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"
Replies
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »I DO think it's harder for someone who is dealing with intense sugar cravings than it is for someone who is not. They both have all the normal challenges of staying in a calorie deficit, plus the so called sugar addict is dealing with an added element. One that they often consider to be their biggest challenge.
I don't. For me a craving is relatively easy to deal with because it's clear and can either be fought or dealt with. If I crave a food I figure out how to satisfy the craving in a healthier way, have a little, or fight it/put it off. What has always been harder for me are other things -- like the mind saying "oh, it doesn't matter" or "I'll do this tonight and then tomorrow will be different." Similarly, with aggressive cravings you can figure out how to satisfy them in some way, but there's also the constant feeling of wanting to eat or the habitual response of wanting to eat with certain triggers (emotional eating).
You can figure out how to deal with this other stuff too, and I have been successfully (and not, from time to time) working on it, but I disagree that it's inherently easier than cravings or that someone who tends to prefer savory foods (me, although I like plenty of sweet things) is somehow more responsible for their weight issues than someone who is a sugar fiend.
NOT saying my stuff is harder, of course, but this idea that some people have a much harder time than others (just because they say they do) is IMO a way of making an excuse.
I think some people do have a harder time -- I think having eating disorder type thinking or long-term messed up ideas about food (vs. logical thinking) or being really wrapped up in the idea that being fat/overeating makes you a failure so you end up with a cycle of shame and depression and the like ALL make it harder. (But that doesn't mean you have a harder time in general than others -- I find it really offputting when people do the "poor me, everyone else has it so easy" stuff.) But usually that has exactly nothing to do with who is claiming addiction and who is not. I've been motivated to reach out to some posters (and seen others I wanted to reach out to but didn't know how to help) who I felt like were really struggling and had a harder time than others (often people who were morbidly obese) and I have a friend in RL in that situation who I wish I knew how to help, but these aren't generally the people I've seen claiming "addiction" (and I don't think that's the issue--it's rarely just sugar, or just some specific food, after all, but maladaptive eating behaviors).
I also think not having experience with eating healthfully at all (the people who seem to never eat vegetables, not to have an idea of what a balanced meal is, who don't cook ever, or ask what to eat if they cut down on sugar, as if dinner normally involved lots of added sugar) can certainly make things harder, but again that's not about addiction. It's about education and developing your palate.
The bolded part reminds me of the "contests in He!!" that my husband I and used to have early on in our marriage (when we were both younger and less mature). I'm a sahm, my husband commutes for work. He gets up earlier than I do, but often my sleep is broken because I'm the one who attends to the children if they wake at night. We used to spend considerable time arguing over 'who is most tired' lol. I refer to it as a "contest in He!!" because whoever "wins" ultimately loses (you're the most tired? congratulations, you lose). Once we stopped seeing it as some sort of competition, we were able to help each other and work together to maximize everyone's sleep.
Acknowledging that some people may have a harder time managing weight than others is not making excuses (it's only an excuse if they use it as a reason to stop trying altogether).
But that's what they often seem to be doing. (I'm also thinking of the posts that are basically "it's not fair, my friends eat worse than me" or "it's not fair, I don't eat very much"). That strikes me as denial (amusingly, given the topic of the thread). I just figure that someone claiming that isn't ready and usually don't engage.
More to the point, however, you seem to be making assumptions that certain specific people have it harder, and simply because they claim addiction. What I see is the people using the term addiction go on to describe the same sorts of things that many or most of us deal with, and just don't yet have the tools or strategies to deal (I usually try to help with this). The purpose of the term addiction seems to be to take something that's really quite typical and human (bad habits re eating behaviors aggravated by how available food is and often a lack of organization or logical thought about food) and classify it as a special disorder that only a few people have, which leads them to think that what they are dealing with is not normal or what many of us successfully have dealt with, but some sort of extra problem that makes things different or harder for them. I don't think that's helpful. When I stopped thinking "why is this happening to me" about food and realized how much it was the result of my choices is when I was able to lose weight. Not always -- I've regained, struggled with stuff (including depression), etc. I know it's not always easy. But thinking that there's something wrong with you if it's not easy or you are tempted or struggle or act contrary to your intentions (all part of the human condition, really), is what seems to me to be a huge mistake. You aren't tempted because you have been made addicted by BigSugar. You are tempted because you are a normal human being.If you are finding it off putting that others deal with issues you apparently don't deal with, that's a reflection on you.
This is not what I've said at all, and I don't believe you could have gotten this from an honest reading of my posts.
To clarify - I'm not saying that everyone who claims to be addicted truly is addicted. They may very well be just learning to cope with the same things everyone else deals with. And again, the distinction isn't always clear cut, and often only happens in retrospect.
Other than the fact I see 0 reason to believe that there is any kind of food addiction (again, eating addiction is different, though rare), I mostly agree with this. I think they are learning to cope with the same things many others are or have.I guess I don't take someone dealing with issues that I don't deal with (or that I've learned to deal with effectively) as a commentary on how hard/easy it is for me or anyone else.
So far I've seen no evidence that the people claiming addiction ARE dealing with issues others are not. When you read the specifics, it seems to me that they are simply assuming that the same things most deal with are abnormal and uncommon, are "addiction." They assume others are not tempted, that they will naturally just stop eating when full if eating out of a big basket of tortilla chips or some such. That's how I think they are like those insisting that everyone else has it easier. What they are claiming is some huge difficulty for them is just normal human stuff.I do truly believe that some people do have it harder than others, for a multitude of reasons (addiction being a possibility, uncommon, but still possible).
Sure, I just don't think we can typically tell from MFP who has it easier such that it's possible to claim (as people seemed to be) that anyone who doesn't believe in food addiction just doesn't understand how HARD it is for some. I've certainly found it harder at some stages of life than others (why I've lost weight when I did and not or even gained at other times). If by addiction you mean eating addiction, I can agree with the statement (and certainly that it's uncommon and a hurdle).There is a marked difference between acknowledging one's personal hurdles and challenges and working to find solutions vs having a pity party and using those challenges as a reason to give up altogether. I do find the latter offputting, not because they feel they have it harder than some others, but because they decide that's reason to stop trying or they think they are the *only one evah* to have the issue in question. If that's more what you meant, I'm sorry if I misunderstood.
Yes, that's basically what I meant, as well as assuming that most people who get fat just ate too much in some kind of chosen celebration of gluttony or something, whereas they couldn't help it, they were "addicted" (by which they mean were tempted and felt out of control around food).
It's not abnormal or a psychological problem or an "addiction" to have trouble moderating foods absent a strategy and when you've been eating immoderately for some time. It's 100% normal and expected. I'm more surprised that some don't have such troubles.
I don't think there is an implicit assumption that everyone else got fat by "logically overindulging". I think most overweight people who don't suffer disordered eating (let's leave aside the term addiction for a moment) gain weight either gradually over time (combo of metabolism naturally slowing due to age coupled with just slight over eating, even just an extra 100 calories per day adds up over time) or there is a life event that leads to gain (an accident that leaves the person immobilized for a period of time, pregnancies, change from a very physically active job to a more sedentary one, quitting smoking, etc). So no, it's not a conscious choice to indulge in gluttony. I don't think people who claim to be addicted to foods are trying to make any such claim. On the contrary, I think they know (at least I hope they know) that they got fat making bad decisions; perhaps "addiction" is their way of explaining why they made those bad decisions (not excusing, just explaining). Whether it's true or not would really depend.
As others have pointed out, there currently exists no evidence to prove that there is any physical mechanism for addiction to certain foods. But the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Many here reject the notion of addiction to certain foods out of hand. And that's fine; at this point it seems a matter of opinion. We still can't explain why some people can handle moderate intake of certain substances and never become addicted, but others become strongly addicted even after light/occasional intake. I'm of the opinion that we may well one day find out that, yes, you can become addicted (both physically and mentally) to certain foods or ingredients. And that there will be a distinction between "problem" consumers of those foods and true addicts (just as there is a distinction between problem drinkers and alcoholics). But it's all pure speculation at this point.
I don't think anyone is claiming that the majority of people don't have to deal with cravings or temptations. I think the claim is more that, for some people, overcoming those things is (or at least appears to be) harder than it is for others. Maybe addiction is the wrong term, who knows? But if there is a mechanism that makes cravings more intense or temptations harder to resist, yeah, it sounds like it could be a form of addiction; at least I can't think of a better term for it.
3 -
tlflag1620 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »I DO think it's harder for someone who is dealing with intense sugar cravings than it is for someone who is not. They both have all the normal challenges of staying in a calorie deficit, plus the so called sugar addict is dealing with an added element. One that they often consider to be their biggest challenge.
I don't. For me a craving is relatively easy to deal with because it's clear and can either be fought or dealt with. If I crave a food I figure out how to satisfy the craving in a healthier way, have a little, or fight it/put it off. What has always been harder for me are other things -- like the mind saying "oh, it doesn't matter" or "I'll do this tonight and then tomorrow will be different." Similarly, with aggressive cravings you can figure out how to satisfy them in some way, but there's also the constant feeling of wanting to eat or the habitual response of wanting to eat with certain triggers (emotional eating).
You can figure out how to deal with this other stuff too, and I have been successfully (and not, from time to time) working on it, but I disagree that it's inherently easier than cravings or that someone who tends to prefer savory foods (me, although I like plenty of sweet things) is somehow more responsible for their weight issues than someone who is a sugar fiend.
NOT saying my stuff is harder, of course, but this idea that some people have a much harder time than others (just because they say they do) is IMO a way of making an excuse.
I think some people do have a harder time -- I think having eating disorder type thinking or long-term messed up ideas about food (vs. logical thinking) or being really wrapped up in the idea that being fat/overeating makes you a failure so you end up with a cycle of shame and depression and the like ALL make it harder. (But that doesn't mean you have a harder time in general than others -- I find it really offputting when people do the "poor me, everyone else has it so easy" stuff.) But usually that has exactly nothing to do with who is claiming addiction and who is not. I've been motivated to reach out to some posters (and seen others I wanted to reach out to but didn't know how to help) who I felt like were really struggling and had a harder time than others (often people who were morbidly obese) and I have a friend in RL in that situation who I wish I knew how to help, but these aren't generally the people I've seen claiming "addiction" (and I don't think that's the issue--it's rarely just sugar, or just some specific food, after all, but maladaptive eating behaviors).
I also think not having experience with eating healthfully at all (the people who seem to never eat vegetables, not to have an idea of what a balanced meal is, who don't cook ever, or ask what to eat if they cut down on sugar, as if dinner normally involved lots of added sugar) can certainly make things harder, but again that's not about addiction. It's about education and developing your palate.
The bolded part reminds me of the "contests in He!!" that my husband I and used to have early on in our marriage (when we were both younger and less mature). I'm a sahm, my husband commutes for work. He gets up earlier than I do, but often my sleep is broken because I'm the one who attends to the children if they wake at night. We used to spend considerable time arguing over 'who is most tired' lol. I refer to it as a "contest in He!!" because whoever "wins" ultimately loses (you're the most tired? congratulations, you lose). Once we stopped seeing it as some sort of competition, we were able to help each other and work together to maximize everyone's sleep.
Acknowledging that some people may have a harder time managing weight than others is not making excuses (it's only an excuse if they use it as a reason to stop trying altogether).
But that's what they often seem to be doing. (I'm also thinking of the posts that are basically "it's not fair, my friends eat worse than me" or "it's not fair, I don't eat very much"). That strikes me as denial (amusingly, given the topic of the thread). I just figure that someone claiming that isn't ready and usually don't engage.
More to the point, however, you seem to be making assumptions that certain specific people have it harder, and simply because they claim addiction. What I see is the people using the term addiction go on to describe the same sorts of things that many or most of us deal with, and just don't yet have the tools or strategies to deal (I usually try to help with this). The purpose of the term addiction seems to be to take something that's really quite typical and human (bad habits re eating behaviors aggravated by how available food is and often a lack of organization or logical thought about food) and classify it as a special disorder that only a few people have, which leads them to think that what they are dealing with is not normal or what many of us successfully have dealt with, but some sort of extra problem that makes things different or harder for them. I don't think that's helpful. When I stopped thinking "why is this happening to me" about food and realized how much it was the result of my choices is when I was able to lose weight. Not always -- I've regained, struggled with stuff (including depression), etc. I know it's not always easy. But thinking that there's something wrong with you if it's not easy or you are tempted or struggle or act contrary to your intentions (all part of the human condition, really), is what seems to me to be a huge mistake. You aren't tempted because you have been made addicted by BigSugar. You are tempted because you are a normal human being.If you are finding it off putting that others deal with issues you apparently don't deal with, that's a reflection on you.
This is not what I've said at all, and I don't believe you could have gotten this from an honest reading of my posts.
To clarify - I'm not saying that everyone who claims to be addicted truly is addicted. They may very well be just learning to cope with the same things everyone else deals with. And again, the distinction isn't always clear cut, and often only happens in retrospect.
Other than the fact I see 0 reason to believe that there is any kind of food addiction (again, eating addiction is different, though rare), I mostly agree with this. I think they are learning to cope with the same things many others are or have.I guess I don't take someone dealing with issues that I don't deal with (or that I've learned to deal with effectively) as a commentary on how hard/easy it is for me or anyone else.
So far I've seen no evidence that the people claiming addiction ARE dealing with issues others are not. When you read the specifics, it seems to me that they are simply assuming that the same things most deal with are abnormal and uncommon, are "addiction." They assume others are not tempted, that they will naturally just stop eating when full if eating out of a big basket of tortilla chips or some such. That's how I think they are like those insisting that everyone else has it easier. What they are claiming is some huge difficulty for them is just normal human stuff.I do truly believe that some people do have it harder than others, for a multitude of reasons (addiction being a possibility, uncommon, but still possible).
Sure, I just don't think we can typically tell from MFP who has it easier such that it's possible to claim (as people seemed to be) that anyone who doesn't believe in food addiction just doesn't understand how HARD it is for some. I've certainly found it harder at some stages of life than others (why I've lost weight when I did and not or even gained at other times). If by addiction you mean eating addiction, I can agree with the statement (and certainly that it's uncommon and a hurdle).There is a marked difference between acknowledging one's personal hurdles and challenges and working to find solutions vs having a pity party and using those challenges as a reason to give up altogether. I do find the latter offputting, not because they feel they have it harder than some others, but because they decide that's reason to stop trying or they think they are the *only one evah* to have the issue in question. If that's more what you meant, I'm sorry if I misunderstood.
Yes, that's basically what I meant, as well as assuming that most people who get fat just ate too much in some kind of chosen celebration of gluttony or something, whereas they couldn't help it, they were "addicted" (by which they mean were tempted and felt out of control around food).
It's not abnormal or a psychological problem or an "addiction" to have trouble moderating foods absent a strategy and when you've been eating immoderately for some time. It's 100% normal and expected. I'm more surprised that some don't have such troubles.
I don't think there is an implicit assumption that everyone else got fat by "logically overindulging". I think most overweight people who don't suffer disordered eating (let's leave aside the term addiction for a moment) gain weight either gradually over time (combo of metabolism naturally slowing due to age coupled with just slight over eating, even just an extra 100 calories per day adds up over time) or there is a life event that leads to gain (an accident that leaves the person immobilized for a period of time, pregnancies, change from a very physically active job to a more sedentary one, quitting smoking, etc). So no, it's not a conscious choice to indulge in gluttony. I don't think people who claim to be addicted to foods are trying to make any such claim. On the contrary, I think they know (at least I hope they know) that they got fat making bad decisions; perhaps "addiction" is their way of explaining why they made those bad decisions (not excusing, just explaining). Whether it's true or not would really depend.
The way I read the "food addiction" arguments, that is exactly what they are denying. Others made bad decisions; they couldn't help it. (Part of why this bothers me is that that's NOT what addiction even means -- someone who is an alcoholic and drinks is making a bad decision, after all -- but it is how addiction is used in this context.)As others have pointed out, there currently exists no evidence to prove that there is any physical mechanism for addiction to certain foods. But the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
We have MORE than that, though. People claim to be addicted to one food with a high sugar content but not another, or one food with a high combination of sugar + butter but not another. It's like claiming someone could be addicted to mass market beers (supposedly more "processed" or some such nonsense, let's say) ;-) vs. craft beers.I don't think anyone is claiming that the majority of people don't have to deal with cravings or temptations. I think the claim is more that, for some people, overcoming those things is (or at least appears to be) harder than it is for others.
But what's the evidence for that? People who post the addiction threads mostly seem to feel out of control under the same circumstances that I think it would be common and expected to feel out of control. I normally read those threads and think I totally understand how the person is feeling and what they are dealing with--it sounds so familiar. It also just doesn't sound like addiction.But if there is a mechanism that makes cravings more intense or temptations harder to resist, yeah, it sounds like it could be a form of addiction; at least I can't think of a better term for it.
Where are we getting the idea that people who call it addiction are experiencing more intense cravings? (And again, I don't even think "cravings" are really the whole issue with addiction. The mind is more subtle than that.)3 -
goldthistime wrote: »I DO think it's harder for someone who is dealing with intense sugar cravings than it is for someone who is not. They both have all the normal challenges of staying in a calorie deficit, plus the so called sugar addict is dealing with an added element. One that they often consider to be their biggest challenge.
Yeah but it's the end of the MFP forum world to say someone has a harder time than another person. Bad bad bad!
I think everyone has their own challenges. Some have it easier than others. With the differences in bodies (hormone levels as an example), it is harder and easier for individuals. Uhoh, another end of the world statements.
The problem here is that this is an internet forum and everyone's a stranger. How is someone to judge whether their challenge is greater or less than someone else's? How do they know their sugar cravings are more or less intense than someone else's (barring those that say they have none)?
Frankly, many times posts about 'uncontrollable' cravings have eventually turned out to be the poster unintentionally making a mountain out of a molehill. Often the posters are successful with basic strategies for breaking a habit, so clearly the cravings were not insurmountable although they seem overwhelming at the time.1 -
tlflag1620 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »tlflag1620 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.
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.
Addiction is irresponsible.
I think here is where the disconnect takes place - you seem to think (for some reason) that admitting or claiming to be an addict somehow absolves a person of any and all responsibility for their choices. It doesn't.
I don't know where you got that because that's not even close to accurate.
Addicts are fully responsible for their own situations and actions. Absolutely.
If I misunderstood you, I apologize. You had said inability to control ones behavior wrt food is "irresponsibility", but addict (who are incapable of controlling their behavior wrt whatever they are addicted to) "can't help it". In both cases the person "can't help it". That's kind of what characterizes it as addiction; if they were in complete control they wouldn't be addicts.
And really, I should clarify - unaddressed, untreated addiction is irresponsible. Someone who has taken steps to get help and change their behavior and regain control is not irresponsible.
What I was saying there is that when I stopped at Wendy's this evening and got a chocolate frosty even though it would put me in a surplus for the day, I was not out of control.
If I'd decided to go home and have some steamed broccoli instead, I'd have been just fine.
But I was irresponsible and went for the instant gratification.
For an addict, resisting temptation results in withdrawal and/or fits.
It is certainly irresponsible to use addictive substances.
But while all addictions are irresponsible, not all irresponsibility is a sign of addiction.
You said it yourself - you were not out of control. You chose to go over your calories one day. I wouldn't even call that "irresponsible". If it were happening frequently, maybe, but I get the impression that you make responsible food choices the majority of the time. Just as someone can go to the bar now and then, have two beers, and end it, and not be an addict, you can go to Wendy's, have one frosty, and end it, and not be an addict. Those examples are not addiction. They're not even what I would call irresponsible.
Ah, but what if last night it was a frosty and tonight it were mozzarella sticks from Applebee's? Tomorrow could be pizza and the next day BBQ. Over the weekend it might be a bunch of peanut butter and ice cream.
I could keep up that kind of reckless eating until no one would call it responsible anymore (again, assuming each of those things put me in a surplus).
Am I addicted to eating poorly? Nope. Just lazy and/or apathetic.
Am I addicted to sugar? Nope. A lot of those foods are light on sugar and heavy on fat.
At this point, I'm eating so irresponsibly that I'm harming myself and still no addiction is involved.
And such is the case for the vast majority of dieters who claim to be addicted to sugar.tlflag1620 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »tlflag1620 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.
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.
Addiction is irresponsible.
I think here is where the disconnect takes place - you seem to think (for some reason) that admitting or claiming to be an addict somehow absolves a person of any and all responsibility for their choices. It doesn't.
I don't know where you got that because that's not even close to accurate.
Addicts are fully responsible for their own situations and actions. Absolutely.
If I misunderstood you, I apologize. You had said inability to control ones behavior wrt food is "irresponsibility", but addict (who are incapable of controlling their behavior wrt whatever they are addicted to) "can't help it". In both cases the person "can't help it". That's kind of what characterizes it as addiction; if they were in complete control they wouldn't be addicts.
And really, I should clarify - unaddressed, untreated addiction is irresponsible. Someone who has taken steps to get help and change their behavior and regain control is not irresponsible.
What I was saying there is that when I stopped at Wendy's this evening and got a chocolate frosty even though it would put me in a surplus for the day, I was not out of control.
If I'd decided to go home and have some steamed broccoli instead, I'd have been just fine.
But I was irresponsible and went for the instant gratification.
For an addict, resisting temptation results in withdrawal and/or fits.
It is certainly irresponsible to use addictive substances.
But while all addictions are irresponsible, not all irresponsibility is a sign of addiction.
No one is saying that being addicted is an excuse not to lose weight, not sure why you think it is.
I have already replied to you directly and explained that I do not think it is. Not sure why you think I do.
What I have said is that there are those who show up on MFP saying that it's impossible for them to lose weight because they're addicted to sugar. Deny it if you like but it happens frequently.
I never said they have a legitimate excuse (they don't) but they do try to claim their supposed addiction as a valid excuse for why they're overweight.
Again, just so that you don't misunderstand me or forget what I said again:
They try to use their supposed addiction to sugar as an excuse but it is not a legitimate excuse at all, even if it were real.
Clear now?tlflag1620 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »tlflag1620 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.
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.
Addiction is irresponsible.
I think here is where the disconnect takes place - you seem to think (for some reason) that admitting or claiming to be an addict somehow absolves a person of any and all responsibility for their choices. It doesn't.
I don't know where you got that because that's not even close to accurate.
Addicts are fully responsible for their own situations and actions. Absolutely.
If I misunderstood you, I apologize. You had said inability to control ones behavior wrt food is "irresponsibility", but addict (who are incapable of controlling their behavior wrt whatever they are addicted to) "can't help it". In both cases the person "can't help it". That's kind of what characterizes it as addiction; if they were in complete control they wouldn't be addicts.
And really, I should clarify - unaddressed, untreated addiction is irresponsible. Someone who has taken steps to get help and change their behavior and regain control is not irresponsible.
What I was saying there is that when I stopped at Wendy's this evening and got a chocolate frosty even though it would put me in a surplus for the day, I was not out of control.
If I'd decided to go home and have some steamed broccoli instead, I'd have been just fine.
But I was irresponsible and went for the instant gratification.
For an addict, resisting temptation results in withdrawal and/or fits.
It is certainly irresponsible to use addictive substances.
But while all addictions are irresponsible, not all irresponsibility is a sign of addiction.
Wasn't it you that posted the dictionary definition of addiction? If so, did you read what you copied and pasted? I ask with no snark, it seems to me you didn't read it, or at least skipped over quite an important part - addiction is a physical ***or mental*** dependence. We are all physically dependent on food, obviously. When people talk about food addiction it is generally in terms of psychological addiction.
It actually says "*and* mental dependence."
And again, I have not once contested the idea that eating addictions exist. What I have maintained is that the substance of sugar itself is not addictive (despite numerous claims on MFP each week that it's as addictive as crack).
A person may have an eating addiction. I won't dispute that. But they are not addicted to the substance of sugar.3 -
Excuse me, excessive sugar intake can be indicative of yeasts overgrowth issues, if someone has a compromised digestive tract the beneficial microbs become outnumbered so the less beneficial ones which thrive on sugar dominate, these also impact the immune system. These people tend to feel the cold more than others because yeasts thrive at lower temperatures.
Other people can have problems with sugar because it puts increased pressure on the liver and the body's elimination system. Sugar dominates our modern lifestyles which are so very different to our grandparents. These are just two suggestion for why people can consider themselves addicted/dependant on sugar.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »I'm late to the game and so this may have been covered and I missed it, but the OP seems to put things into one of two categories: addiction (in my mind a debilitating and all consuming physiological component) or dependence (relying heavily on a substance or a habit to satisfy a particular need). What I see often in these forums, when a person claims they are addicted to sugar or food, is more of what I would call a behavioral compulsion tied to a very strong craving. Often, if the OP is interested in discussing in detail their particular challenges, it seems that the issues arise in under certain situations (stress, boredom, depression) and are related to a particular food (M&Ms) but not an overarching substance (ie all sugar) which indicates to me neither addiction, nor dependence are the correct terminology for what they are experiencing.
What I usually try to offer with posts like those is to acknowledge that those desires can make the poster feel out of control and like the food has power over them, similar to what an addict describes, but when a person analyzes the situational and emotional triggers they often realize that these are more of a factor than the food itself. To me, it is empowering to acknowledge that the food itself is not addictive, or that they aren't dependent on it; but that they can work through these emotional and habitual triggers and learn to either avoid the food altogether, or eventually learn to moderate it. I don't try to diminish what they are going through, but instead try to offer them some alternatives (Cognitive Behavioral Therapy is a good one for someone who is really struggling with these triggers) so that they may get at the root cause of the issue.
I think that words and the way we use them do matter, and that by letting something slide when someone says they are "addicted to food" or "sugar is worse than heroin" while it may seem harmless, it can in fact perpetuate that person's learned helplessness.
Since I've gotten distracted into rather bizarre tangents (my own fault), I just want to say that this is precisely my own view as well, and thank you for putting it so well.
Ditto0 -
What I have said is that there are those who show up on MFP saying that it's impossible for them to lose weight because they're addicted to sugar. Deny it if you like but it happens frequently.
I never said they have a legitimate excuse (they don't) but they do try to claim their supposed addiction as a valid excuse for why they're overweight.
Again, just so that you don't misunderstand me or forget what I said again:
They try to use their supposed addiction to sugar as an excuse but it is not a legitimate excuse at all, even if it were real.
Claiming an addiction as a reason that they are overweight is completely different than saying that it is impossible to lose weight because they are addicted. A person saying the reason that they're drunk all the time is because they are an alcoholic would not necessarily be incorrect. That person saying that they can't get sober because they are an alcoholic would be wrong.
I am still skeptical of the idea that people come unsolicited to weight loss forums to proclaim an excuse for not losing weight. I think the fact that they post it on a forum is an appeal for help rather than a call for absolution.8 -
I can't speak for anyone else, but my experience for the last 50 years or more is one of "food thinking". While everyone else is playing tag football or volleyball at the company picnic, I am eyeballing the food being set out and feeling a bit desperately competitive to get into the line without appearing too eager so I don't miss out on anything. I have eaten many times when I wasn't hungry. If there is leftover food that I like, it occupies my thoughts until it is eaten or out of the house. I have put perfectly good food down the garbage disposal, depriving other family members, rather than have it call to me. If there are goodies at work, I have to stay out of the break room and I am aware, despite being very busy at work, of the food sitting there. To me this seems an addictive pattern. It doesn't mean I don't resist it, but the effort and energy it takes every waking minute is disheartening and sometimes I am not strong. I am tired of having to be strong every waking minute. Lots of other people don't think about food all the time. I am working with a bariatric endocrinologist now on this problem, and I am hopeful.5
-
Fixed it and I agree!Carlos_421 wrote: »And again, I have not once contested the idea that eating addictions exist. What I have maintained is that the substance of sugar itself is not addictive (despite numerous claims on MFP each week that it's as addictive as crack).
A person may have an eating addiction. I won't dispute that. But they are not physically addicted to the substance of sugar.
In spite of what the ads suggest, I've never heard of a single person prostituting themselves for a Klondike Bar.
4 -
KarenHatch1 wrote: »I can't speak for anyone else, but my experience for the last 50 years or more is one of "food thinking". While everyone else is playing tag football or volleyball at the company picnic, I am eyeballing the food being set out and feeling a bit desperately competitive to get into the line without appearing too eager so I don't miss out on anything. I have eaten many times when I wasn't hungry. If there is leftover food that I like, it occupies my thoughts until it is eaten or out of the house. I have put perfectly good food down the garbage disposal, depriving other family members, rather than have it call to me. If there are goodies at work, I have to stay out of the break room and I am aware, despite being very busy at work, of the food sitting there. To me this seems an addictive pattern. It doesn't mean I don't resist it, but the effort and energy it takes every waking minute is disheartening and sometimes I am not strong. I am tired of having to be strong every waking minute. Lots of other people don't think about food all the time. I am working with a bariatric endocrinologist now on this problem, and I am hopeful.
I think you are describing an addictive pattern.
It is exhausting fighting it. I can be busy but my mind is doing double time because the food thoughts are always there. It is not fun having white knuckles all the time because you are trying not to eat. Feels even worse when you give in.
You are right that many people do not think about food all the time. I am fascinated by that because that's how I want to be.
Glad you are getting help. Hopefully you'll have some resolution so you feel more comfortable.2 -
The latest MFP blog email had a post on addiction.
5 Steps to Take Control of Food Addiction
Addiction does not always have to involve an addictive substance or drug, as the term can be used to describe an excessive behavior such as compulsive eating. While there are different schools of thought and the scientific literature in the area of food addiction is still in the beginning stages, many experts believe that addiction to food really isn’t about the food.
To elaborate further, foods do not have addictive properties that make someone depend on them, unlike chemical substances. Food addiction has more to do with how a person behaves around food, what they think about food, and the way habits are formed with food. The habits are the real source of the addiction.
Food can become a way to cope with emotional matters, and the repetition of this coping mechanism can breed an addiction. By using food as a means to deal with anxiety, stress, grief, and the like, the body becomes conditioned to crave that process to feel relief.
People often associate pleasure with foods that contain fat, sugar and salt. As innocent as it may seem, this starts at a young age when candy and soda are given as a “treat” or “reward” for good behavior, grades or a celebration. Research studies have shown the reward centers of the brain to light up and release dopamine when pleasurable foods are consumed. Could this be that we’ve conditioned our bodies to react this way?
The Slippery Slope of Food Addiction
Someone doesn’t just decide that he or she wants to feel out of control with food. It’s often a slippery slope that leads a person into an addiction with food. Below are some of the warning signs and common traits among people suffering from a food addiction:
Read more: http://blog.myfitnesspal.com/5-steps-to-take-control-of-food-addiction/2 -
What I have said is that there are those who show up on MFP saying that it's impossible for them to lose weight because they're addicted to sugar. Deny it if you like but it happens frequently.
I never said they have a legitimate excuse (they don't) but they do try to claim their supposed addiction as a valid excuse for why they're overweight.
Again, just so that you don't misunderstand me or forget what I said again:
They try to use their supposed addiction to sugar as an excuse but it is not a legitimate excuse at all, even if it were real.
Claiming an addiction as a reason that they are overweight is completely different than saying that it is impossible to lose weight because they are addicted. A person saying the reason that they're drunk all the time is because they are an alcoholic would not necessarily be incorrect.
That, to me, sounds like an excuse and a bad reason. If someone said that to me I would disagree and call it out as an excuse (precisely what I would say would depend on the context). So maybe we are just coming at this from different places.
(Also, there's no such thing as being addicted to food.)I am still skeptical of the idea that people come unsolicited to weight loss forums to proclaim an excuse for not losing weight. I think the fact that they post it on a forum is an appeal for help rather than a call for absolution.
I've seen many posts that seem to fall in that category. What I think it is is they are being told by people in their life or their internalized understanding of society that they SHOULD lose weight. They feel bad/guilty about not losing weight. They don't feel like they can lose weight, because they aren't ready and don't want to do what they must do (eat less, move more, maybe structure their eating and plan better, stop just eating whatever they feel like and using food for self comfort, etc.), and so they pretend to be trying to lose weight but really just make excuses. I recall one post that was basically: "I am addicted to sugar yet live with my parents (or boyfriend or kids, I forget) so HAVE to have sugary treats around and eat them, but if I didn't have them in the house I'd go out and buy them." That sounds like an excuse--setting herself up for "I tried, but it didn't work, I'm too 'addicted.'"
(I gave advice in that one and did not argue, in accordance with my policy, but I could tell from the first message she was going to run off and was not ready.)0 -
KarenHatch1 wrote: »I can't speak for anyone else, but my experience for the last 50 years or more is one of "food thinking". While everyone else is playing tag football or volleyball at the company picnic, I am eyeballing the food being set out and feeling a bit desperately competitive to get into the line without appearing too eager so I don't miss out on anything. I have eaten many times when I wasn't hungry. If there is leftover food that I like, it occupies my thoughts until it is eaten or out of the house. I have put perfectly good food down the garbage disposal, depriving other family members, rather than have it call to me. If there are goodies at work, I have to stay out of the break room and I am aware, despite being very busy at work, of the food sitting there.
With the exception of dumping the food, I can relate to all of these and had to come up with strategies to deal with and change these things. I don't consider that akin to an addiction. There are some similarities (as both are related to habit in part), but it's still so different.1 -
Calling bad habits addiction seems a really stupid idea to me (it does not shock me that the MFP blog would take this position). Pretty much everything bad that people do is an addiction, then.2
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »I'm late to the game and so this may have been covered and I missed it, but the OP seems to put things into one of two categories: addiction (in my mind a debilitating and all consuming physiological component) or dependence (relying heavily on a substance or a habit to satisfy a particular need). What I see often in these forums, when a person claims they are addicted to sugar or food, is more of what I would call a behavioral compulsion tied to a very strong craving. Often, if the OP is interested in discussing in detail their particular challenges, it seems that the issues arise in under certain situations (stress, boredom, depression) and are related to a particular food (M&Ms) but not an overarching substance (ie all sugar) which indicates to me neither addiction, nor dependence are the correct terminology for what they are experiencing.
What I usually try to offer with posts like those is to acknowledge that those desires can make the poster feel out of control and like the food has power over them, similar to what an addict describes, but when a person analyzes the situational and emotional triggers they often realize that these are more of a factor than the food itself. To me, it is empowering to acknowledge that the food itself is not addictive, or that they aren't dependent on it; but that they can work through these emotional and habitual triggers and learn to either avoid the food altogether, or eventually learn to moderate it. I don't try to diminish what they are going through, but instead try to offer them some alternatives (Cognitive Behavioral Therapy is a good one for someone who is really struggling with these triggers) so that they may get at the root cause of the issue.
I think that words and the way we use them do matter, and that by letting something slide when someone says they are "addicted to food" or "sugar is worse than heroin" while it may seem harmless, it can in fact perpetuate that person's learned helplessness.
Since I've gotten distracted into rather bizarre tangents (my own fault), I just want to say that this is precisely my own view as well, and thank you for putting it so well.
And yet, no one seems to want to discuss the points I was trying to make in my post.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »The latest MFP blog email had a post on addiction.
5 Steps to Take Control of Food Addiction
Addiction does not always have to involve an addictive substance or drug, as the term can be used to describe an excessive behavior such as compulsive eating. While there are different schools of thought and the scientific literature in the area of food addiction is still in the beginning stages, many experts believe that addiction to food really isn’t about the food.
To elaborate further, foods do not have addictive properties that make someone depend on them, unlike chemical substances. Food addiction has more to do with how a person behaves around food, what they think about food, and the way habits are formed with food. The habits are the real source of the addiction.
Food can become a way to cope with emotional matters, and the repetition of this coping mechanism can breed an addiction. By using food as a means to deal with anxiety, stress, grief, and the like, the body becomes conditioned to crave that process to feel relief.
People often associate pleasure with foods that contain fat, sugar and salt. As innocent as it may seem, this starts at a young age when candy and soda are given as a “treat” or “reward” for good behavior, grades or a celebration. Research studies have shown the reward centers of the brain to light up and release dopamine when pleasurable foods are consumed. Could this be that we’ve conditioned our bodies to react this way?
The Slippery Slope of Food Addiction
Someone doesn’t just decide that he or she wants to feel out of control with food. It’s often a slippery slope that leads a person into an addiction with food. Below are some of the warning signs and common traits among people suffering from a food addiction:
Read more: http://blog.myfitnesspal.com/5-steps-to-take-control-of-food-addiction/
The blog also posted this lovely assortment of woo, derp and broscience...
http://blog.myfitnesspal.com/67-science-backed-weight-loss-strategies/4 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »The latest MFP blog email had a post on addiction.
5 Steps to Take Control of Food Addiction
Addiction does not always have to involve an addictive substance or drug, as the term can be used to describe an excessive behavior such as compulsive eating. While there are different schools of thought and the scientific literature in the area of food addiction is still in the beginning stages, many experts believe that addiction to food really isn’t about the food.
To elaborate further, foods do not have addictive properties that make someone depend on them, unlike chemical substances. Food addiction has more to do with how a person behaves around food, what they think about food, and the way habits are formed with food. The habits are the real source of the addiction.
Food can become a way to cope with emotional matters, and the repetition of this coping mechanism can breed an addiction. By using food as a means to deal with anxiety, stress, grief, and the like, the body becomes conditioned to crave that process to feel relief.
People often associate pleasure with foods that contain fat, sugar and salt. As innocent as it may seem, this starts at a young age when candy and soda are given as a “treat” or “reward” for good behavior, grades or a celebration. Research studies have shown the reward centers of the brain to light up and release dopamine when pleasurable foods are consumed. Could this be that we’ve conditioned our bodies to react this way?
The Slippery Slope of Food Addiction
Someone doesn’t just decide that he or she wants to feel out of control with food. It’s often a slippery slope that leads a person into an addiction with food. Below are some of the warning signs and common traits among people suffering from a food addiction:
Read more: http://blog.myfitnesspal.com/5-steps-to-take-control-of-food-addiction/
The blog also posted this lovely assortment of woo, derp and broscience...
http://blog.myfitnesspal.com/67-science-backed-weight-loss-strategies/
Different author.
Do you have a problem with the content of the link I posted, or just the URL?0 -
What I have said is that there are those who show up on MFP saying that it's impossible for them to lose weight because they're addicted to sugar. Deny it if you like but it happens frequently.
I never said they have a legitimate excuse (they don't) but they do try to claim their supposed addiction as a valid excuse for why they're overweight.
Again, just so that you don't misunderstand me or forget what I said again:
They try to use their supposed addiction to sugar as an excuse but it is not a legitimate excuse at all, even if it were real.
Claiming an addiction as a reason that they are overweight is completely different than saying that it is impossible to lose weight because they are addicted. A person saying the reason that they're drunk all the time is because they are an alcoholic would not necessarily be incorrect. That person saying that they can't get sober because they are an alcoholic would be wrong.
I am still skeptical of the idea that people come unsolicited to weight loss forums to proclaim an excuse for not losing weight. I think the fact that they post it on a forum is an appeal for help rather than a call for absolution.
With the possible exception of the example lemurcat posted, which I would need to reread to be sure, I agree that people starting threads that mention addiction are looking for help rather than absolution and are not disavowing responsibility.2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »KarenHatch1 wrote: »I can't speak for anyone else, but my experience for the last 50 years or more is one of "food thinking". While everyone else is playing tag football or volleyball at the company picnic, I am eyeballing the food being set out and feeling a bit desperately competitive to get into the line without appearing too eager so I don't miss out on anything. I have eaten many times when I wasn't hungry. If there is leftover food that I like, it occupies my thoughts until it is eaten or out of the house. I have put perfectly good food down the garbage disposal, depriving other family members, rather than have it call to me. If there are goodies at work, I have to stay out of the break room and I am aware, despite being very busy at work, of the food sitting there.
With the exception of dumping the food, I can relate to all of these and had to come up with strategies to deal with and change these things. I don't consider that akin to an addiction. There are some similarities (as both are related to habit in part), but it's still so different.
Lemurcat, Have you been successful in changing your food thinking? If so, please share, as I would like very much to change this thought pattern. As far as I can determine, it started around the age of 4 and worsened during my teen years. I am not obsessive about anything else. My parents and siblings were/are normal and have never had a problem with food or weight. Thanks!1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Calling bad habits addiction seems a really stupid idea to me (it does not shock me that the MFP blog would take this position). Pretty much everything bad that people do is an addiction, then.
Maybe I should call it obsession instead of addiction. I do know that some bariatric endocrinologists are using Naltrexone along with other medications for "food thinking".0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 901 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions