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.
"Addiction" versus "Dependence"
Options
Replies
-
Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »I get what the OP is saying. Another way to think about it is this: If an alcoholic is sober and free of any physical dependencies, is it reasonable for them to attempt drinking moderately?
And the voice of reason cries out that this is a flawed line of reasoning because there is no such thing as an addiction to sugar as a substance!
If there were such a thing as sugarholism, I would say "Yes! Recovering sugarholics should avoid sugar just like an alcoholic should avoid alcohol."
But it isn't a thing!!!
The voice of reason clearly cries out that you are chosing to redefine the term addiction.
I maintain you either did not read, or you do not understand, or you are chosing to ignore aspects of my original post.
Again, I read your post thoroughly.
The only redefining going on is your turning "addiction" into "irresponsibility."
Addiction doesn't mean "I want this so bad that I'll do it even though it's bad for me."
Addiction means "I'm going to do this because I can't help it" or "I'm going to do this because it "hurts" not to."
ad·dic·tion
əˈdikSH(ə)n/
noun
the fact or condition of being addicted to a particular substance, thing, or activity.
"he committed the theft to finance his drug addiction"
ad·dict·ed
əˈdiktəd/
adjective
physically and mentally dependent on a particular substance, and unable to stop taking it without incurring adverse effects.
"she became addicted to alcohol and diet pills"
This condition does not occur with sugar. Period.
Nor does it occur with any behaviors...which you concluded earlier could be addictive.
ETA: There are several sources which define those terms differently.
Also, I do not think admitting to an addiction is a form of irresponsibility. In fact, I think it is the beginning of taking responsibility for individuals who are truly addicted.
Actually, it does occur with certain behaviors which is why I called that out in my first post.
I didn't say that it is irresponsible to admit an addiction. I was contesting the OP's assertion that addiction is defined as craving "something so strongly that they consume the substance, or repeat the behavior, even when the substance or behavior is doing substantial harm."
That is not addiction. It is irresponsibility.
Addiction is not just engaging in something regardless of consequences. It is engaging in something because they can't help it whether due to dependency, phsychological disorder, etc.
What substance are compulsive gamblers addicted to, and are we sure that those claiming addiction to sugar are not exposed to that same substance? Are compulsive gamblers just irresponsible?
Not to sound like the OP but did you even read what I said?
I said that addiction does occur with certain behaviors. Gamblers are addicted to gambling.0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »I get what the OP is saying. Another way to think about it is this: If an alcoholic is sober and free of any physical dependencies, is it reasonable for them to attempt drinking moderately?
And the voice of reason cries out that this is a flawed line of reasoning because there is no such thing as an addiction to sugar as a substance!
If there were such a thing as sugarholism, I would say "Yes! Recovering sugarholics should avoid sugar just like an alcoholic should avoid alcohol."
But it isn't a thing!!!
The voice of reason clearly cries out that you are chosing to redefine the term addiction.
I maintain you either did not read, or you do not understand, or you are chosing to ignore aspects of my original post.
Again, I read your post thoroughly.
The only redefining going on is your turning "addiction" into "irresponsibility."
Addiction doesn't mean "I want this so bad that I'll do it even though it's bad for me."
Addiction means "I'm going to do this because I can't help it" or "I'm going to do this because it "hurts" not to."
ad·dic·tion
əˈdikSH(ə)n/
noun
the fact or condition of being addicted to a particular substance, thing, or activity.
"he committed the theft to finance his drug addiction"
ad·dict·ed
əˈdiktəd/
adjective
physically and mentally dependent on a particular substance, and unable to stop taking it without incurring adverse effects.
"she became addicted to alcohol and diet pills"
This condition does not occur with sugar. Period.
You totally didn't get it. I wonder if it's worth trying to explain it another way.....
Is this the dictionary you are quoting?
Disagreeing with you =\= not getting it
Where did you receive your clinical training?
Must I have credentials to disagree with you?4 -
NorthCascades wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Yes, getting obese is bad for your health, but you aren't choosing to eat brownies over your family.
Morbidly obese people who can't take their children to the park are at least choosing brownies over normal and healthy family relationships. Some couples break up over this stuff, even when they have children.
I'm not saying all food is an addiction. Seems like most people who drink alcohol aren't alcoholics, and most fat people are probably not "addicted" to food. But some probably are. Hearing the definition of the word addiction makes it sound more likely, not less, that some people are addicted to food.
I think there are eating addictions, although rare, and these 600 lb people who keep coming up are likely in that category. I saw a show where a morbidly obese woman was interviewed and at least in her case I thought what she said about her feelings about food and eating sounded like addiction -- basically she didn't think there was anything else in her life. But this is NOT that common at all and not the same thing as having out of control feelings about some treats or eating behaviors, which is what is normally called addiction on MFP (and in the first post).
Also, allowing yourself to become fat is again not the same as choosing food over healthy relationships. That's the short term/long term problem. Back when I overate regularly, for example, I would normally think that it wouldn't make much difference in the scheme of things, that I would start soon, wasn't quite ready yet (and like many, many people who get overweight and obese, the health issues were potential, risks, not direct results yet). So to claim you need addiction, because how else can we explain someone doing something that hurts their health is wrong. Usually once people get to the point of it hurting their health in a more concrete way they feel overwhelmed by how long it will take to lose all that weight and have years of bad habits. It's again more like that imagining it being different from the sacrifice is hard, not that if given a choice between eating a cookie and living longer would be any choice at all.
People seem to be trying to argue that eating despite the negatives of becoming fat means that the desire for food (to excess) is an addiction, because why else eat given the negatives. That is not the same thing -- the issue is the attenuation. If someone really believed that eating a cookie would lead to them losing a job or a relationship with a child, would they? Only in very rare circumstances (eating addiction). I can't imagine that anyone who claims being addicted to sugar (meaning not sugar, but specific treats they enjoy) could see it getting to that level -- the negative consequences = being fat. I find it difficult to understand how anyone can see this as at all the same thing.
I've been fat, I've had out of control eating behaviors and I certainly have self medicated with food. None of that was remotely like addiction to me. When someone says it is, I think they don't get addiction.2 -
But if alcohol is an addictive substance shouldn't everybody avoid it? If the physical dependency is gone, shouldn't they be able to moderate?Carlos_421 wrote: »I get what the OP is saying. Another way to think about it is this: If an alcoholic is sober and free of any physical dependencies, is it reasonable for them to attempt drinking moderately?
And the voice of reason cries out that this is a flawed line of reasoning because there is no such thing as an addiction to sugar as a substance!
If there were such a thing as sugarholism, I would say "Yes! Recovering sugarholics should avoid sugar just like an alcoholic should avoid alcohol."
But it isn't a thing!!!
Dependency and addiction are different, as discussed in the first thread.
One can become physically dependent on alcohol, but that's really not the main thing with alcohol addiction.0 -
The debate about whether certain foods are addictive misses the point. The point is what helps us eat at a calorie macro that sustains weight loss (if that is what we are trying to do). There are different answers to that because all of us are different -- genetically, environmentally, behaviorally, etc. etc. Each of us needs to find what helps us sustain our calorie macro. Many of us need to figure out on an individual level what leads towards satiation and away from eating over our calorie macro. For me that is staying on a generally lower carb/higher protein diet. This doesn't work for everyone. Some people do better eating higher carb, a little of this and a little of that, etc. etc. For me, sugars (whether added to foods or "natural" leads to more hunger more quickly. I find it easier not to eat a little sugary stuff because it sets off a craving in me which usually leads to more sugary stuff and eating over my calorie macro. It isn't about willpower. I have an abundance of willpower -- that is why I succeed at work, can bicycle many hours, and run for hours, do cross fit, etc. etc (even if I am old).
There are reasons that sugar can set off cravings in some people. But not everyone is affected the same way. I think it is really important to talk about CICO and hitting our calorie macro as being the path to weight loss. But I think it does a disservice to pontificate that everyone has the same responses to sugar, or any other food for that matter.
If people are having trouble staying within their calorie guidelines, one thing to try is to eat less sugary stuff, and see if that makes it easier or harder to hit the calorie macro. Try an experiment of one and see what works for you.2 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »I get what the OP is saying. Another way to think about it is this: If an alcoholic is sober and free of any physical dependencies, is it reasonable for them to attempt drinking moderately?
And the voice of reason cries out that this is a flawed line of reasoning because there is no such thing as an addiction to sugar as a substance!
If there were such a thing as sugarholism, I would say "Yes! Recovering sugarholics should avoid sugar just like an alcoholic should avoid alcohol."
But it isn't a thing!!!
The voice of reason clearly cries out that you are chosing to redefine the term addiction.
I maintain you either did not read, or you do not understand, or you are chosing to ignore aspects of my original post.
Again, I read your post thoroughly.
The only redefining going on is your turning "addiction" into "irresponsibility."
Addiction doesn't mean "I want this so bad that I'll do it even though it's bad for me."
Addiction means "I'm going to do this because I can't help it" or "I'm going to do this because it "hurts" not to."
ad·dic·tion
əˈdikSH(ə)n/
noun
the fact or condition of being addicted to a particular substance, thing, or activity.
"he committed the theft to finance his drug addiction"
ad·dict·ed
əˈdiktəd/
adjective
physically and mentally dependent on a particular substance, and unable to stop taking it without incurring adverse effects.
"she became addicted to alcohol and diet pills"
This condition does not occur with sugar. Period.
You totally didn't get it. I wonder if it's worth trying to explain it another way.....
Is this the dictionary you are quoting?
Disagreeing with you =\= not getting it
Where did you receive your clinical training?
Must I have credentials to disagree with you?
Well my definitions are not my own. You respond as though I came up with this out of thin air.
So far what you have offered me seems to be from the dictionary.
Had I known I could have been trained by Webster's I could have saved thousands.3 -
The debate about whether certain foods are addictive misses the point. The point is what helps us eat at a calorie macro that sustains weight loss (if that is what we are trying to do). There are different answers to that because all of us are different -- genetically, environmentally, behaviorally, etc. etc. Each of us needs to find what helps us sustain our calorie macro. Many of us need to figure out on an individual level what leads towards satiation and away from eating over our calorie macro. For me that is staying on a generally lower carb/higher protein diet. This doesn't work for everyone. Some people do better eating higher carb, a little of this and a little of that, etc. etc. For me, sugars (whether added to foods or "natural" leads to more hunger more quickly. I find it easier not to eat a little sugary stuff because it sets off a craving in me which usually leads to more sugary stuff and eating over my calorie macro. It isn't about willpower. I have an abundance of willpower -- that is why I succeed at work, can bicycle many hours, and run for hours, do cross fit, etc. etc (even if I am old).
There are reasons that sugar can set off cravings in some people. But not everyone is affected the same way. I think it is really important to talk about CICO and hitting our calorie macro as being the path to weight loss. But I think it does a disservice to pontificate that everyone has the same responses to sugar, or any other food for that matter.
If people are having trouble staying within their calorie guidelines, one thing to try is to eat less sugary stuff, and see if that makes it easier or harder to hit the calorie macro. Try an experiment of one and see what works for you.
I know what a calorie is.
I know what a macro is.
I do not know what a calorie macro is.1 -
Calories per day on your plan0
-
The debate about whether certain foods are addictive misses the point.
It's the topic of the thread. It is of interest to some of us.The point is what helps us eat at a calorie macro that sustains weight loss
What is a "calorie macro"? You mean particular macro ratios? There are a huge diversity of these throughout human cultures, so outside the current society, it seems not to actually matter much. In this weird situation of constantly available food might there be ones that work better for individual people? Sure, probably. Don't see what that has to do with addiction. Not being satiated by my food choices isn't addiction.If people are having trouble staying within their calorie guidelines, one thing to try is to eat less sugary stuff
Sure, although I'd say first analyze why you are having trouble -- are you actually hungry? Eat different food, including adding in more protein and vegetables (or fiber). Are you not planning well? Do you have habits that are being triggered? Do you lack structure? There are numerous reasons. (But it seems off-topic in this thread -- these are things I bring up if someone is struggling with a deficit or feels out of control.)0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »I get what the OP is saying. Another way to think about it is this: If an alcoholic is sober and free of any physical dependencies, is it reasonable for them to attempt drinking moderately?
And the voice of reason cries out that this is a flawed line of reasoning because there is no such thing as an addiction to sugar as a substance!
If there were such a thing as sugarholism, I would say "Yes! Recovering sugarholics should avoid sugar just like an alcoholic should avoid alcohol."
But it isn't a thing!!!
The voice of reason clearly cries out that you are chosing to redefine the term addiction.
I maintain you either did not read, or you do not understand, or you are chosing to ignore aspects of my original post.
Again, I read your post thoroughly.
The only redefining going on is your turning "addiction" into "irresponsibility."
Addiction doesn't mean "I want this so bad that I'll do it even though it's bad for me."
Addiction means "I'm going to do this because I can't help it" or "I'm going to do this because it "hurts" not to."
ad·dic·tion
əˈdikSH(ə)n/
noun
the fact or condition of being addicted to a particular substance, thing, or activity.
"he committed the theft to finance his drug addiction"
ad·dict·ed
əˈdiktəd/
adjective
physically and mentally dependent on a particular substance, and unable to stop taking it without incurring adverse effects.
"she became addicted to alcohol and diet pills"
This condition does not occur with sugar. Period.
You totally didn't get it. I wonder if it's worth trying to explain it another way.....
Is this the dictionary you are quoting?
Disagreeing with you =\= not getting it
Where did you receive your clinical training?
Must I have credentials to disagree with you?
Well my definitions are not my own. You respond as though I came up with this out of thin air.
So far what you have offered me seems to be from the dictionary.
Had I known I could have been trained by Webster's I could have saved thousands.
Ok, I'll bite.
Whose are they?
And if you're insinuating that you've been trained in dealing with addicts after some of the stuff you've said in this thread, rest assured that I ain't buyin it.
No one, I repeat, no one who has worked with addicts would so flippantly say things like "600 pound people who keep eating even after they're bedridden are devastating to their families too."
No one who's truly dealt with the effects of real addiction would dare to compare being fat to being addicted.3 -
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »I think there are eating addictions, although rare, and these 600 lb people who keep coming up are likely in that category.
Then we don't disagree at all. I'm not saying it's incredibly prevalent, I'm saying we shouldn't write it off as something that can never happen. A few people in this thread seem eager to do exactly that.lemurcat12 wrote: »Also, allowing yourself to become fat is again not the same as choosing food over healthy relationships. That's the short term/long term problem. Back when I overate regularly, for example, I would normally think that it wouldn't make much difference in the scheme of things, that I would start soon, wasn't quite ready yet (and like many, many people who get overweight and obese, the health issues were potential, risks, not direct results yet). So to claim you need addiction, because how else can we explain someone doing something that hurts their health is wrong. Usually once people get to the point of it hurting their health in a more concrete way they feel overwhelmed by how long it will take to lose all that weight and have years of bad habits. It's again more like that imagining it being different from the sacrifice is hard, not that if given a choice between eating a cookie and living longer would be any choice at all.
None of this is any different from most drug use. We see people overdose in movies, or people muttering in the streets after they've destroyed their brains from too much crack. For most people the result isn't instant death. People smoke a joint, eat a whole bag of Doritos, and sit on the couch not doing anything with their lives. Nobody has one drink and then they're an alcoholic, it's a slower progression. By the time they're close to rock bottom, it's like the second half of the paragraph I'm replying to, it's the people who have already got to the point of hurting their health. I think you're writing this to try to convince me that food cravings are somehow different from other ones, but it's having the opposite effect.1 -
Got it -- don't understand why people are so hostile to the addiction discussion. I don't drink alcohol because for me 1 drink leads to too many more. Is this addictive behavior -- yes, but the solution is not to drink the first drink. For me, and I 'm not saying for anyone else, eating sugary stuff sets off cravings leading to more sugary stuff. So the solution (only for me) -- don't eat sugary stuff. You think being fat which can lead to death is any less serious that alcoholism? Anyway this thread just shows how much we don't know about human self-defeating behaviors whether with food, alcohol or drugs. I have a degree in this stuff and the research is all over the place. Mostly there isn't funding for research on how best to "cure" obesity -- who is going to pay for it? Mostly only governmental funding (and not much of it) because no way to make money off of obesity research. Accepting CICO is only the beginning. How do we succeed at eating at a deficit? It isn't easy, and different things work for different people. If it helps go ahead and use an addiction model -- there are solutions under that model that work for some people (e.g. Overeaters Anonymous (a free 12 step program to help participants deal with their food issues). OA doesn't prescribe a diet -- it leaves that to the individual, but it provides support to help stick with the food plan.4
-
In the past I've often participated in these debates, but to be honest I think it's a waste to try and argue the distinction. While it is true that it's not chemical dependence, people who have a history of overeating obviously have a problem controlling themselves. My own view is that this often stems from underlying emotional and psychologic issues that need to be treated simultaneously with a weight loss program. I see quite a few of those issues on MFP regularly, anything from childhood trauma and sexual abuse to mild to severe depression. As a result, I find myself walking a pretty fine line here when discussing weight loss because the physical act of losing weight is rather easy, but the habits and emotional/psychologic needs that are driving overeating will prevent someone from controlling their eating unless those issues are properly addressed.
Long story short, if you have this problem then get help. If you don't, perhaps a little understanding is in order.11 -
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »In the past I've often participated in these debates, but to be honest I think it's a waste to try and argue the distinction. While it is true that it's not chemical dependence, people who have a history of overeating obviously have a problem controlling themselves. My own view is that this often stems from underlying emotional and psychologic issues that need to be treated simultaneously with a weight loss program. I see quite a few of those issues on MFP regularly, anything from childhood trauma and sexual abuse to mild to severe depression. As a result, I find myself walking a pretty fine line here when discussing weight loss because the physical act of losing weight is rather easy, but the habits and emotional/psychologic needs that are driving overeating will prevent someone from controlling their eating unless those issues are properly addressed.
Long story short, if you have this problem then get help. If you don't, perhaps a little understanding is in order.
Yup, you are right.0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I think there are eating addictions, although rare, and these 600 lb people who keep coming up are likely in that category.
Then we don't disagree at all. I'm not saying it's incredibly prevalent, I'm saying we shouldn't write it off as something that can never happen. A few people in this thread seem eager to do exactly that.lemurcat12 wrote: »Also, allowing yourself to become fat is again not the same as choosing food over healthy relationships. That's the short term/long term problem. Back when I overate regularly, for example, I would normally think that it wouldn't make much difference in the scheme of things, that I would start soon, wasn't quite ready yet (and like many, many people who get overweight and obese, the health issues were potential, risks, not direct results yet). So to claim you need addiction, because how else can we explain someone doing something that hurts their health is wrong. Usually once people get to the point of it hurting their health in a more concrete way they feel overwhelmed by how long it will take to lose all that weight and have years of bad habits. It's again more like that imagining it being different from the sacrifice is hard, not that if given a choice between eating a cookie and living longer would be any choice at all.
None of this is any different from most drug use. We see people overdose in movies, or people muttering in the streets after they've destroyed their brains from too much crack. For most people the result isn't instant death. People smoke a joint, eat a whole bag of Doritos, and sit on the couch not doing anything with their lives. Nobody has one drink and then they're an alcoholic, it's a slower progression. By the time they're close to rock bottom, it's like the second half of the paragraph I'm replying to, it's the people who have already got to the point of hurting their health. I think you're writing this to try to convince me that food cravings are somehow different from other ones, but it's having the opposite effect.
I think it is very different. Not because you have one drink and are an alcoholic (although I knew I didn't drink normally from my first drink -- it felt physical but probably could have been cultural or family-related too, as an obscene number of my close relatives are alcoholics or addicts). But because of the role that it plays in your life once you are an addict/alcoholic. I think addiction narrows and narrows the person's focus such that they end up caring about the substance over all else, over life, family, job, etc. Nothing else matters in the same way. (And this has zero to do with craving -- I never really "craved" alcohol (as I understand the term -- it seems not to be how my mind works, I guess, as to me cravings are desires for tastes I enjoy, like when I craved lamb after being vegetarian all Lent), much as I had truly crazy drinking behaviors and did things I cannot explain.)
I was out of control with food, I was obese, I misused it, but it wasn't the same, and that being fat is unhealthy (and I knew it) still did not make it the same. And I don't think I was on a progression where it ever could have become the same (and I knew I was on that progression with booze early on).
I guess one question is if being out of control with highly palatable foods (not just sugary things) in this society where they are always around means you are on a progression to being a super morbidly obese person (my 600 lb life) who gives up all else but food. I don't think so -- I think that's quite rare and most of the people who feel out of control with food will simply struggle with their weight within the more typical context. That's what I think we are disagreeing about, maybe.0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »I get what the OP is saying. Another way to think about it is this: If an alcoholic is sober and free of any physical dependencies, is it reasonable for them to attempt drinking moderately?
And the voice of reason cries out that this is a flawed line of reasoning because there is no such thing as an addiction to sugar as a substance!
If there were such a thing as sugarholism, I would say "Yes! Recovering sugarholics should avoid sugar just like an alcoholic should avoid alcohol."
But it isn't a thing!!!
The voice of reason clearly cries out that you are chosing to redefine the term addiction.
I maintain you either did not read, or you do not understand, or you are chosing to ignore aspects of my original post.
Again, I read your post thoroughly.
The only redefining going on is your turning "addiction" into "irresponsibility."
Addiction doesn't mean "I want this so bad that I'll do it even though it's bad for me."
Addiction means "I'm going to do this because I can't help it" or "I'm going to do this because it "hurts" not to."
ad·dic·tion
əˈdikSH(ə)n/
noun
the fact or condition of being addicted to a particular substance, thing, or activity.
"he committed the theft to finance his drug addiction"
ad·dict·ed
əˈdiktəd/
adjective
physically and mentally dependent on a particular substance, and unable to stop taking it without incurring adverse effects.
"she became addicted to alcohol and diet pills"
This condition does not occur with sugar. Period.
You totally didn't get it. I wonder if it's worth trying to explain it another way.....
Is this the dictionary you are quoting?
Disagreeing with you =\= not getting it
Where did you receive your clinical training?
Must I have credentials to disagree with you?
Well my definitions are not my own. You respond as though I came up with this out of thin air.
So far what you have offered me seems to be from the dictionary.
Had I known I could have been trained by Webster's I could have saved thousands.
Ok, I'll bite.
Whose are they?
And if you're insinuating that you've been trained in dealing with addicts after some of the stuff you've said in this thread, rest assured that I ain't buyin it.
No one, I repeat, no one who has worked with addicts would so flippantly say things like "600 pound people who keep eating even after they're bedridden are devastating to their families too."
No one who's truly dealt with the effects of real addiction would dare to compare being fat to being addicted.
I have said repeatedly in this thread that there are some big differences between drug addiction and things like food or gambling addiction. You chose to pretend I never made those statements.
My primary expertise is in severe psychiatric disorders, and in people with "dual diagnosis" (i.e. mental illness plus substance abuse). I worked clinically for 15 years, and was clinical director of a partial hospitalization program for 7 years. I worked with many people with severe drug issues.
If you chose not to believe my experience, I have no response. Someone could easily invent credentials on a forum like this. I haven't done so; but I simply can't prove it to the satisfaction of a skeptic.
The 600 pound bedridden adult can no longer work or do anything productive for their family. He or she accrued huge medical bills, and can offer no income. If I were to behave like this; my family would suffer immensely. This was my point; and it is valid.
The definitions I provided come from the U.S. NIH National Institute on Drug Abuse, and are consistent with what I learned in school and in the clinic. I did not invent them.5 -
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »In the past I've often participated in these debates, but to be honest I think it's a waste to try and argue the distinction. While it is true that it's not chemical dependence, people who have a history of overeating obviously have a problem controlling themselves. My own view is that this often stems from underlying emotional and psychologic issues that need to be treated simultaneously with a weight loss program. I see quite a few of those issues on MFP regularly, anything from childhood trauma and sexual abuse to mild to severe depression. As a result, I find myself walking a pretty fine line here when discussing weight loss because the physical act of losing weight is rather easy, but the habits and emotional/psychologic needs that are driving overeating will prevent someone from controlling their eating unless those issues are properly addressed.
Long story short, if you have this problem then get help. If you don't, perhaps a little understanding is in order.
Yup, you are right.
I just wish more people would pay attention to the "get help" part.1 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »@lemurcat12 hit on a valid point. There's a biiiiiiiig difference between "I'm craving these cookies so much that I'm going to eat them even though they will make me fat" and "I'm craving cookies so badly that I'm willing to steal from family members, abandon relationships and sell my body for a hit of tollhouse."
There are, however, many cases of people exhibiting other lesser types of addict behavior like eating food out of trash cans and stealing sweets from stores rather than face the humility of buying them.
This would indicate an eating disorder, not a substance addiction.
There doesn't need to be a substance for there to be an addiction. Think gambling and other behavioral addictions.
I see you acknowledged that behavioral addiction is a thing in your first post on this thread so am not sure why you subsequently insisted that substances be involved.1 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »@lemurcat12 hit on a valid point. There's a biiiiiiiig difference between "I'm craving these cookies so much that I'm going to eat them even though they will make me fat" and "I'm craving cookies so badly that I'm willing to steal from family members, abandon relationships and sell my body for a hit of tollhouse."
Stealing and prostitution are not mandatory criteria for addiction. They are just some of many examples of harmful actions.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 391 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 925 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions