You are not just "weak" or "lazy". Food can be an ADDICTION.
Replies
-
A dtudy done on people. They may not be proven to be exactly the same as drugs yet but food and drugs are already proven to both do these things:
" What we do know is both food and drugs can cause behaviors that are very similar to addiction -- the inability to cut down, continued use despite negative consequences, a sense of a loss of control"
Also, it is certain foods. It is not only behavioral.
"Foods that tend to be most associated with cravings generally have a high glycemic index, containing high levels of sugar, fat and salt. "These are foods that have a very intense and fast effect on our blood sugar,""
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/food-cravings-addiction-new-study-adds-to-the-evidence/0 -
Do you have the link to the actual study? I'd be interested in reading it.1
-
Verity1111 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Verity1111 wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »Verity1111 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Verity1111 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Verity1111 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »FYI, rat studies don't always transfer to humans.
The current standing on the addictive nature of sugar as a substance is still up in the air as far as science is concerned. Right now, as it stands, research on humans doesn't shows that there's not enough evidence to call it addictive.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00394-016-1229-6
Furthermore, a review of all the research shows that a lot of the thinking was leaning more towards people like your 700 pound friend having what could be an addiction to eating itself, and that type of addiction would be a behavioral issue like gambling or sex.
It should also be noted that in that review, very few people would qualify for this diagnosis. I'd also think that if a person is truly addicted to eating itself, the type of food wouldn't really matter. Pizza, donuts, or lentil soup... food would be food to them. I doubt that true eating addicts would be as morbidly obese as those you see on TLC shows, but they would still eat uncontrollably of whatever food they could get their hands on.
And no because my 700lb friend doesnt have an addiction to salad or hot dogs. Addiction to fast food or certain foods not to all food. Most people are not addicted to things they dont enjoy in some way.
He's not addicted to those foods. He's got a behavioral problem with food in general.
Were he to have lived in a time before fast food chains, you'd better believe he'd be chowing down on mutton stew if he had the same issue.
You're missing the point I'm making. It's not the food itself. It's the behavior.
Addictions to substances will cause the addicted person to accept a substitute that will do. Alcoholics will drink some unsavory things just to get a buzz. It has nothing to do with enjoyment. Were you friend totally addicted to fast food, he'd eat stuff he hated just to get a fix.
Okay an addiction IS a behavioral problem
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"
synonyms: dependency, dependence, habit, problem More
Can food be an addiction?
Experiments in animals and humans show that, for some people, the same reward and pleasure centers of the brain that are triggered by addictive drugs like cocaine and heroin are also activated by food, especially highly palatable foods. Highly palatable foods are foods rich in: Sugar. Fat.
Not eating, food. Specific foods.
Activating the reward centers is what pleasurable things do. That does not an addiction make. If that were the case, we'd all be addicted to petting puppies, stubbing our toes, and hugging our grandparents.
I researched this extensively a while back. You'll have to do a lot more than this to convince me. All the evidence I found pointed to current thinking being that a subset of people might qualify as having a behavioral addiction to eating.
No evidence exists for any food addiction at all.
They're trying to show it, but haven't yet.
It's not about activating, it is about causing them to become dependent.
"Doing drugs such as cocaine and eating too much junk food both gradually overload the so-called pleasure centers in the brain, according to Paul J. Kenny, Ph.D., an associate professor of molecular therapeutics at the Scripps Research Institute, in Jupiter, Florida. Eventually the pleasure centers "crash," and achieving the same pleasure--or even just feeling normal--requires increasing amounts of the drug or food, says Kenny, the lead author of the study."
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/03/28/fatty.foods.brain/
"Eventually the pleasure centers "crash," and achieving the same pleasure--or even just feeling normal--requires increasing amounts of the drug or food" Now you can say there's not enough proof all you want, but that doesn't make it possible that it's true. So why not respect someone's life choices instead of pushing them into your own until then? People should not just assume it's impossible to be addicted if their friend specifically says they are. Just respect them enough to watch a movie or hang out and play a game or something instead of going to Burger King and expecting them to go with. Go on your own time.
That's a rat study not a human study.
That's how all studies begin. It would be possibly illegal to shock people painfully in a giant maze while they eat cheese burgers.
You can't base anything more than a hypothesis on it, either.
Well, you also can't say it's not. I can go on experience of my own and others. If something makes you sick, irritable, have physical pain, depression, etc when you don't have it even if you don't really want it and you still can't stop eating it even if you are no longer enjoying it - that sounds like an addiction.
That's not how science works... that whole "you can't say it's not" bit.
As for symptoms? Those symptoms are attributable to a lot of things. And eating something past wanting to eat it? Habit, comfort, and again... behavioral issues.
8 -
I think some people like to play the blame game, that is blame everything and anything but themselves. For example, I have major issues with peanut butter cups and cheerio's... I could go out and buy boxes of the stuff and gorge myself stupid, but it's not my fault because "I'm addicted". Yay all personal responsibility gone just like that, i can rest at ease now because i just cant help it, and again it is NOT my fault. I'm rolling my eyes just writing this :huh:9
-
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Verity1111 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Verity1111 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Verity1111 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »FYI, rat studies don't always transfer to humans.
The current standing on the addictive nature of sugar as a substance is still up in the air as far as science is concerned. Right now, as it stands, research on humans doesn't shows that there's not enough evidence to call it addictive.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00394-016-1229-6
Furthermore, a review of all the research shows that a lot of the thinking was leaning more towards people like your 700 pound friend having what could be an addiction to eating itself, and that type of addiction would be a behavioral issue like gambling or sex.
It should also be noted that in that review, very few people would qualify for this diagnosis. I'd also think that if a person is truly addicted to eating itself, the type of food wouldn't really matter. Pizza, donuts, or lentil soup... food would be food to them. I doubt that true eating addicts would be as morbidly obese as those you see on TLC shows, but they would still eat uncontrollably of whatever food they could get their hands on.
And no because my 700lb friend doesnt have an addiction to salad or hot dogs. Addiction to fast food or certain foods not to all food. Most people are not addicted to things they dont enjoy in some way.
He's not addicted to those foods. He's got a behavioral problem with food in general.
Were he to have lived in a time before fast food chains, you'd better believe he'd be chowing down on mutton stew if he had the same issue.
You're missing the point I'm making. It's not the food itself. It's the behavior.
Addictions to substances will cause the addicted person to accept a substitute that will do. Alcoholics will drink some unsavory things just to get a buzz. It has nothing to do with enjoyment. Were you friend totally addicted to fast food, he'd eat stuff he hated just to get a fix.
Okay an addiction IS a behavioral problem
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"
synonyms: dependency, dependence, habit, problem More
Can food be an addiction?
Experiments in animals and humans show that, for some people, the same reward and pleasure centers of the brain that are triggered by addictive drugs like cocaine and heroin are also activated by food, especially highly palatable foods. Highly palatable foods are foods rich in: Sugar. Fat.
Not eating, food. Specific foods.
Activating the reward centers is what pleasurable things do. That does not an addiction make. If that were the case, we'd all be addicted to petting puppies, stubbing our toes, and hugging our grandparents.
I researched this extensively a while back. You'll have to do a lot more than this to convince me. All the evidence I found pointed to current thinking being that a subset of people might qualify as having a behavioral addiction to eating.
No evidence exists for any food addiction at all.
They're trying to show it, but haven't yet.
It's not about activating, it is about causing them to become dependent.
"Doing drugs such as cocaine and eating too much junk food both gradually overload the so-called pleasure centers in the brain, according to Paul J. Kenny, Ph.D., an associate professor of molecular therapeutics at the Scripps Research Institute, in Jupiter, Florida. Eventually the pleasure centers "crash," and achieving the same pleasure--or even just feeling normal--requires increasing amounts of the drug or food, says Kenny, the lead author of the study."
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/03/28/fatty.foods.brain/
"Eventually the pleasure centers "crash," and achieving the same pleasure--or even just feeling normal--requires increasing amounts of the drug or food" Now you can say there's not enough proof all you want, but that doesn't make it possible that it's true. So why not respect someone's life choices instead of pushing them into your own until then? People should not just assume it's impossible to be addicted if their friend specifically says they are. Just respect them enough to watch a movie or hang out and play a game or something instead of going to Burger King and expecting them to go with. Go on your own time.
That's not posting a study, that's posting an article on a study, that's media hyped up. It's a hypothesis. I'd like to see the actual study and see more, including stuff on humans before you jump to any conclusions.
So yes, that's hardly proof. Are you aware, really aware, of the dismal state of scientific reporting in the media?
And really, what is it with you and this friend? You are taking this very personally.
Because I know a lot of people who go through it and it is personal. He almost died and he's on friggin oxygen. and it bugs me that it's still not enough? And Im sick of people I know not getting support. Although I have seen some get support and just not want to change. But theres a big difference. I did post some of the actual studies. I can find the rest if necessary lol But also rats are used for a reason.
Rodents are used as models in medical testing is that their genetic, biological and behavior characteristics closely resemble those of humans, and many symptoms of human conditions can be replicated in mice and rats.0 -
singingflutelady wrote: »Verity1111 wrote: »Also how many studies need to say food is an addiction before people are satisfied? It's never enough unless it agrees with you or what?
I didn't see any human studies linked to I this thread just media articles and authority nutrition.
There was one human study but it was based on the original responses and has not yet included the way it changes the brain over time (obviously they need time for this) but the responses in the brain of people claiming to have a food addiction was different than those who do not. It was done after eating the same foods. They used MRI scanning. It is recent, yes, so of course more research is needed, but it all is pointing to food being an addiction for some people who are biologically inclined.
Also, rats are used because they react similarly to humans.0 -
Verity1111 wrote: »Also how many studies need to say food is an addiction before people are satisfied? It's never enough unless it agrees with you or what?
what education do you have besides googling articles? i have a masters and currently working on a phd and all of my studies have been about food. Never once has food been compared to drug as far as addiction goes.11 -
Therealobi1 wrote: »Verity1111 wrote: »Therealobi1 wrote: »Verity1111 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Verity1111 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Verity1111 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »FYI, rat studies don't always transfer to humans.
The current standing on the addictive nature of sugar as a substance is still up in the air as far as science is concerned. Right now, as it stands, research on humans doesn't shows that there's not enough evidence to call it addictive.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00394-016-1229-6
Furthermore, a review of all the research shows that a lot of the thinking was leaning more towards people like your 700 pound friend having what could be an addiction to eating itself, and that type of addiction would be a behavioral issue like gambling or sex.
It should also be noted that in that review, very few people would qualify for this diagnosis. I'd also think that if a person is truly addicted to eating itself, the type of food wouldn't really matter. Pizza, donuts, or lentil soup... food would be food to them. I doubt that true eating addicts would be as morbidly obese as those you see on TLC shows, but they would still eat uncontrollably of whatever food they could get their hands on.
And no because my 700lb friend doesnt have an addiction to salad or hot dogs. Addiction to fast food or certain foods not to all food. Most people are not addicted to things they dont enjoy in some way.
He's not addicted to those foods. He's got a behavioral problem with food in general.
Were he to have lived in a time before fast food chains, you'd better believe he'd be chowing down on mutton stew if he had the same issue.
You're missing the point I'm making. It's not the food itself. It's the behavior.
Addictions to substances will cause the addicted person to accept a substitute that will do. Alcoholics will drink some unsavory things just to get a buzz. It has nothing to do with enjoyment. Were you friend totally addicted to fast food, he'd eat stuff he hated just to get a fix.
Okay an addiction IS a behavioral problem
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"
synonyms: dependency, dependence, habit, problem More
Can food be an addiction?
Experiments in animals and humans show that, for some people, the same reward and pleasure centers of the brain that are triggered by addictive drugs like cocaine and heroin are also activated by food, especially highly palatable foods. Highly palatable foods are foods rich in: Sugar. Fat.
Not eating, food. Specific foods.
Activating the reward centers is what pleasurable things do. That does not an addiction make. If that were the case, we'd all be addicted to petting puppies, stubbing our toes, and hugging our grandparents.
I researched this extensively a while back. You'll have to do a lot more than this to convince me. All the evidence I found pointed to current thinking being that a subset of people might qualify as having a behavioral addiction to eating.
No evidence exists for any food addiction at all.
They're trying to show it, but haven't yet.
It's not about activating, it is about causing them to become dependent.
"Doing drugs such as cocaine and eating too much junk food both gradually overload the so-called pleasure centers in the brain, according to Paul J. Kenny, Ph.D., an associate professor of molecular therapeutics at the Scripps Research Institute, in Jupiter, Florida. Eventually the pleasure centers "crash," and achieving the same pleasure--or even just feeling normal--requires increasing amounts of the drug or food, says Kenny, the lead author of the study."
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/03/28/fatty.foods.brain/
"Eventually the pleasure centers "crash," and achieving the same pleasure--or even just feeling normal--requires increasing amounts of the drug or food" Now you can say there's not enough proof all you want, but that doesn't make it possible that it's true. So why not respect someone's life choices instead of pushing them into your own until then? People should not just assume it's impossible to be addicted if their friend specifically says they are. Just respect them enough to watch a movie or hang out and play a game or something instead of going to Burger King and expecting them to go with. Go on your own time.
Have you had this conversation with your friends friends
What did they say
Honestly? They're selfish pricks. We asked them many times and they kept doing it. Instead of just drinking before they come over or going to eat before they come over they'd bring it to his house. It was like they did it on purpose at that point. And I know people on diets who specifically say many times please don't buy me ___ and someone buys it for them for their anniversary or something. Some people maybe legitimately don't understand, but they could still respect the choice. Like don't gift them a big box of chocolate or order pizza and not tell them first. In my opinion, it's very inconsiderate if you've already been asked nicely to not do it around them. And then if they say they don't want any the gifter often get upset and guilts them into it. My dad always buys my mother cakes, for example, even if she asks him not to and then if she says she doesn't want it he gets offended. It's like he's clueless to why she doesn't want it, even if she's said it 100 times.Verity1111 wrote: »Therealobi1 wrote: »Verity1111 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Verity1111 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Verity1111 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »FYI, rat studies don't always transfer to humans.
The current standing on the addictive nature of sugar as a substance is still up in the air as far as science is concerned. Right now, as it stands, research on humans doesn't shows that there's not enough evidence to call it addictive.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00394-016-1229-6
Furthermore, a review of all the research shows that a lot of the thinking was leaning more towards people like your 700 pound friend having what could be an addiction to eating itself, and that type of addiction would be a behavioral issue like gambling or sex.
It should also be noted that in that review, very few people would qualify for this diagnosis. I'd also think that if a person is truly addicted to eating itself, the type of food wouldn't really matter. Pizza, donuts, or lentil soup... food would be food to them. I doubt that true eating addicts would be as morbidly obese as those you see on TLC shows, but they would still eat uncontrollably of whatever food they could get their hands on.
And no because my 700lb friend doesnt have an addiction to salad or hot dogs. Addiction to fast food or certain foods not to all food. Most people are not addicted to things they dont enjoy in some way.
He's not addicted to those foods. He's got a behavioral problem with food in general.
Were he to have lived in a time before fast food chains, you'd better believe he'd be chowing down on mutton stew if he had the same issue.
You're missing the point I'm making. It's not the food itself. It's the behavior.
Addictions to substances will cause the addicted person to accept a substitute that will do. Alcoholics will drink some unsavory things just to get a buzz. It has nothing to do with enjoyment. Were you friend totally addicted to fast food, he'd eat stuff he hated just to get a fix.
Okay an addiction IS a behavioral problem
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"
synonyms: dependency, dependence, habit, problem More
Can food be an addiction?
Experiments in animals and humans show that, for some people, the same reward and pleasure centers of the brain that are triggered by addictive drugs like cocaine and heroin are also activated by food, especially highly palatable foods. Highly palatable foods are foods rich in: Sugar. Fat.
Not eating, food. Specific foods.
Activating the reward centers is what pleasurable things do. That does not an addiction make. If that were the case, we'd all be addicted to petting puppies, stubbing our toes, and hugging our grandparents.
I researched this extensively a while back. You'll have to do a lot more than this to convince me. All the evidence I found pointed to current thinking being that a subset of people might qualify as having a behavioral addiction to eating.
No evidence exists for any food addiction at all.
They're trying to show it, but haven't yet.
It's not about activating, it is about causing them to become dependent.
"Doing drugs such as cocaine and eating too much junk food both gradually overload the so-called pleasure centers in the brain, according to Paul J. Kenny, Ph.D., an associate professor of molecular therapeutics at the Scripps Research Institute, in Jupiter, Florida. Eventually the pleasure centers "crash," and achieving the same pleasure--or even just feeling normal--requires increasing amounts of the drug or food, says Kenny, the lead author of the study."
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/03/28/fatty.foods.brain/
"Eventually the pleasure centers "crash," and achieving the same pleasure--or even just feeling normal--requires increasing amounts of the drug or food" Now you can say there's not enough proof all you want, but that doesn't make it possible that it's true. So why not respect someone's life choices instead of pushing them into your own until then? People should not just assume it's impossible to be addicted if their friend specifically says they are. Just respect them enough to watch a movie or hang out and play a game or something instead of going to Burger King and expecting them to go with. Go on your own time.
Have you had this conversation with your friends friends
What did they say
Honestly? They're selfish pricks. We asked them many times and they kept doing it. Instead of just drinking before they come over or going to eat before they come over they'd bring it to his house. It was like they did it on purpose at that point. And I know people on diets who specifically say many times please don't buy me ___ and someone buys it for them for their anniversary or something. Some people maybe legitimately don't understand, but they could still respect the choice. Like don't gift them a big box of chocolate or order pizza and not tell them first. In my opinion, it's very inconsiderate if you've already been asked nicely to not do it around them. And then if they say they don't want any the gifter often get upset and guilts them into it. My dad always buys my mother cakes, for example, even if she asks him not to and then if she says she doesn't want it he gets offended. It's like he's clueless to why she doesn't want it, even if she's said it 100 times.
I don't always think people's intentions are bad. People often show affection with food. socialising often involves food and alcohol
See I totally get that. I'm not saying string them up if they do it once or twice. But after asking someone nicely multiple times it's crazy for them to keep doing it. The situation I am thinking of went on for months. Even when my friend was inpatient - they ordered friggin pizza at the hospital. Im not exaggerating.0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Verity1111 wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »
Begin yes but you can't make statements saying it's addictive in humans until they actually complete many studies that indicate it.Verity1111 wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »Verity1111 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Verity1111 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Verity1111 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »FYI, rat studies don't always transfer to humans.
The current standing on the addictive nature of sugar as a substance is still up in the air as far as science is concerned. Right now, as it stands, research on humans doesn't shows that there's not enough evidence to call it addictive.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00394-016-1229-6
Furthermore, a review of all the research shows that a lot of the thinking was leaning more towards people like your 700 pound friend having what could be an addiction to eating itself, and that type of addiction would be a behavioral issue like gambling or sex.
It should also be noted that in that review, very few people would qualify for this diagnosis. I'd also think that if a person is truly addicted to eating itself, the type of food wouldn't really matter. Pizza, donuts, or lentil soup... food would be food to them. I doubt that true eating addicts would be as morbidly obese as those you see on TLC shows, but they would still eat uncontrollably of whatever food they could get their hands on.
And no because my 700lb friend doesnt have an addiction to salad or hot dogs. Addiction to fast food or certain foods not to all food. Most people are not addicted to things they dont enjoy in some way.
He's not addicted to those foods. He's got a behavioral problem with food in general.
Were he to have lived in a time before fast food chains, you'd better believe he'd be chowing down on mutton stew if he had the same issue.
You're missing the point I'm making. It's not the food itself. It's the behavior.
Addictions to substances will cause the addicted person to accept a substitute that will do. Alcoholics will drink some unsavory things just to get a buzz. It has nothing to do with enjoyment. Were you friend totally addicted to fast food, he'd eat stuff he hated just to get a fix.
Okay an addiction IS a behavioral problem
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"
synonyms: dependency, dependence, habit, problem More
Can food be an addiction?
Experiments in animals and humans show that, for some people, the same reward and pleasure centers of the brain that are triggered by addictive drugs like cocaine and heroin are also activated by food, especially highly palatable foods. Highly palatable foods are foods rich in: Sugar. Fat.
Not eating, food. Specific foods.
Activating the reward centers is what pleasurable things do. That does not an addiction make. If that were the case, we'd all be addicted to petting puppies, stubbing our toes, and hugging our grandparents.
I researched this extensively a while back. You'll have to do a lot more than this to convince me. All the evidence I found pointed to current thinking being that a subset of people might qualify as having a behavioral addiction to eating.
No evidence exists for any food addiction at all.
They're trying to show it, but haven't yet.
It's not about activating, it is about causing them to become dependent.
"Doing drugs such as cocaine and eating too much junk food both gradually overload the so-called pleasure centers in the brain, according to Paul J. Kenny, Ph.D., an associate professor of molecular therapeutics at the Scripps Research Institute, in Jupiter, Florida. Eventually the pleasure centers "crash," and achieving the same pleasure--or even just feeling normal--requires increasing amounts of the drug or food, says Kenny, the lead author of the study."
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/03/28/fatty.foods.brain/
"Eventually the pleasure centers "crash," and achieving the same pleasure--or even just feeling normal--requires increasing amounts of the drug or food" Now you can say there's not enough proof all you want, but that doesn't make it possible that it's true. So why not respect someone's life choices instead of pushing them into your own until then? People should not just assume it's impossible to be addicted if their friend specifically says they are. Just respect them enough to watch a movie or hang out and play a game or something instead of going to Burger King and expecting them to go with. Go on your own time.
That's a rat study not a human study.
That's how all studies begin.
Then you can't make a statement saying it's not either. It's called an opinion and I think it's obvious since a lot of people eat food and cry during or after. Obviously they're not enjoying it anymore, but feel like they need it or have a physical urge. If not an addiction, what else is it?
That's not the way this works.
You started a thread with the proposition that people had a food addiction. That put a burden of proof on you. Now you're appealing to your right of opinion. That's all well and fine, but don't feel you have the right to argue as if that whole addiction thing has merit and needs to be respected.
Your friend's wishes should have been respected because they were his wishes.
The whole issue of them bringing food around an "addict" is a red herring that has no bearing on anything other than you adding another layer to the story that didn't need to be there.
I did put in proof. But you consider it not significant proof. I do. They've proven the first portion - food causes certain brains to react in an addictive manner. The only unproven part is they are not sure how it affects our brains wiring over time.0 -
Verity1111 wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »Verity1111 wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »Puppybear1 wrote: »Sugar is a drug. And just like alcoholics, some people have genetic predispositions for addiction, ie - diabetics. I have been preaching this topic for a week and fending off the shade I get for comparing sugar to drugs, but it IS a drug, or food companies wouldn't put it in practically everything! Kudos to the Enlightened!
Sugar isn't a drug. It's just sugar.
It is very similar to a drug.
If you need to cast yourself and others in the role of a victim, go right ahead. Doesn't make it the truth, though.
I could say the same about drug addicts then.
You could, if sugar was a drug. Which it isn't.8 -
Verity1111 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Verity1111 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »I agree, OP. Some people lack empathy and live in their own egocentric little bubble where they can't, or won't, put themselves out to help others.
I have alcoholic friends. I don't drink in front of them or serve wine if they are over. I try to not make it harder for them.
I have a son who is allergic to tree nuts. I don't add them to baking and expect him to skip it because I wanted nuts.
My in-laws are vegetarians. I don't make them eat my omnivorous low carb diet when they come over.
I'm a celiac. My sister in law doesn't put the stuffing in the turkey at thanksgiving so I can still has some. She also checks with me on ingredients and lets me bring some desserts.
I think you've basically got it right. People who make it harder for others either don't care, are oblivious, or are self centered.
Though at the same time I don't place my restrictions on everyone else. I have crohn's and have tons of food restrictions and my friends are good with making low fiber, no raw vegetables or fruit, no whole grains, no red meat, no spice, no lactose options for me but I don't make a big deal if they eat a salad and a steak at the same time even though I would kill to have either one of those.
This. Heck, I cook meat and gluten for the rest of my family.
I don't expect the world to revolve around me.
If you don't expect the world to revolve around you, then you'd agree with this original post. It's about people expecting their friends who are dieting to go out to eat or to allow fast food in their own home. Not about them expecting their friends to limit themselves when they go to their house. There's a big difference. Their home, their rules.
Who are you to tell me what I should and shouldn't do?
I already said they were jerks.
Still doesn't mean your friend is addicted to food.
If he was 700 pounds, I do believe he quite possibly has an eating addiction, though.
Because if it's your friend's house it's their house. Have some respect? and who are you to tell your friend they must go out for fast food or they're a jerk? That's what I'm saying. That's the point of the post.
If someone has friends who call them a jerk or any name for not wanting to go out for fast food, then the problem is with the persons choice of friends. I have family who ask me out to eat and when I decline and explain its because I'm dieting, They sometimes offer up "well, why don't you get something off the lite menu?" But if I decline again they respect that. I understand that they just really want me to go out with them but they might not understand how much going out to eat is a struggle for me when dieting. But no one has ever started berrating me or calling me names.
Well yeah thats what the point of me being upset. If the people Im referring to were not doing anything wrong I wouldnt be complaining... lol. You said they respect that. That's different. Again, these are people who do it over and over who I am referring to or who try to guilt you into it by saying you dont want to be around them or you dont appreciate the thought they put into it, etc.0 -
Verity1111 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Verity1111 wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »
Begin yes but you can't make statements saying it's addictive in humans until they actually complete many studies that indicate it.Verity1111 wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »Verity1111 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Verity1111 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Verity1111 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »FYI, rat studies don't always transfer to humans.
The current standing on the addictive nature of sugar as a substance is still up in the air as far as science is concerned. Right now, as it stands, research on humans doesn't shows that there's not enough evidence to call it addictive.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00394-016-1229-6
Furthermore, a review of all the research shows that a lot of the thinking was leaning more towards people like your 700 pound friend having what could be an addiction to eating itself, and that type of addiction would be a behavioral issue like gambling or sex.
It should also be noted that in that review, very few people would qualify for this diagnosis. I'd also think that if a person is truly addicted to eating itself, the type of food wouldn't really matter. Pizza, donuts, or lentil soup... food would be food to them. I doubt that true eating addicts would be as morbidly obese as those you see on TLC shows, but they would still eat uncontrollably of whatever food they could get their hands on.
And no because my 700lb friend doesnt have an addiction to salad or hot dogs. Addiction to fast food or certain foods not to all food. Most people are not addicted to things they dont enjoy in some way.
He's not addicted to those foods. He's got a behavioral problem with food in general.
Were he to have lived in a time before fast food chains, you'd better believe he'd be chowing down on mutton stew if he had the same issue.
You're missing the point I'm making. It's not the food itself. It's the behavior.
Addictions to substances will cause the addicted person to accept a substitute that will do. Alcoholics will drink some unsavory things just to get a buzz. It has nothing to do with enjoyment. Were you friend totally addicted to fast food, he'd eat stuff he hated just to get a fix.
Okay an addiction IS a behavioral problem
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"
synonyms: dependency, dependence, habit, problem More
Can food be an addiction?
Experiments in animals and humans show that, for some people, the same reward and pleasure centers of the brain that are triggered by addictive drugs like cocaine and heroin are also activated by food, especially highly palatable foods. Highly palatable foods are foods rich in: Sugar. Fat.
Not eating, food. Specific foods.
Activating the reward centers is what pleasurable things do. That does not an addiction make. If that were the case, we'd all be addicted to petting puppies, stubbing our toes, and hugging our grandparents.
I researched this extensively a while back. You'll have to do a lot more than this to convince me. All the evidence I found pointed to current thinking being that a subset of people might qualify as having a behavioral addiction to eating.
No evidence exists for any food addiction at all.
They're trying to show it, but haven't yet.
It's not about activating, it is about causing them to become dependent.
"Doing drugs such as cocaine and eating too much junk food both gradually overload the so-called pleasure centers in the brain, according to Paul J. Kenny, Ph.D., an associate professor of molecular therapeutics at the Scripps Research Institute, in Jupiter, Florida. Eventually the pleasure centers "crash," and achieving the same pleasure--or even just feeling normal--requires increasing amounts of the drug or food, says Kenny, the lead author of the study."
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/03/28/fatty.foods.brain/
"Eventually the pleasure centers "crash," and achieving the same pleasure--or even just feeling normal--requires increasing amounts of the drug or food" Now you can say there's not enough proof all you want, but that doesn't make it possible that it's true. So why not respect someone's life choices instead of pushing them into your own until then? People should not just assume it's impossible to be addicted if their friend specifically says they are. Just respect them enough to watch a movie or hang out and play a game or something instead of going to Burger King and expecting them to go with. Go on your own time.
That's a rat study not a human study.
That's how all studies begin.
Then you can't make a statement saying it's not either. It's called an opinion and I think it's obvious since a lot of people eat food and cry during or after. Obviously they're not enjoying it anymore, but feel like they need it or have a physical urge. If not an addiction, what else is it?
That's not the way this works.
You started a thread with the proposition that people had a food addiction. That put a burden of proof on you. Now you're appealing to your right of opinion. That's all well and fine, but don't feel you have the right to argue as if that whole addiction thing has merit and needs to be respected.
Your friend's wishes should have been respected because they were his wishes.
The whole issue of them bringing food around an "addict" is a red herring that has no bearing on anything other than you adding another layer to the story that didn't need to be there.
I did put in proof. But you consider it not significant proof. I do. They've proven the first portion - food causes certain brains to react in an addictive manner. The only unproven part is they are not sure how it affects our brains wiring over time.
Seriously, you could post 100 studies or articles, but if it doesn't align with the majority of peoples opinions here, it will be foo fooed and picked apart.4 -
Christine_72 wrote: »Verity1111 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Verity1111 wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »
Begin yes but you can't make statements saying it's addictive in humans until they actually complete many studies that indicate it.Verity1111 wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »Verity1111 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Verity1111 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Verity1111 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »FYI, rat studies don't always transfer to humans.
The current standing on the addictive nature of sugar as a substance is still up in the air as far as science is concerned. Right now, as it stands, research on humans doesn't shows that there's not enough evidence to call it addictive.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00394-016-1229-6
Furthermore, a review of all the research shows that a lot of the thinking was leaning more towards people like your 700 pound friend having what could be an addiction to eating itself, and that type of addiction would be a behavioral issue like gambling or sex.
It should also be noted that in that review, very few people would qualify for this diagnosis. I'd also think that if a person is truly addicted to eating itself, the type of food wouldn't really matter. Pizza, donuts, or lentil soup... food would be food to them. I doubt that true eating addicts would be as morbidly obese as those you see on TLC shows, but they would still eat uncontrollably of whatever food they could get their hands on.
And no because my 700lb friend doesnt have an addiction to salad or hot dogs. Addiction to fast food or certain foods not to all food. Most people are not addicted to things they dont enjoy in some way.
He's not addicted to those foods. He's got a behavioral problem with food in general.
Were he to have lived in a time before fast food chains, you'd better believe he'd be chowing down on mutton stew if he had the same issue.
You're missing the point I'm making. It's not the food itself. It's the behavior.
Addictions to substances will cause the addicted person to accept a substitute that will do. Alcoholics will drink some unsavory things just to get a buzz. It has nothing to do with enjoyment. Were you friend totally addicted to fast food, he'd eat stuff he hated just to get a fix.
Okay an addiction IS a behavioral problem
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"
synonyms: dependency, dependence, habit, problem More
Can food be an addiction?
Experiments in animals and humans show that, for some people, the same reward and pleasure centers of the brain that are triggered by addictive drugs like cocaine and heroin are also activated by food, especially highly palatable foods. Highly palatable foods are foods rich in: Sugar. Fat.
Not eating, food. Specific foods.
Activating the reward centers is what pleasurable things do. That does not an addiction make. If that were the case, we'd all be addicted to petting puppies, stubbing our toes, and hugging our grandparents.
I researched this extensively a while back. You'll have to do a lot more than this to convince me. All the evidence I found pointed to current thinking being that a subset of people might qualify as having a behavioral addiction to eating.
No evidence exists for any food addiction at all.
They're trying to show it, but haven't yet.
It's not about activating, it is about causing them to become dependent.
"Doing drugs such as cocaine and eating too much junk food both gradually overload the so-called pleasure centers in the brain, according to Paul J. Kenny, Ph.D., an associate professor of molecular therapeutics at the Scripps Research Institute, in Jupiter, Florida. Eventually the pleasure centers "crash," and achieving the same pleasure--or even just feeling normal--requires increasing amounts of the drug or food, says Kenny, the lead author of the study."
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/03/28/fatty.foods.brain/
"Eventually the pleasure centers "crash," and achieving the same pleasure--or even just feeling normal--requires increasing amounts of the drug or food" Now you can say there's not enough proof all you want, but that doesn't make it possible that it's true. So why not respect someone's life choices instead of pushing them into your own until then? People should not just assume it's impossible to be addicted if their friend specifically says they are. Just respect them enough to watch a movie or hang out and play a game or something instead of going to Burger King and expecting them to go with. Go on your own time.
That's a rat study not a human study.
That's how all studies begin.
Then you can't make a statement saying it's not either. It's called an opinion and I think it's obvious since a lot of people eat food and cry during or after. Obviously they're not enjoying it anymore, but feel like they need it or have a physical urge. If not an addiction, what else is it?
That's not the way this works.
You started a thread with the proposition that people had a food addiction. That put a burden of proof on you. Now you're appealing to your right of opinion. That's all well and fine, but don't feel you have the right to argue as if that whole addiction thing has merit and needs to be respected.
Your friend's wishes should have been respected because they were his wishes.
The whole issue of them bringing food around an "addict" is a red herring that has no bearing on anything other than you adding another layer to the story that didn't need to be there.
I did put in proof. But you consider it not significant proof. I do. They've proven the first portion - food causes certain brains to react in an addictive manner. The only unproven part is they are not sure how it affects our brains wiring over time.
Seriously, you could post 100 studies or articles, but if it doesn't align with the majority of peoples opinions here, it will be foo fooed and picked apart.
Christine sources count too. And I don't see 100s of human studies posted in this thread6 -
OP: Perhaps put the word "Sugar" into the search engine here. You'll see that this exact subject has been argued to death *dozens* of times. It's not like you've stumbled across anything new, here.
I'm sorry your friend's friends are jerks.
He clearly needs better friends.
5 -
Christine_72 wrote: »Verity1111 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Verity1111 wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »
Begin yes but you can't make statements saying it's addictive in humans until they actually complete many studies that indicate it.Verity1111 wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »Verity1111 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Verity1111 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Verity1111 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »FYI, rat studies don't always transfer to humans.
The current standing on the addictive nature of sugar as a substance is still up in the air as far as science is concerned. Right now, as it stands, research on humans doesn't shows that there's not enough evidence to call it addictive.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00394-016-1229-6
Furthermore, a review of all the research shows that a lot of the thinking was leaning more towards people like your 700 pound friend having what could be an addiction to eating itself, and that type of addiction would be a behavioral issue like gambling or sex.
It should also be noted that in that review, very few people would qualify for this diagnosis. I'd also think that if a person is truly addicted to eating itself, the type of food wouldn't really matter. Pizza, donuts, or lentil soup... food would be food to them. I doubt that true eating addicts would be as morbidly obese as those you see on TLC shows, but they would still eat uncontrollably of whatever food they could get their hands on.
And no because my 700lb friend doesnt have an addiction to salad or hot dogs. Addiction to fast food or certain foods not to all food. Most people are not addicted to things they dont enjoy in some way.
He's not addicted to those foods. He's got a behavioral problem with food in general.
Were he to have lived in a time before fast food chains, you'd better believe he'd be chowing down on mutton stew if he had the same issue.
You're missing the point I'm making. It's not the food itself. It's the behavior.
Addictions to substances will cause the addicted person to accept a substitute that will do. Alcoholics will drink some unsavory things just to get a buzz. It has nothing to do with enjoyment. Were you friend totally addicted to fast food, he'd eat stuff he hated just to get a fix.
Okay an addiction IS a behavioral problem
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"
synonyms: dependency, dependence, habit, problem More
Can food be an addiction?
Experiments in animals and humans show that, for some people, the same reward and pleasure centers of the brain that are triggered by addictive drugs like cocaine and heroin are also activated by food, especially highly palatable foods. Highly palatable foods are foods rich in: Sugar. Fat.
Not eating, food. Specific foods.
Activating the reward centers is what pleasurable things do. That does not an addiction make. If that were the case, we'd all be addicted to petting puppies, stubbing our toes, and hugging our grandparents.
I researched this extensively a while back. You'll have to do a lot more than this to convince me. All the evidence I found pointed to current thinking being that a subset of people might qualify as having a behavioral addiction to eating.
No evidence exists for any food addiction at all.
They're trying to show it, but haven't yet.
It's not about activating, it is about causing them to become dependent.
"Doing drugs such as cocaine and eating too much junk food both gradually overload the so-called pleasure centers in the brain, according to Paul J. Kenny, Ph.D., an associate professor of molecular therapeutics at the Scripps Research Institute, in Jupiter, Florida. Eventually the pleasure centers "crash," and achieving the same pleasure--or even just feeling normal--requires increasing amounts of the drug or food, says Kenny, the lead author of the study."
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/03/28/fatty.foods.brain/
"Eventually the pleasure centers "crash," and achieving the same pleasure--or even just feeling normal--requires increasing amounts of the drug or food" Now you can say there's not enough proof all you want, but that doesn't make it possible that it's true. So why not respect someone's life choices instead of pushing them into your own until then? People should not just assume it's impossible to be addicted if their friend specifically says they are. Just respect them enough to watch a movie or hang out and play a game or something instead of going to Burger King and expecting them to go with. Go on your own time.
That's a rat study not a human study.
That's how all studies begin.
Then you can't make a statement saying it's not either. It's called an opinion and I think it's obvious since a lot of people eat food and cry during or after. Obviously they're not enjoying it anymore, but feel like they need it or have a physical urge. If not an addiction, what else is it?
That's not the way this works.
You started a thread with the proposition that people had a food addiction. That put a burden of proof on you. Now you're appealing to your right of opinion. That's all well and fine, but don't feel you have the right to argue as if that whole addiction thing has merit and needs to be respected.
Your friend's wishes should have been respected because they were his wishes.
The whole issue of them bringing food around an "addict" is a red herring that has no bearing on anything other than you adding another layer to the story that didn't need to be there.
I did put in proof. But you consider it not significant proof. I do. They've proven the first portion - food causes certain brains to react in an addictive manner. The only unproven part is they are not sure how it affects our brains wiring over time.
Seriously, you could post 100 studies or articles, but if it doesn't align with the majority of peoples opinions here, it will be foo fooed and picked apart.
Christine, it has nothing to do with bias, and everything to do with the quality of the source.
Preliminary research is never definitive. At best, what she's showing is very preliminary, and proof of nothing more than a call for further research.7 -
My wife has extremely poor impulse control around certain sweets and carby foods. If they're in the house, she's incapable of moderation and will devour them in one sitting. But other sweets and carby foods (which aren't as hyper-palatable to her) have no such effect. They can sit in the cabinet/refrigerator for weeks. We have a bag of sugar which has been up in the cabinet for many, many months.
She suffers no withdrawal symptoms or uncontrollable cravings if her "trigger foods" aren't in the house. She won't leave the house and go to the store just to buy them to satisfy her urges, nor does she suffer any discomfort from their absence, physical or mental. If they're not there, she can't eat them and she's perfectly fine with that. If sugar was truly addictive, ANY food with sugar would satisfy her and she'd gladly pull that bag of sugar down from the cabinet and dive into it face first to get her "fix".
Sugar/carbs are not addictive. There are, however, people with extremely poor impulse control - and for them, moderation is not a good idea. I can have chocolate in the house, eat one small piece of it after dinner, put the bag back up and be perfectly satisfied. My wife can't. It's the exact same substance, so why isn't it "addictive" to both of us? I absolutely love chocolate - it's my biggest weakness - but I've never for one second felt that I was "addicted" to it.
Anybody who claims sugar is addictive has obviously never spent any time around a true addict to any truly addicting substance. It's a way to try to absolve people of personal responsibility and justify their lack of impulse control, but it's a lie. Offer a so-called "sugar addict" a lollipop and if lollipops aren't one of their "trigger foods", they'll probably refuse it. Now go find an alcoholic going through withdrawals/delirium tremens and offer them a bottle of mouthwash (which contains ethyl alcohol). They'll gladly crack that bottle open and drink that mouthwash to feed their addiction and stop the withdrawal symptoms - and that's not some theory from a study, I've seen it first-hand. To compare sugar to alcohol/addictive drugs is beyond ridiculous.
Here's a test: Dose 100 people with daily heroin injections for 3 months. Dose another 100 people with daily sugary treats for 3 months. At the end of the 3 months, take both substances away and tell them that they'll have to become street corner prostitutes to finance the continuation of their "habits". How many of the sugar eaters do you figure you'll find in the red light district selling themselves for donuts? How many of the heroin users do you suppose you'll find doing it?16 -
I just want to make a couple points here.
1. Most of the "no food is bad" argument is directed to those who constantly fall off the wagon because they've convinced themselves that all of the food they love is "bad," and think they have to restrict themselves to celery and bottled water. It's not, at least that I've seen, directed towards those who simply cannot moderate their behavior towards certain foods. For instance, I firmly believe one can eat anything and lose weight, but I know that if I bring chips and french onion dip into the house, I'll have it eaten by the next day. So I don't buy them, because I can't moderate my behavior towards them. It doesn't make them "bad."
2. By the clinical definition of "addiction," it's possibly be entirely psychologically addicted to a substance, so that no physical withdraw symptoms occur when the person stops it. So, given that, I do believe that people can be addicted to sugar, carbs, food in general, etc. And the reason people don't sell their bodies on the streets to get it is that it can be cheaply and readily purchased at the store.0 -
Verity1111 wrote: »Therealobi1 wrote: »Therealobi1 wrote: »Therealobi1 wrote: »Thank you! This is what I've tried saying on here many times. I hate when some people on here say "there is no bad food," "food shouldn't be vilified," "you can eat what you want in moderation so nothing should be off limits." Yeah...maybe for some people, but not all. If moderation, self control, and heathy eating habits were practiced by everyone there wouldn't be sooo many people very heavily overweight and on here looking for help. Everyone can have their opinions about food, but what I'm opposed to is the people posting on these boards who say these things and say them so matter-of-factly like anyone would be uneducated and ridiculous to think otherwise. As a fat person, let me share with you my mindset about why I deem some foods as bad. There are many things that I could not stop myself from eating only one or two of to stay under my daily calories. And I don't just want "a taste." Because for me there is no such thing. So for my diet I will avoid them all together or only have them as a treat once in a blue moon or I'll find a substitute. I don't feel like I'm refusing myself anything...before you give me that blah, blah excuse about how my diet will fail if I ban foods yadda, yadda. My dieting has been working fairly well so far and I don't feel deprived. I'm down 27 pounds since 4th of July. And I'm feeling good about it. So when people ask questions about the nutritional value or calories of one food over the other be mindful that they might not have the self control you have and don't consider every food an option for their dieting success.
Just because some people cant eat food in moderation doesn't make the food bad. I can't eat biscuits in moderation but the biscuit isn't bad it's delicious
Sorry, but you're missing my point. I'm saying that the food is bad in my mind because I can't eat it regularly or have as many as I want because it would tank my diet. I was explaining the mindset that supports some people deeming certain foods as bad. I would wager that there are many overweight people that operate with that same mindset. Again, not saying everybody.
Lots of people of all sizes share that oppinion, the problem is sharing that mindset and when someone eats the said bad food and then thinks they are doomed. You see such posts all the time which is I why I don't think labelling food like that is helpful
So you agree that many people have that mindset but calling food bad in a post on here is not helpful? If lots of people think that way, I'm just putting into words that mindset/feelings for some people about food. It sounds like it's all just a mind game. Maybe people who refuse to deem certain foods "bad" worry that allowing themselves to label foods as such might tank their diet and they will feel guilty. Idk, just a guess. Everyone has different reasons.
You should never feel guilty eating food, I just don't think it's healthy.
If you mess up keep on going
That's very true. That's not what we mean. We just mean some people need to avoid certain foods to succeed. If they ask you kindly to keep them out of their home or to not pressure them into going out to eat, etc, you can respect that. As long as you don't live together anyway. Even if you do, they should be allowed to leave the room.
Some people need to avoid certain foods to succeed.
If you are asked to keep food out of somebodys house, respect that and dont bring it to their house
Somebody leaving the room, say, the staff lunch room at work, if a food is too tempting, is ok.
The 700lb guy mentioned by OP has jerks for friends
Is anyone disagreeing with above statements??
They all seem reasonable enough to me.
What doesnt seem reasonable is the leap from them to "sugar is addictive" - and that is what people are disagreeing with.
9 -
It's hard
Does not equate to physical addiction
May equate to behavioural addiction
Different treatments
That's the only reason it's not helpful to be loose with word usage6 -
Verity1111 wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »Verity1111 wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »Puppybear1 wrote: »Sugar is a drug. And just like alcoholics, some people have genetic predispositions for addiction, ie - diabetics. I have been preaching this topic for a week and fending off the shade I get for comparing sugar to drugs, but it IS a drug, or food companies wouldn't put it in practically everything! Kudos to the Enlightened!
Sugar isn't a drug. It's just sugar.
It is very similar to a drug.
If you need to cast yourself and others in the role of a victim, go right ahead. Doesn't make it the truth, though.
The victim mentality is so rampant here. I saw a post here that said that they didn't lose weight because the developers of mfp removed the sliding scale from the app. I wonder what ever happened to personal responsibility.
It's sad that you think they're not victims but people with anorexia somehow are or need a doctor. So do people with food addictions. Same idea. An uncontrollable, addictive compulsion towards certain foods. They do take responsibility, but they can't do anything if you're going to continuously pressure them. Everyone has their limitations. People lose their mind and kill others so obviously if that's possible and our brains can make us black out and do something so insane they could make us not resist a burger.
I dont think anyone is denying that people with anorexia ( or any other disordered behaviour causing massive impact on ones life) needs a doctor.
But it isnt a doctor to deal with addiction - it is probably a pychologist or similar.
2 -
jennifer_417 wrote: »I just want to make a couple points here.
1. Most of the "no food is bad" argument is directed to those who constantly fall off the wagon because they've convinced themselves that all of the food they love is "bad," and think they have to restrict themselves to celery and bottled water. It's not, at least that I've seen, directed towards those who simply cannot moderate their behavior towards certain foods. For instance, I firmly believe one can eat anything and lose weight, but I know that if I bring chips and french onion dip into the house, I'll have it eaten by the next day. So I don't buy them, because I can't moderate my behavior towards them. It doesn't make them "bad."
2. By the clinical definition of "addiction," it's possibly be entirely psychologically addicted to a substance, so that no physical withdraw symptoms occur when the person stops it. So, given that, I do believe that people can be addicted to sugar, carbs, food in general, etc. And the reason people don't sell their bodies on the streets to get it is that it can be cheaply and readily purchased at the store.
That makes them bad for you because you can't control yourself with them. So you stay away from them. If they're not good for your overall health or diet then what are they? Bad is the opposite of good. For instance, I love milky ways, I can still technically eat a Milky Way on my diet but it wouldn't be the best decision with the calories I'm allowed each day to eat a 280+ calorie candy bar that has no nutritional value and will not fill me up. I'll probably just be hungry afterwards and won't have has many calories remaining for a decent meal. In my opinion, a candy bar like that would be bad for me and the success of my diet. It wouldn't be the smartest way to spend my calories for the day. Now maybe I eat something as a substitute to get a sugar fix, something that will be better for my success on my diet. one thing is a good choice, one thing is bad choice. But if you are somebody that feels you might not be successful on a diet if you look at food this way, then that's you. But my original point was that a lot of people on here don't consider the fact that many people do look at food this way and they just like to definitively say to others "there are no bad foods, eat what you want." Which, in my opinion is wrong, because it's not helpful to people that can't eat that way because moderation and self control with certain foods is not everyone's strong point.
0 -
Honestly, one of the worst things I did to myself was labeling foods as good and bad and believing I was addicted to it. Because once I gave in and ate something "bad," I was a failure, and I was bad. It became an endless loop of guilt and punishment. Once I accepted that I could have any food I wanted, I was able to better proportion it. Once I gave myself permission to stop kicking myself, I was able to rationally look at what food choices made sense for my goals, and what could become more of a weekly treat. I did have to work at learning to moderate certain foods (ice cream was a big one). I stumbled many times along the way. But recognizing that I had control over the food, not the other way around, I felt so much more empowered. The behaviours are difficult to change, but recognizing and accepting that I was not addicted to food was one of the best moments in so far as changing my relationship with food.
OP, your friend's friends are jerks. That has nothing to do with food addiction, and everything to do with them being jerks. Your friend has some work to do in healing his reaction to foods, but he can do it.4 -
...But my original point was that a lot of people on here don't consider the fact that many people do look at food this way and they just like to definitively say to others "there are no bad foods, eat what you want." Which, in my opinion is wrong, because it's not helpful to people that can't eat that way because moderation and self control with certain foods is not everyone's strong point.
I can agree with that, especially the last sentence. The disconnect for me is the jump from there to "sugar is addictive".
I'm one who doesn't consider foods "good" and "bad". I look at the overall context of the diet. With that said, there are people (such as my wife) who cannot exercise moderation and self-control with certain foods, so for them those foods are "bad". But that still doesn't make them universally "bad", it makes them contextually "bad". There are plenty of people who are perfectly capable of control and can enjoy treat foods in moderation.5 -
...But my original point was that a lot of people on here don't consider the fact that many people do look at food this way and they just like to definitively say to others "there are no bad foods, eat what you want." Which, in my opinion is wrong, because it's not helpful to people that can't eat that way because moderation and self control with certain foods is not everyone's strong point.
I can agree with that, especially the last sentence. The disconnect for me is the jump from there to "sugar is addictive".
I'm one who doesn't consider foods "good" and "bad". I look at the overall context of the diet. With that said, there are people (such as my wife) who cannot exercise moderation and self-control with certain foods, so for them those foods are "bad". But that still doesn't make them universally "bad", it makes them contextually "bad". There are plenty of people who are perfectly capable of control and can enjoy treat foods in moderation.
Agree, but that's not what is in question. I wasn't making any correlation with my argument and sugar addiction. I think the two discussions are some how going on at one time. Some people are talking about sugar addiction while others are discussing labeling food as good and bad
0 -
jennifer_417 wrote: »I just want to make a couple points here.
1. Most of the "no food is bad" argument is directed to those who constantly fall off the wagon because they've convinced themselves that all of the food they love is "bad," and think they have to restrict themselves to celery and bottled water. It's not, at least that I've seen, directed towards those who simply cannot moderate their behavior towards certain foods. For instance, I firmly believe one can eat anything and lose weight, but I know that if I bring chips and french onion dip into the house, I'll have it eaten by the next day. So I don't buy them, because I can't moderate my behavior towards them. It doesn't make them "bad."
2. By the clinical definition of "addiction," it's possibly be entirely psychologically addicted to a substance, so that no physical withdraw symptoms occur when the person stops it. So, given that, I do believe that people can be addicted to sugar, carbs, food in general, etc. And the reason people don't sell their bodies on the streets to get it is that it can be cheaply and readily purchased at the store.
That makes them bad for you because you can't control yourself with them. So you stay away from them. If they're not good for your overall health or diet then what are they? Bad is the opposite of good. For instance, I love milky ways, I can still technically eat a Milky Way on my diet but it wouldn't be the best decision with the calories I'm allowed each day to eat a 280+ calorie candy bar that has no nutritional value and will not fill me up. I'll probably just be hungry afterwards and won't have has many calories remaining for a decent meal. In my opinion, a candy bar like that would be bad for me and the success of my diet. It wouldn't be the smartest way to spend my calories for the day. Now maybe I eat something as a substitute to get a sugar fix, something that will be better for my success on my diet. one thing is a good choice, one thing is bad choice. But if you are somebody that feels you might not be successful on a diet if you look at food this way, then that's you. But my original point was that a lot of people on here don't consider the fact that many people do look at food this way and they just like to definitively say to others "there are no bad foods, eat what you want." Which, in my opinion is wrong, because it's not helpful to people that can't eat that way because moderation and self control with certain foods is not everyone's strong point.
Aren't you the poster who started threads about Which is worse: burger or pizza? and Should I eat toast or cereal?
That sort of polarised thinking about individual foods is not effective.
Your diet as a whole, ie not segregating foods into good and bad without context, is the way to look at it.
My apologies if you were not OP of those threads and I am confusing you with somebody else.
3 -
Preach sister!0
-
queenliz99 wrote: »
I love popcorn!1 -
Did you see that thread where a woman's husband thought she was ungrateful because he sabatoged her with chocolates and she asked advice on how to make this boundary clear to him and she was demoralized to the point that she hasn't been back on by people telling her she should thank him for chocolates and have willpower?!?!?! RAGE2
-
-
Why are you so mad at us over your friend's pals being rude??11
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions