (treachery overwhelming all), and Cato seems to merit a job in Purgatory.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »There are definitely some users who seem to be using it as an excuse. I recall an OP who posted "can't diet because addicted to junk food. If I have it at home I will eat it, and if I don't I will go out and buy it."
I think a lot of this is that people who aren't yet ready or internally motivated to lose the weight get messages, either from loved ones and friends or society in general, that they SHOULD lose the weight, and they feel compelled to go through the motions of trying but don't really want to change their habits, so they assert that they cannot.
I think that kind of thing is really common human behavior.
I don't deny that there aren't people who are either just looking for sympathy or are using it as an excuse, but labeling the majority based on the minority is ridiculous. And that is what is happening. Our first response is people are using it as an excuse, and if they don't agree, we suggest therapy..
I would add that looking for sympathy isn't a character flaw.
I think that looking for compassion and empathy is not. On a site like this, where pretty much everyone has struggled with weight in some form or another looking for sympathy based on the idea that your struggles are supposedly much worse (not saying you personally are doing this, but hypothetically), does strike me as something of a character flaw.
I disagree. Wanting to discuss that dieting is hard doesn't mean they are dismissing the struggles of all. I also think that losing weight is harder and easier for some. People react to situations differently.
Looking for support isn't a bad thing.
I agree that looking for support isn't bad and that wanting to commiserate also is not. To me that's different from seeking sympathy.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »There are definitely some users who seem to be using it as an excuse. I recall an OP who posted "can't diet because addicted to junk food. If I have it at home I will eat it, and if I don't I will go out and buy it."
I think a lot of this is that people who aren't yet ready or internally motivated to lose the weight get messages, either from loved ones and friends or society in general, that they SHOULD lose the weight, and they feel compelled to go through the motions of trying but don't really want to change their habits, so they assert that they cannot.
I think that kind of thing is really common human behavior.
I don't deny that there aren't people who are either just looking for sympathy or are using it as an excuse, but labeling the majority based on the minority is ridiculous. And that is what is happening. Our first response is people are using it as an excuse, and if they don't agree, we suggest therapy..
If someone finds themselves unable to control what they eat, I think therapy is a really good idea. If it is an actual addiction, professionals are probably the best source of help. If it isn't an actual addiction and it is another type of compulsive behavior, professionals are still probably the best source of help.
I would agree that therapy is an option, but not the default answer to everyone who mentions sugar addiction on this board. Especially, when that said answer, comes from a very vague post by the OP.
But if someone points out that there are very good reasons to suspect whether sugar addiction is real and OP responds "Yes, but I can't control how much sugar I eat" (or a variation thereof), therapy probably is the best (and kindest) recommendation.
Maybe I'm not fully understanding the situations that you're talking about. But I think if someone thinks sugar addiction is real and that it is impacting their life, therapy is a good choice *regardless of the factual truth of "sugar addiction."*
I think that is part of the problem. We all have particular threads or a combination of threads in mind when we are discussing these. I have been in countless threads were the default response was therapy or victim... but when additional context was brought into the equation by the OP, they were merely using the phrase loosely and wanted ways to improve their eating habits.
And like I have said, they an OP does exhibit true behaviors of ED's, then by all means, suggesting therapy is a solid answer. Like previously mentioned, that is something that is commonly discussed with people in the gaining weight section, since many of them are either recovering and/or have a history.
0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »There are definitely some users who seem to be using it as an excuse. I recall an OP who posted "can't diet because addicted to junk food. If I have it at home I will eat it, and if I don't I will go out and buy it."
I think a lot of this is that people who aren't yet ready or internally motivated to lose the weight get messages, either from loved ones and friends or society in general, that they SHOULD lose the weight, and they feel compelled to go through the motions of trying but don't really want to change their habits, so they assert that they cannot.
I think that kind of thing is really common human behavior.
I don't deny that there aren't people who are either just looking for sympathy or are using it as an excuse, but labeling the majority based on the minority is ridiculous. And that is what is happening. Our first response is people are using it as an excuse, and if they don't agree, we suggest therapy..
If someone finds themselves unable to control what they eat, I think therapy is a really good idea. If it is an actual addiction, professionals are probably the best source of help. If it isn't an actual addiction and it is another type of compulsive behavior, professionals are still probably the best source of help.
I would agree that therapy is an option, but not the default answer to everyone who mentions sugar addiction on this board. Especially, when that said answer, comes from a very vague post by the OP.
But if someone points out that there are very good reasons to suspect whether sugar addiction is real and OP responds "Yes, but I can't control how much sugar I eat" (or a variation thereof), therapy probably is the best (and kindest) recommendation.
Maybe I'm not fully understanding the situations that you're talking about. But I think if someone thinks sugar addiction is real and that it is impacting their life, therapy is a good choice *regardless of the factual truth of "sugar addiction."*
I think that is part of the problem. We all have particular threads or a combination of threads in mind when we are discussing these.
Good point, thank you.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »
Righteous pagan. The Divine Comedy is really inconsistent as to how it treats suicides. Lucan (also a suicide) is also there, along with some others, but Circle 7 of Hell is where suicides in general go (I suppose you can nitpick that some are intended as violence against self and some are not), whereas Judas and Brutus in the 9th circle nearly at the bottom (treachery overwhelming all), and Cato seems to merit a job in Purgatory.
Doesn't that have something to do with the fact that Jesus didn't exist for those like Seneca, so the rules are a bit different and that's why the ended up on Purgatory? That's how I remember it being explained, at least.
Lucan would, though, suggest that isn't correct. But, he was also around pretty early on.
On topic:
I tell people that if they truly feel that they have an addiction, therapy is likely the first best bet. Why? Because it is. If they feel like they are having problems overeating, cutting out what they feel are their problem foods for a time can be helpful. This second part is what I see the most often in the mess by the posters present in this discussion.
But to deny that there are those who feel truly addicted but refuse to get therapy and in turn label those who suggested it as mean is to deny the reality of these boards. How am I supposed to know that by "addicted" a poster means that they want to be told that carbs are the devil and keto is the One True Way(TM) and be supportive of that? As has been mentioned, we can't ask these questions or else we get shot down as mean, not supportive, and all sorts of other nasty things that if we said to anyone else, we'd get into trouble. It's honestly mindboggling to me.0 -
diannethegeek wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »There are definitely some users who seem to be using it as an excuse. I recall an OP who posted "can't diet because addicted to junk food. If I have it at home I will eat it, and if I don't I will go out and buy it."
I think a lot of this is that people who aren't yet ready or internally motivated to lose the weight get messages, either from loved ones and friends or society in general, that they SHOULD lose the weight, and they feel compelled to go through the motions of trying but don't really want to change their habits, so they assert that they cannot.
I think that kind of thing is really common human behavior.
I don't deny that there aren't people who are either just looking for sympathy or are using it as an excuse, but labeling the majority based on the minority is ridiculous. And that is what is happening. Our first response is people are using it as an excuse, and if they don't agree, we suggest therapy..
I do wish that you wouldn't group everyone together in your posts. As someone who's been through therapy and used it to work through food issues and advised people on these boards to seek therapy or help when it seems like it would help (as we're discussing above) it's not my go-to advice AND it's not insulting to suggest someone seek outside help.
Why do you assume I am talking about you?
According to some, in this thread, if you have an addiction to anything, you need therapy (regardless if it's a self proclaimed one or not).
I remember 2 yrs ago responding to an OP and I offered some practical ways to distract from snacking constantly and I was rudely taken to task by another poster because I had given" stupid ideas" and was not a doctor, etc, and should only suggest therapy by a professional. I was stupified, since I had said "if all else fails, get professional help". So....taking time to suggest other options isn't always welcome. Therapy is usually well looked upon by all. That is why it is suggested often.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »There are definitely some users who seem to be using it as an excuse. I recall an OP who posted "can't diet because addicted to junk food. If I have it at home I will eat it, and if I don't I will go out and buy it."
I think a lot of this is that people who aren't yet ready or internally motivated to lose the weight get messages, either from loved ones and friends or society in general, that they SHOULD lose the weight, and they feel compelled to go through the motions of trying but don't really want to change their habits, so they assert that they cannot.
I think that kind of thing is really common human behavior.
I don't deny that there aren't people who are either just looking for sympathy or are using it as an excuse, but labeling the majority based on the minority is ridiculous. And that is what is happening. Our first response is people are using it as an excuse, and if they don't agree, we suggest therapy..
If someone finds themselves unable to control what they eat, I think therapy is a really good idea. If it is an actual addiction, professionals are probably the best source of help. If it isn't an actual addiction and it is another type of compulsive behavior, professionals are still probably the best source of help.
I would agree that therapy is an option, but not the default answer to everyone who mentions sugar addiction on this board. Especially, when that said answer, comes from a very vague post by the OP.
But if someone points out that there are very good reasons to suspect whether sugar addiction is real and OP responds "Yes, but I can't control how much sugar I eat" (or a variation thereof), therapy probably is the best (and kindest) recommendation.
Maybe I'm not fully understanding the situations that you're talking about. But I think if someone thinks sugar addiction is real and that it is impacting their life, therapy is a good choice *regardless of the factual truth of "sugar addiction."*
I think that is part of the problem. We all have particular threads or a combination of threads in mind when we are discussing these. I have been in countless threads were the default response was therapy or victim... but when additional context was brought into the equation by the OP, they were merely using the phrase loosely and wanted ways to improve their eating habits.
And like I have said, they an OP does exhibit true behaviors of ED's, then by all means, suggesting therapy is a solid answer. Like previously mentioned, that is something that is commonly discussed with people in the gaining weight section, since many of them are either recovering and/or have a history.
You do see how slippery this slope is though, right?
OP - "I'm so addicted to sugar! I just can't stop eating cookies. HELP!"
Poster - "when you say 'addicted' to sugar, what do you mean by that? Because sugar has not been proven to be physically addictive, however, it can feel a lot like a dependency when it is a habit that comforts you.
WK - it is too addictive, sugar is worse than heroin!
Poster - well not really, there are a lot of substances which have physical dependencies but there are a lot of behavorial things that trigger a dopamine response and sugar is one of those. That really doesn't mean that sugar is "addictive".
(thread or select posts moved to Nutrition Debate because perceived as not helpful)
By the time you get a few questions into trying to get into additional context, it has shifted into what some people are labeling as debate, semantics, and not helpful to OP, and any further posts trying to address what the OP means when they say they are addicted are going to be redirected into a separate section.
0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »
Limbo for being pagan, but virtuous. Suicides get a worse layer of the Inferno, and when you look at the situation, saying what Seneca did was suicide is kind of a semantics argument.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »There are definitely some users who seem to be using it as an excuse. I recall an OP who posted "can't diet because addicted to junk food. If I have it at home I will eat it, and if I don't I will go out and buy it."
I think a lot of this is that people who aren't yet ready or internally motivated to lose the weight get messages, either from loved ones and friends or society in general, that they SHOULD lose the weight, and they feel compelled to go through the motions of trying but don't really want to change their habits, so they assert that they cannot.
I think that kind of thing is really common human behavior.
I don't deny that there aren't people who are either just looking for sympathy or are using it as an excuse, but labeling the majority based on the minority is ridiculous. And that is what is happening. Our first response is people are using it as an excuse, and if they don't agree, we suggest therapy..
If someone finds themselves unable to control what they eat, I think therapy is a really good idea. If it is an actual addiction, professionals are probably the best source of help. If it isn't an actual addiction and it is another type of compulsive behavior, professionals are still probably the best source of help.
I would agree that therapy is an option, but not the default answer to everyone who mentions sugar addiction on this board. Especially, when that said answer, comes from a very vague post by the OP.
But if someone points out that there are very good reasons to suspect whether sugar addiction is real and OP responds "Yes, but I can't control how much sugar I eat" (or a variation thereof), therapy probably is the best (and kindest) recommendation.
Maybe I'm not fully understanding the situations that you're talking about. But I think if someone thinks sugar addiction is real and that it is impacting their life, therapy is a good choice *regardless of the factual truth of "sugar addiction."*
I think that is part of the problem. We all have particular threads or a combination of threads in mind when we are discussing these. I have been in countless threads were the default response was therapy or victim... but when additional context was brought into the equation by the OP, they were merely using the phrase loosely and wanted ways to improve their eating habits.
And like I have said, they an OP does exhibit true behaviors of ED's, then by all means, suggesting therapy is a solid answer. Like previously mentioned, that is something that is commonly discussed with people in the gaining weight section, since many of them are either recovering and/or have a history.
Heisenberg's uncertainty thread though - how can we ever say all the other circumstances would have come out without some people suggesting addiction isn't appropriate terminology or that therapy is necessary if they truly feel it is addiciton? Perhaps without those being mentioned, the person wouldn't have been drawn out to say it. So it seems unfair to say it is unproductive to discuss things that way when you can't actually show how the conversation would have happened in universe B where no said addiction to food substance isn't a thing.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »
Limbo for being pagan, but virtuous. Suicides get a worse layer of the Inferno, and when you look at the situation, saying what Seneca did was suicide is kind of a semantics argument.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 931 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions