You are not just "weak" or "lazy". Food can be an ADDICTION.

Options
1…34689…16

Replies

  • Verity1111
    Verity1111 Posts: 3,309 Member
    Options
    kbmh611 wrote: »
    Verity1111 wrote: »
    GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
    Verity1111 wrote: »
    GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
    singingflutelady wrote: »
    nvmomketo 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.
  • Christine_72
    Christine_72 Posts: 16,049 Member
    Options
    Verity1111 wrote: »
    GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
    Verity1111 wrote: »
    singingflutelady 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.
    Begin yes but you can't make statements saying it's addictive in humans until they actually complete many studies that indicate it.

    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.
  • jennifer_417
    jennifer_417 Posts: 12,344 Member
    Options
    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.
  • paperpudding
    paperpudding Posts: 8,983 Member
    Options
    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.

  • kbmh611
    kbmh611 Posts: 110 Member
    Options
    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.
  • nutmegoreo
    nutmegoreo Posts: 15,532 Member
    Options
    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.
  • kbmh611
    kbmh611 Posts: 110 Member
    edited October 2016
    Options
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    kbmh611 wrote: »
    ...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 :smile:
  • paperpudding
    paperpudding Posts: 8,983 Member
    Options
    kbmh611 wrote: »
    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.
  • DisruptedMatrix
    DisruptedMatrix Posts: 130 Member
    Options
    Preach sister!
  • SLLRunner
    SLLRunner Posts: 12,943 Member
    Options
    queenliz99 wrote: »
    zyxst wrote: »
    As someone with a drug addiction, I'm in for the lulz.
    601.gif


    Can we share the popcorn and lulz!

    I love popcorn!
  • DisruptedMatrix
    DisruptedMatrix Posts: 130 Member
    Options
    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?!?!?! RAGE
  • DisruptedMatrix
    DisruptedMatrix Posts: 130 Member
    Options
    zyxst wrote: »
    As someone with a drug addiction, I'm in for the lulz.
    601.gif

    right, because people eat themselves to death because they want to. People want to get to the point where they are so big that they can't get off the couch to take a *kitten* (yes, this happens).

Categories