Skip to content
  • Register
    • We are pleased to announce that on March 4, 2025, an updated Rich Text Editor will be introduced in the MyFitnessPal Community. To learn more about the upcoming changes, please click here. We look forward to sharing this new feature with you!

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

    12467…11

    Replies

    • Posts: 3,309 Member
      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/
    • Posts: 8,736 Member
      Do you have the link to the actual study? I'd be interested in reading it.
    • Posts: 3,309 Member
      GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
      show previous quotes

      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.
    • Posts: 3,309 Member
      edited October 2016
      singingflutelady wrote: »
      show previous quotes

      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.
    • Posts: 3,309 Member
      edited October 2016
      Therealobi1 wrote: »
      show previous quotes
      show previous quotes

      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.
    • Posts: 3,309 Member
      edited October 2016
      GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
      show previous quotes

      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.
    • Posts: 3,309 Member
      kbmh611 wrote: »
      show previous quotes

      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.
    • Posts: 16,049 Member
      Verity1111 wrote: »
      show previous quotes

      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.
    • Posts: 12,344 Member
      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.
    • Posts: 9,375 Member
      Verity1111 wrote: »
      show previous quotes

      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.

    • Posts: 110 Member
      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.
    • Posts: 15,532 Member
      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.
    • Posts: 110 Member
      edited October 2016
      AnvilHead wrote: »
      show previous quotes

      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:
    • Posts: 9,375 Member
      kbmh611 wrote: »
      show previous quotes

      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.
    • Posts: 130 Member
      Preach sister!
    • Posts: 12,942 Member
      queenliz99 wrote: »
      show previous quotes


      Can we share the popcorn and lulz!

      I love popcorn!
    • Posts: 130 Member
      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
    • Posts: 130 Member
      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).
    This discussion has been closed.

    Welcome!

    It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.
    Sign In
    Register

    Quick Links

    Categories