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.

The Sugar Conspiracy

Options
1…2324262829…47

Replies

  • paulgads82
    paulgads82 Posts: 256 Member
    Options
    pcoslady83 wrote: »
    paulgads82 wrote: »
    pcoslady83 wrote: »
    paulgads82 wrote: »

    It's a scientific debate, semantics are important. I think we are all just geeks who like debating

    But its also important in the context of the idea of a sugar conspiracy, or whatever. Are corporate interests feeding us an addictive substance or is sugar just really tasty and some of us develop unhealthy relationships with it? Obviously i support the latter explanation.

    I believe refined sugar is addictive to many people and at the minimum an appetite stimulant which interferes with normal brain functionality. So I think corporations are using these attributes of sugar to increase profits.

    Aaaaannnnnndddddddd...I don't like debating at all. I used to though, but when I started understanding that different people experience different realities when faced with an objectively same situation, debating became less interesting and learning about different experiences and perspective became more interesting.

    Experiences do not negate reality. If I start seeing unicorns, the unicorns are not there. It's me. The fact that I saw unicorns is real, the existence of unicorns is not. If someone believes they are physically addicted to sugar the only way to determine if this is true is through science.

    Sure science will determine that...eventually. Till then, it is good to have an open mind.
    pcoslady83 wrote: »
    stevencloser wrote: »
    pcoslady83 wrote: »
    paulgads82 wrote: »

    It's a scientific debate, semantics are important. I think we are all just geeks who like debating

    But its also important in the context of the idea of a sugar conspiracy, or whatever. Are corporate interests feeding us an addictive substance or is sugar just really tasty and some of us develop unhealthy relationships with it? Obviously i support the latter explanation.

    I believe refined sugar is addictive to many people and at the minimum an appetite stimulant which interferes with normal brain functionality. So I think corporations are using these attributes of sugar to increase profits.

    Aaaaannnnnndddddddd...I don't like debating at all. I used to though, but when I started understanding that different people experience different realities when faced with an objectively same situation, debating became less interesting and learning about different experiences and perspective became more interesting.

    Refined sugar is chemically identical to the same sugar found naturally in fruit. It is processed by your body to its components glucose and fructose and used identically to those two sugars found in fruit and vegetables. As long as you live, you always have glucose in your blood, even if you don't eat any carbohydrates at all.
    Sugar interferes with your brain chemistry as much as water.

    Sugar interferes as much as water with brain chemistry for you. It may not be the case for others.

    So there should be some studies to show this, right? Given the only evidence we have is purely anecdotal and fits the behavioural model the sensible position would be to go with that.
  • paulgads82
    paulgads82 Posts: 256 Member
    Options
    pcoslady83 wrote: »
    paulgads82 wrote: »
    pcoslady83 wrote: »
    paulgads82 wrote: »
    pcoslady83 wrote: »
    paulgads82 wrote: »

    It's a scientific debate, semantics are important. I think we are all just geeks who like debating

    But its also important in the context of the idea of a sugar conspiracy, or whatever. Are corporate interests feeding us an addictive substance or is sugar just really tasty and some of us develop unhealthy relationships with it? Obviously i support the latter explanation.

    I believe refined sugar is addictive to many people and at the minimum an appetite stimulant which interferes with normal brain functionality. So I think corporations are using these attributes of sugar to increase profits.

    Aaaaannnnnndddddddd...I don't like debating at all. I used to though, but when I started understanding that different people experience different realities when faced with an objectively same situation, debating became less interesting and learning about different experiences and perspective became more interesting.

    Experiences do not negate reality. If I start seeing unicorns, the unicorns are not there. It's me. The fact that I saw unicorns is real, the existence of unicorns is not. If someone believes they are physically addicted to sugar the only way to determine if this is true is through science.

    Sure science will determine that...eventually. Till then, it is good to have an open mind.

    I do. It's open to evidence.

    Then..let us just wait and respect people's experiences rather than dismissing them as willpower problem.

    I hope I've been clear that I think it's more nuanced than just a willpower problem and calling something psychological is in no way a dismissal. If someone tells me they really struggle with sugar I am in no position to say "No you don't get a grip" but can discuss how to categorise it or whether it's the substance itself.
  • paulgads82
    paulgads82 Posts: 256 Member
    Options
    A few questions for those who think sugar is physically addictive. Should separate clinics be set up? What form would these take? Who would run them?
  • pcoslady83
    pcoslady83 Posts: 55 Member
    Options
    paulgads82 wrote: »
    pcoslady83 wrote: »
    paulgads82 wrote: »
    pcoslady83 wrote: »
    paulgads82 wrote: »
    pcoslady83 wrote: »
    paulgads82 wrote: »

    It's a scientific debate, semantics are important. I think we are all just geeks who like debating

    But its also important in the context of the idea of a sugar conspiracy, or whatever. Are corporate interests feeding us an addictive substance or is sugar just really tasty and some of us develop unhealthy relationships with it? Obviously i support the latter explanation.

    I believe refined sugar is addictive to many people and at the minimum an appetite stimulant which interferes with normal brain functionality. So I think corporations are using these attributes of sugar to increase profits.

    Aaaaannnnnndddddddd...I don't like debating at all. I used to though, but when I started understanding that different people experience different realities when faced with an objectively same situation, debating became less interesting and learning about different experiences and perspective became more interesting.

    Experiences do not negate reality. If I start seeing unicorns, the unicorns are not there. It's me. The fact that I saw unicorns is real, the existence of unicorns is not. If someone believes they are physically addicted to sugar the only way to determine if this is true is through science.

    Sure science will determine that...eventually. Till then, it is good to have an open mind.

    I do. It's open to evidence.

    Then..let us just wait and respect people's experiences rather than dismissing them as willpower problem.

    I hope I've been clear that I think it's more nuanced than just a willpower problem and calling something psychological is in no way a dismissal. If someone tells me they really struggle with sugar I am in no position to say "No you don't get a grip" but can discuss how to categorise it or whether it's the substance itself.

    A simple google search will point you to papers. Here is the first link that turned up and I have copied the conclusion.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2235907/

    The reviewed evidence supports the theory that, in some circumstances, intermittent access to sugar can lead to behavior and neurochemical changes that resemble the effects of a substance of abuse. According to the evidence in rats, intermittent access to sugar and chow is capable of producing a “dependency”. This was operationally defined by tests for bingeing, withdrawal, craving and cross-sensitization to amphetamine and alcohol. The correspondence to some people with binge eating disorder or bulimia is striking, but whether or not it is a good idea to call this a “food addiction” in people is both a scientific and societal question that has yet to be answered. What this review demonstrates is that rats with intermittent access to food and a sugar solution can show both a constellation of behaviors and parallel brain changes that are characteristic of rats that voluntarily self-administer addictive drugs. In the aggregrate, this is evidence that sugar can be addictive.


    Now..please don't tell me that the study was in rats and not applicable to humans.
  • MissusMoon
    MissusMoon Posts: 1,900 Member
    Options
    Christine_72 wrote: »
    pcoslady83 wrote: »
    Christine_72 wrote: »
    I honestly don't know what to say to drive my point home..

    Send a "Sugar addict" into a rehab facility full of heroin addicts and alcoholics. Watch them climbing the walls, vomiting profusely, the feelings of bugs crawling under their skin, the days and days and days of NO sleep,see their total mental and physical torture and the fact that they would do ANYTHING in that moment to get a fix..

    Then come back and tell me your sugar cravings are comparable to what these people are going through!!

    What is your opinion on smoking? Is that addictive? I have seen people trying to quit smoking having a hard time but definitely not as hard as you are explaining here. But it is still considered an addiction.

    I've quit smoking too. I got a bit snappy and impatient and really really craved a cigarette every minute of the day, but it was bearable. Mind over matter and extreme willpower, pretty much the same way i deal with sweet cravings.

    And no, quitting smoking is nothing like coming off of narcotics.

    You are a ray light in this discussion.
  • nvmomketo
    nvmomketo Posts: 12,019 Member
    Options
    Sugar does something physical to some people. It may not be a true addiction, or maybe it is similar to nicotine - I dunno, but there is a physical component to it. When I quit sugar, as much as is possible without abstaining from all veggies, my sugar cravings went WAY down (along with my appetite) within days. Within a week I was able to not buy and eat candy or soda, not to mention baked goods. As long as I didn't touch the stuff, I was fine.

    And yes, for me, if I did eat more carbs it increased my cravings. I tend to eat carbs later in the day because if I have a "higher" carb meal (15g carbs) I will crave more carbs. If I have carbs at breakfast It is very difficult to keep my carbs at keto levels because I want/crave/hunger for more. If I eat somehing very high in carbs, like a few candies, grapes or a muffin, then I wil be fighting cravings/hunger/compulsion/whatever it is for the next 24-48 hours or so. If I don't eat more, eventually my carb cravings fade again.

    There's no way that could have been a psychological issue. A psychological addiction/behaviour/compulsion/habit that is gone within days of changing a behaviour? I don't think so. Now a physical change within days of removing an unhealthy substance (for that individual)? That is believable.

    As a celiac, that's how it worked for me when I gave up gluten. I started feeling relief of some symptoms within days, after a few months I was quite a bit better, and after about 18 months I was healed. Like giving up sugar, at first I felt worse. I had headaches, pain, fatigue, moodiness and it triggered a pretty bad autoimmune arthritis flare-up. When I cut carbs very low, even while increasing salt, I had fatigue, moodiness, headaches, felt fluish and it triggered an autoimmune flare-up too. But within a week I had better energy, after a month my skin cleared up and my cognitive function improved enough that my family noticed, and improvements continued for a few months.... It was NOT in my head.

    It may not be an addiction, but it IS something physical for some of us, and I find the comments that imply it is just in our heads to be very insulting. As someone said up thread, I bet those with NAFLD, PCOS, T2D and Alzheimer's complications (blindness, infertility, limb amputation), who still suffer those complications because it is hard to stop eating foods with high carb contents, may find it insulting too.

    I don't know how this turned into another debate on the semantics of addiction thread. Some use addiction as a metaphor, some use it literally, some are insulted by the use of the word... This isn't going to change anytime soon.
  • tross0924
    tross0924 Posts: 909 Member
    Options
    Why are we arguing about weather its a physical or psychological addiction? Are psychological addictions not "real" addictions? Are people who are psychological addicted only addicted because they lack the will power to quit and are therefore weak willed morons that blame sugar for everything?

    It can be an addiction for some people. End of discussion. My addiction is worse than your addiction is a meaningless idiotic debate.

    Alcohol in and of itself isn't a bad thing, the addiction to it that causes over consumption is. Sugar in and of itself isn't a bad thing. If you're psychologically addicted to it, causing you to consume an unhealthy amount of calories from it, then by all means avoid sugar. But recognize that a handful of jelly beans for someone who doesn't have a problem with sugar is not going to cause them to suddenly gain 30 lbs anymore than a glass of wine will give an unaddicted person cirrhosis.
  • paulgads82
    paulgads82 Posts: 256 Member
    edited May 2016
    Options
    Nobody is playing addiction top trumps on my part!
  • tross0924
    tross0924 Posts: 909 Member
    Options
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    If I eat somehing very high in carbs, like a few candies, grapes or a muffin, then I wil be fighting cravings/hunger/compulsion/whatever it is for the next 24-48 hours or so. If I don't eat more, eventually my carb cravings fade again.

    So the physical part is there. Those high carbs do cause a spike in blood sugar, causing a spike in insulin, causing a
    crash in blood sugar, causing hunger. (Simplified but mostly true) The choice to eat a donut, or jelly beans, or taffy, or candy, when hungry is a result of a psychological issue. There isn't a physiological demand by your body to have sugar. There is a hormonal, chemical demand for increased food consumption at that point, but the choice to meet that demand with more sugar is a psychological one.

    Once you go "off" sugar for a few days, those blood sugar, and insulin spikes go away, getting rid of the demand for more food. Once the demand is gone there's no reason for you to chose sugar, and so, to you, it looks like the addiction is physical because, at that point, your able to chose what to eat without the addiction coming into play.

    And now I see why we're arguing about weather it's a physical or psychological addiction . . .
  • nutmegoreo
    nutmegoreo Posts: 15,532 Member
    Options
    snikkins wrote: »
    paulgads82 wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    Sugar does something physical to some people. It may not be a true addiction, or maybe it is similar to nicotine - I dunno, but there is a physical component to it. When I quit sugar, as much as is possible without abstaining from all veggies, my sugar cravings went WAY down (along with my appetite) within days. Within a week I was able to not buy and eat candy or soda, not to mention baked goods. As long as I didn't touch the stuff, I was fine.

    And yes, for me, if I did eat more carbs it increased my cravings. I tend to eat carbs later in the day because if I have a "higher" carb meal (15g carbs) I will crave more carbs. If I have carbs at breakfast It is very difficult to keep my carbs at keto levels because I want/crave/hunger for more. If I eat somehing very high in carbs, like a few candies, grapes or a muffin, then I wil be fighting cravings/hunger/compulsion/whatever it is for the next 24-48 hours or so. If I don't eat more, eventually my carb cravings fade again.

    There's no way that could have been a psychological issue. A psychological addiction/behaviour/compulsion/habit that is gone within days of changing a behaviour? I don't think so. Now a physical change within days of removing an unhealthy substance (for that individual)? That is believable.

    As a celiac, that's how it worked for me when I gave up gluten. I started feeling relief of some symptoms within days, after a few months I was quite a bit better, and after about 18 months I was healed. Like giving up sugar, at first I felt worse. I had headaches, pain, fatigue, moodiness and it triggered a pretty bad autoimmune arthritis flare-up. When I cut carbs very low, even while increasing salt, I had fatigue, moodiness, headaches, felt fluish and it triggered an autoimmune flare-up too. But within a week I had better energy, after a month my skin cleared up and my cognitive function improved enough that my family noticed, and improvements continued for a few months.... It was NOT in my head.

    It may not be an addiction, but it IS something physical for some of us, and I find the comments that imply it is just in our heads to be very insulting. As someone said up thread, I bet those with NAFLD, PCOS, T2D and Alzheimer's complications (blindness, infertility, limb amputation), who still suffer those complications because it is hard to stop eating foods with high carb contents, may find it insulting too.

    I don't know how this turned into another debate on the semantics of addiction thread. Some use addiction as a metaphor, some use it literally, some are insulted by the use of the word... This isn't going to change anytime soon.

    You're insulted by having a psychological problem? Why? Are they inferior? Psychological illnesses have physical components. Nobody uses the phrase "in your head" to describe psychological issues or illnesses. Certainly not "just in your head". I am starting to wonder if there's a certaina amount of stigma and prejudice towards mental health and this may explain why people desire a physical explanation.

    I think you've hit the nail on the head, here. There is a huge stigma around mental illness in the US and I wouldn't be surprised if it's similar in other places. Mental health is as important and physical health, so I really wish the stigma would go away.

    In many ways the stigma in our society is changing. It's become more acceptable for people to talk about depression and other diagnosed conditions, which is so important to reduce marginalization of people who are suffering. I typed in a whole lot more here, about my personal reaction to the overuse of words that are diagnoses, but used to describe quirky behaviours (such as OCD being used to refer to keeping things organized), but kept erasing it, because I'm not sure how to explain my thoughts without coming off as a *babysloth*.
  • nvmomketo
    nvmomketo Posts: 12,019 Member
    Options
    paulgads82 wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    Sugar does something physical to some people. It may not be a true addiction, or maybe it is similar to nicotine - I dunno, but there is a physical component to it. When I quit sugar, as much as is possible without abstaining from all veggies, my sugar cravings went WAY down (along with my appetite) within days. Within a week I was able to not buy and eat candy or soda, not to mention baked goods. As long as I didn't touch the stuff, I was fine.

    And yes, for me, if I did eat more carbs it increased my cravings. I tend to eat carbs later in the day because if I have a "higher" carb meal (15g carbs) I will crave more carbs. If I have carbs at breakfast It is very difficult to keep my carbs at keto levels because I want/crave/hunger for more. If I eat somehing very high in carbs, like a few candies, grapes or a muffin, then I wil be fighting cravings/hunger/compulsion/whatever it is for the next 24-48 hours or so. If I don't eat more, eventually my carb cravings fade again.

    There's no way that could have been a psychological issue. A psychological addiction/behaviour/compulsion/habit that is gone within days of changing a behaviour? I don't think so. Now a physical change within days of removing an unhealthy substance (for that individual)? That is believable.

    As a celiac, that's how it worked for me when I gave up gluten. I started feeling relief of some symptoms within days, after a few months I was quite a bit better, and after about 18 months I was healed. Like giving up sugar, at first I felt worse. I had headaches, pain, fatigue, moodiness and it triggered a pretty bad autoimmune arthritis flare-up. When I cut carbs very low, even while increasing salt, I had fatigue, moodiness, headaches, felt fluish and it triggered an autoimmune flare-up too. But within a week I had better energy, after a month my skin cleared up and my cognitive function improved enough that my family noticed, and improvements continued for a few months.... It was NOT in my head.

    It may not be an addiction, but it IS something physical for some of us, and I find the comments that imply it is just in our heads to be very insulting. As someone said up thread, I bet those with NAFLD, PCOS, T2D and Alzheimer's complications (blindness, infertility, limb amputation), who still suffer those complications because it is hard to stop eating foods with high carb contents, may find it insulting too.

    I don't know how this turned into another debate on the semantics of addiction thread. Some use addiction as a metaphor, some use it literally, some are insulted by the use of the word... This isn't going to change anytime soon.

    You're insulted by having a psychological problem? Why? Are they inferior? Psychological illnesses have physical components. Nobody uses the phrase "in your head" to describe psychological issues or illnesses. Certainly not "just in your head". I am starting to wonder if there's a certaina amount of stigma and prejudice towards mental health and this may explain why people desire a physical explanation.

    I was told that my autoimmune diseases were in my head (in so many words) by doctors, for many years (decades). I eventually understood that statement to mean that they couldn't figure out what was wrong so there was NOTHING wrong - they implied that it was all in my head. They were wrong. They just did not have an answer and were still looking for a way to be right about that fact.

    Eventually I self diagnosed myself and had them run the tests to prove it. I was right on everything and it wasn't in my head. I even figured out my reactive hypoglycemia before getting tested.

    Don't twist my words. Just because my sugar problem is not psychological does not mean that psychological problems are infererior to physical problems. I never said that.
  • nvmomketo
    nvmomketo Posts: 12,019 Member
    Options
    tross0924 wrote: »
    Why are we arguing about weather its a physical or psychological addiction? Are psychological addictions not "real" addictions? Are people who are psychological addicted only addicted because they lack the will power to quit and are therefore weak willed morons that blame sugar for everything?

    It can be an addiction for some people. End of discussion. My addiction is worse than your addiction is a meaningless idiotic debate.

    Alcohol in and of itself isn't a bad thing, the addiction to it that causes over consumption is. Sugar in and of itself isn't a bad thing. If you're psychologically addicted to it, causing you to consume an unhealthy amount of calories from it, then by all means avoid sugar. But recognize that a handful of jelly beans for someone who doesn't have a problem with sugar is not going to cause them to suddenly gain 30 lbs anymore than a glass of wine will give an unaddicted person cirrhosis.

    The point I was trying to get across (I guess I failed) is that we should leave the word addiction out of this.

    Sugar is not just a bad choice or habit for some. There is a physical component to the problem that people are denying. That's what I am debating.
  • cerise_noir
    cerise_noir Posts: 5,468 Member
    edited May 2016
    Options
    stevencloser wrote: »
    eveandqsmom wrote: »
    I did. A lot of people have said that it's ridiculous and insulting to people with "real" addictions, that suggests to me that the people who have this problem are really just whiners.

    If someone says sugar is more addictive than heroin, then yes, that is very insulting to anyone who had the pleasure of dealing directly or indirectly with that.
    It's like comparing a papercut to an amputation.
    I agree with this. I work one-on-one with an addict and have done so for years. It's effin heartbreaking.

    I once thought I was addicted to sugar, but it turns out that my body was seeking fuel for energy. Once I started fueling my body appropriately (I also increased chromium in my diet), I was and am fine.
  • paulgads82
    paulgads82 Posts: 256 Member
    Options
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    paulgads82 wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    Sugar does something physical to some people. It may not be a true addiction, or maybe it is similar to nicotine - I dunno, but there is a physical component to it. When I quit sugar, as much as is possible without abstaining from all veggies, my sugar cravings went WAY down (along with my appetite) within days. Within a week I was able to not buy and eat candy or soda, not to mention baked goods. As long as I didn't touch the stuff, I was fine.

    And yes, for me, if I did eat more carbs it increased my cravings. I tend to eat carbs later in the day because if I have a "higher" carb meal (15g carbs) I will crave more carbs. If I have carbs at breakfast It is very difficult to keep my carbs at keto levels because I want/crave/hunger for more. If I eat somehing very high in carbs, like a few candies, grapes or a muffin, then I wil be fighting cravings/hunger/compulsion/whatever it is for the next 24-48 hours or so. If I don't eat more, eventually my carb cravings fade again.

    There's no way that could have been a psychological issue. A psychological addiction/behaviour/compulsion/habit that is gone within days of changing a behaviour? I don't think so. Now a physical change within days of removing an unhealthy substance (for that individual)? That is believable.

    As a celiac, that's how it worked for me when I gave up gluten. I started feeling relief of some symptoms within days, after a few months I was quite a bit better, and after about 18 months I was healed. Like giving up sugar, at first I felt worse. I had headaches, pain, fatigue, moodiness and it triggered a pretty bad autoimmune arthritis flare-up. When I cut carbs very low, even while increasing salt, I had fatigue, moodiness, headaches, felt fluish and it triggered an autoimmune flare-up too. But within a week I had better energy, after a month my skin cleared up and my cognitive function improved enough that my family noticed, and improvements continued for a few months.... It was NOT in my head.

    It may not be an addiction, but it IS something physical for some of us, and I find the comments that imply it is just in our heads to be very insulting. As someone said up thread, I bet those with NAFLD, PCOS, T2D and Alzheimer's complications (blindness, infertility, limb amputation), who still suffer those complications because it is hard to stop eating foods with high carb contents, may find it insulting too.

    I don't know how this turned into another debate on the semantics of addiction thread. Some use addiction as a metaphor, some use it literally, some are insulted by the use of the word... This isn't going to change anytime soon.

    You're insulted by having a psychological problem? Why? Are they inferior? Psychological illnesses have physical components. Nobody uses the phrase "in your head" to describe psychological issues or illnesses. Certainly not "just in your head". I am starting to wonder if there's a certaina amount of stigma and prejudice towards mental health and this may explain why people desire a physical explanation.

    I was told that my autoimmune diseases were in my head (in so many words) by doctors, for many years (decades). I eventually understood that statement to mean that they couldn't figure out what was wrong so there was NOTHING wrong - they implied that it was all in my head. They were wrong. They just did not have an answer and were still looking for a way to be right about that fact.

    Eventually I self diagnosed myself and had them run the tests to prove it. I was right on everything and it wasn't in my head. I even figured out my reactive hypoglycemia before getting tested.

    Don't twist my words. Just because my sugar problem is not psychological does not mean that psychological problems are infererior to physical problems. I never said that.

    So why is it insulting?
  • snikkins
    snikkins Posts: 1,282 Member
    Options
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    paulgads82 wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    Sugar does something physical to some people. It may not be a true addiction, or maybe it is similar to nicotine - I dunno, but there is a physical component to it. When I quit sugar, as much as is possible without abstaining from all veggies, my sugar cravings went WAY down (along with my appetite) within days. Within a week I was able to not buy and eat candy or soda, not to mention baked goods. As long as I didn't touch the stuff, I was fine.

    And yes, for me, if I did eat more carbs it increased my cravings. I tend to eat carbs later in the day because if I have a "higher" carb meal (15g carbs) I will crave more carbs. If I have carbs at breakfast It is very difficult to keep my carbs at keto levels because I want/crave/hunger for more. If I eat somehing very high in carbs, like a few candies, grapes or a muffin, then I wil be fighting cravings/hunger/compulsion/whatever it is for the next 24-48 hours or so. If I don't eat more, eventually my carb cravings fade again.

    There's no way that could have been a psychological issue. A psychological addiction/behaviour/compulsion/habit that is gone within days of changing a behaviour? I don't think so. Now a physical change within days of removing an unhealthy substance (for that individual)? That is believable.

    As a celiac, that's how it worked for me when I gave up gluten. I started feeling relief of some symptoms within days, after a few months I was quite a bit better, and after about 18 months I was healed. Like giving up sugar, at first I felt worse. I had headaches, pain, fatigue, moodiness and it triggered a pretty bad autoimmune arthritis flare-up. When I cut carbs very low, even while increasing salt, I had fatigue, moodiness, headaches, felt fluish and it triggered an autoimmune flare-up too. But within a week I had better energy, after a month my skin cleared up and my cognitive function improved enough that my family noticed, and improvements continued for a few months.... It was NOT in my head.

    It may not be an addiction, but it IS something physical for some of us, and I find the comments that imply it is just in our heads to be very insulting. As someone said up thread, I bet those with NAFLD, PCOS, T2D and Alzheimer's complications (blindness, infertility, limb amputation), who still suffer those complications because it is hard to stop eating foods with high carb contents, may find it insulting too.

    I don't know how this turned into another debate on the semantics of addiction thread. Some use addiction as a metaphor, some use it literally, some are insulted by the use of the word... This isn't going to change anytime soon.

    You're insulted by having a psychological problem? Why? Are they inferior? Psychological illnesses have physical components. Nobody uses the phrase "in your head" to describe psychological issues or illnesses. Certainly not "just in your head". I am starting to wonder if there's a certaina amount of stigma and prejudice towards mental health and this may explain why people desire a physical explanation.

    I was told that my autoimmune diseases were in my head (in so many words) by doctors, for many years (decades). I eventually understood that statement to mean that they couldn't figure out what was wrong so there was NOTHING wrong - they implied that it was all in my head. They were wrong. They just did not have an answer and were still looking for a way to be right about that fact.

    Eventually I self diagnosed myself and had them run the tests to prove it. I was right on everything and it wasn't in my head. I even figured out my reactive hypoglycemia before getting tested.

    Don't twist my words. Just because my sugar problem is not psychological does not mean that psychological problems are infererior to physical problems. I never said that.

    Honestly, the doctors ignoring you may be a result of being a woman. I cannot find the better article I read recently on it, but here's an interesting anecdote with some other good stuff thrown in. Apparently, doctors are pretty dismissive of women as hysterical. This has been my experience in the ER as well.
  • paulgads82
    paulgads82 Posts: 256 Member
    Options
    I have an illness where people face similar issues and the worst experiences seem to be had by women. The cause being unknown doesn't help much either. I still get the occasional comment from certain doctors.

Categories