Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Addicted to sugar DEBATE
Replies
-
BrianAWeber wrote: »Saying that you are addicted to sugar is like saying you're addicted to oxygen...
Not really. I can live without eating any sugar - I have had days where my carb count is zero - because my body can make the glucose it needs. I can't produce the oxygen I need.
But you literally cannot live without sugar. So much so to the point your body will produce it on its own.
That's the point. You still need some sugar in your system to function.9 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »If people can be addicted to gambling, sex, drugs, etc, why is it so hard to accept that someone can be addicted to consuming sugar? They all cause reactions inside the body that release hormones that make us feel good, therefore we keep going back to that thing that gives us that feeling. People can be addicted to sugar just like anything else.What is gained by this?
Is there a "Hey I'm addicted too?" trophy the rest of us aren't aware of?
I think her point was that being pedantic about sugar addiction isn't helpful, plus since there is behavioral addiction, why bother insisting that sugar is not physically addictive. Something doesn't need to be physically addictive to be a problem - for example, gambling.
What IS helpful is suggesting strategies for changing behavior.
1. Desire to change behavior leading to a better outcome.
2. Identify "bad" behavior.
3. Replace "bad" behavior with "good" behavior.
4. Establish benchmarks to ensure success.
5. Conduct effectiveness check.
Identifying the behavior as addictive is a pointless exercise.
Except that when a physical addiction is at play, number 3 doesn't just happen.
Precisely, which is why I would never legitimize sugar addiction. In all other forms of physical addiction there is a clear and objective lack of conscious/controlled thought.
Except the initial thought. And all those thoughts that occur before the individual becomes "physically" addicted, which does not happen overnight.
The decision to initially ingest something (through whatever route) that has the potential to be "physically" addictive is 100% voluntary. Funny how that's almost never mentioned in "debates" such as these.
I would agree with you that of course it is.
Not sure how that matters. I would never say that addiction means no responsibility for one's actions.3 -
janejellyroll wrote: »LiveLoveFitFab wrote: »Study after study has proven that sugar lights up the same part of the brain as drugs. The reward center.
The only reason you aren't killing to get it is because it's so easily available.
And isn't that also the same reward center that lights up when you pet a puppy?
And eat fat and pleasurable foods in general. So why is sugar singled out?3 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »LiveLoveFitFab wrote: »Study after study has proven that sugar lights up the same part of the brain as drugs. The reward center.
The only reason you aren't killing to get it is because it's so easily available.
Sugar hails a taxi. Drugs hijack the vehicle and take it on a wild joy ride before crashing it into a telephone pole.
It's not the "lighting up of the pleasure center in the brain" that causes addiction. It's the hijacking of that part of the brain so that it becomes dependent on more of the drug in order to function.
I don't know why you got woo'ed for this.
What you described is exactly how addiction works in the brain on the reward system.
There's more involved than just dopamine in addiction.
You can't be expected to use logic in a debate. Doing that will get you woo'd.
11 -
cmriverside wrote: »I don't see what the naysayers gain from invalidating the experiences of many people. If it doesn't affect you, why do you feel a need to just flat out shout down the ones for whom this is an issue?
If this is aimed at me, I'm not at all.
But what you don't seem willing to acknowledge is that not everyone who has issues with moderating foods, or sugary foods even, has the exact same experience as you. Many, as I pointed out before, have very different ones.
At this point I don't think we are debating the use of the term "addiction" but what it means/how to handle it, and I continue to maintain that you cannot give good advice on how to deal with it without knowing what the person means by it.
(And I certainly believe in addiction.)4 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »LiveLoveFitFab wrote: »Study after study has proven that sugar lights up the same part of the brain as drugs. The reward center.
The only reason you aren't killing to get it is because it's so easily available.
Sugar hails a taxi. Drugs hijack the vehicle and take it on a wild joy ride before crashing it into a telephone pole.
It's not the "lighting up of the pleasure center in the brain" that causes addiction. It's the hijacking of that part of the brain so that it becomes dependent on more of the drug in order to function.
I don't know why you got woo'ed for this.
What you described is exactly how addiction works in the brain on the reward system.
There's more involved than just dopamine in addiction.
You can't be expected to use logic in a debate. Doing that will get you woo'd.
I suspect that some people just don't know the science because all of the articles about this are just "But DOPAMINE!!!!" and stop there.3 -
cmriverside wrote: »I don't see what the naysayers gain from invalidating the experiences of many people. If it doesn't affect you, why do you feel a need to just flat out shout down the ones for whom this is an issue?
Probably most of you naysayers either have never been addicted or you don't believe in addiction in general (unless it ends in death or intervention) or you won't admit that your little love-affair with alcohol really and truly was (is) alcoholism. That would require a truth you don't want to face, I'm guessing. Or it is a spectrum, both in levels of need and in recovery: which is what I believe. Some go further down the rabbit hole before they stop digging. Some continue to dig themselves into a 600 pound life. Some get a handle on it earlier or with greater resolve.
In essence, addiction is a self-diagnosis unless and until it starts to affect the other people in the world. So all the overweight people who have developed this issue need help, right? Some of them will quit on their own, some will be able to moderate, some will need therapy/medication/12 Step/rehab/whatevers. Invalidating their need for any understanding, empathy and/or treatment isn't the answer - of that much I am certain. Yes, it's an inside job. Maybe you all could develop that side of you which is kinder and more understanding. It's not a weakness.
I spent my childhood being invalidated by a crazy mother. Ya'll don't scare me, but this is all very familiar. I recognize the dismissive tone of your approach, and it is not a compassionate response.
I just don't see how it's helpful to anyone to invalidate their experience, when it is a common problem.
Yep.
Who do you think is denying the existence of alcoholism or in denial about their own alcoholism? I'm genuinely curious here, as I saw nothing in the thread that would support that.3 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Would it be safe to say that people are addicted to the good feels that sugar has? (Is that dopamine?)
Could also be the taste.
If it were simply physical, I think fruit or refined starches would be the same, and people would be drawn to plain sugar over sugar plus fat. That it's sugar plus fat suggests that either fat brings a good feeling as well (which I think is true) and that taste is part of it.
Comfort food tends to also bring in memories/association/habit.
Definately, I think that is why some people prefer sweet and others savory. I guess the savory would be more fat than sugar.
The sweet is often as much or more fat than sugar/carbs too. I think part of this is the misnomer of calling a donut a "carb."4 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »LiveLoveFitFab wrote: »Study after study has proven that sugar lights up the same part of the brain as drugs. The reward center.
The only reason you aren't killing to get it is because it's so easily available.
And isn't that also the same reward center that lights up when you pet a puppy?
And eat fat and pleasurable foods in general. So why is sugar singled out?
It's trendy now to demonize it, and it's handy to call it an addiction rather than using other verbiage to frame the same problem (which no one denies people having, hence no one is being invalidated).
In fact, I don't see anyone's experience being invalidated. The discussion is regarding the words used to frame that experience.
That's something different.
I don't need to call myself an alcoholic to abstain from alcohol and explain that I have a problematic relationship with the stuff. I do have issues with it. I can drink socially if I choose to. I could manage it if I wanted to. It would be hard for me, so I don't. I respect the struggles of people who really are alcoholics too much to apply the term to myself and my issues, I don't need a word for my experience to implement strategies to deal with my issues.
I don't think it invalidates what I lived through not calling myself an alcholic. I had the experience, I lived it, I own it, and taking responsibility for all I did during that time manifests itself in how I deal with it all now.
The issue in this debate is focused on exactly this... the words used to describe someone's behavior shouldn't be so important. Why is it so important to think of yourself as an addict to those of you saying you're addicted? How is that essential to you owning your behavior and moving forward?
It doesn't invalidate your experience to use other words to frame that behavior. Not in the least.8 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »I don't see what the naysayers gain from invalidating the experiences of many people. If it doesn't affect you, why do you feel a need to just flat out shout down the ones for whom this is an issue?
Probably most of you naysayers either have never been addicted or you don't believe in addiction in general (unless it ends in death or intervention) or you won't admit that your little love-affair with alcohol really and truly was (is) alcoholism. That would require a truth you don't want to face, I'm guessing. Or it is a spectrum, both in levels of need and in recovery: which is what I believe. Some go further down the rabbit hole before they stop digging. Some continue to dig themselves into a 600 pound life. Some get a handle on it earlier or with greater resolve.
In essence, addiction is a self-diagnosis unless and until it starts to affect the other people in the world. So all the overweight people who have developed this issue need help, right? Some of them will quit on their own, some will be able to moderate, some will need therapy/medication/12 Step/rehab/whatevers. Invalidating their need for any understanding, empathy and/or treatment isn't the answer - of that much I am certain. Yes, it's an inside job. Maybe you all could develop that side of you which is kinder and more understanding. It's not a weakness.
I spent my childhood being invalidated by a crazy mother. Ya'll don't scare me, but this is all very familiar. I recognize the dismissive tone of your approach, and it is not a compassionate response.
I just don't see how it's helpful to anyone to invalidate their experience, when it is a common problem.
Yep.
Who do you think is denying the existence of alcoholism or in denial about their own alcoholism? I'm genuinely curious here, as I saw nothing in the thread that would support that.
Maybe she means me since I've disputed some of the things she's said on the topic? I would think it's obvious from my posting history that I absolutely believe in addiction, though.
Can't say I'm in denial about my alcoholism either, considering I've literally never had a single drop of alcohol in my entire life...so maybe not me? I haven't seen anyone on here saying anything that sounded like they were in denial of an addiction though so...?2 -
kristen8000 wrote: »When I hear someone say they are addicted to sugar, the image that comes to my mind is them, ingesting tablespoons of cane sugar in private, like a junky.
Everyone has something they love. But that doesn't mean you NEED it.
Totally have done this, eaten sugar from a spoon, though not often. I've eaten honey by the spoonful lots of times. I've torn the kitchen apart at midnight (don't mean damaged), driven out for doughnuts in the middle of the night, snuck sugary food and hidden the evidence from family. Years ago, I had roommates and if they had sugary food I'd eat it without permission (I'd steal it). If there was cake/cookies at work I'd try to be last person there so I could get more. It's not always that bad, but I've had periods where it was pretty out of control.
When I gave up added sugar (mostly, can't claim 100%), I experienced headaches and dizziness. Now I sometimes dream about it. I don't know if it's clinically addictive but it's a serious problem for some people. Fruit doesn't trigger cravings for more, more, more sugar and for me, neither does a little serving of pasta or white bread.
I love cheese and I've binged on it but it doesn't create the same kind of compulsion.7 -
If anyone's experience is being invalidated, I think it could be people who say "I have a sugar addiction" and when asked questions say "I have trouble moderating my favorite sugary foods, and potato chips too -- when I have ice cream I eat the pint, but of course I am fine with fruit."
People say those kinds of things over and over again on MFP, and ask how to deal with their inability to control themselves around sugary treats or their specific trigger foods.
Apparently, if we think that someone might mean that kind of thing when they announce they have a sugar addiction, or might mean a bingeing disorder or might mean they use sugary treats to self-comfort or blot out bad feelings, and ask to be sure and seek to help with those problems, we are invalidating.5 -
I use a lot of words to describe my problematic relationship with sugar. And I have used many of them in this thread.
Stop cherry-picking one sentence without taking all of my post. Context.
Have fun arguing amongst yourselves. It's a pointless discussion as it always is. "Addict/addiction/alcoholism" it's a matter of choice of words. No one gets to define it for another. ::shrug:: I personally don't care what people call it. If it's a problem, it's a problem.
I talked about my experience. You can't change that, no matter how many pages of talking. Just like I said on page one.9 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »I don't see what the naysayers gain from invalidating the experiences of many people. If it doesn't affect you, why do you feel a need to just flat out shout down the ones for whom this is an issue?
Probably most of you naysayers either have never been addicted or you don't believe in addiction in general (unless it ends in death or intervention) or you won't admit that your little love-affair with alcohol really and truly was (is) alcoholism. That would require a truth you don't want to face, I'm guessing. Or it is a spectrum, both in levels of need and in recovery: which is what I believe. Some go further down the rabbit hole before they stop digging. Some continue to dig themselves into a 600 pound life. Some get a handle on it earlier or with greater resolve.
In essence, addiction is a self-diagnosis unless and until it starts to affect the other people in the world. So all the overweight people who have developed this issue need help, right? Some of them will quit on their own, some will be able to moderate, some will need therapy/medication/12 Step/rehab/whatevers. Invalidating their need for any understanding, empathy and/or treatment isn't the answer - of that much I am certain. Yes, it's an inside job. Maybe you all could develop that side of you which is kinder and more understanding. It's not a weakness.
I spent my childhood being invalidated by a crazy mother. Ya'll don't scare me, but this is all very familiar. I recognize the dismissive tone of your approach, and it is not a compassionate response.
I just don't see how it's helpful to anyone to invalidate their experience, when it is a common problem.
Yep.
Who do you think is denying the existence of alcoholism or in denial about their own alcoholism? I'm genuinely curious here, as I saw nothing in the thread that would support that.
Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against their own unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others.9 -
i believe people can be addicted to sugar. for that matter people could be addicted to anything. so many people are addicted to facebook, or mfp. but that is an issue with the persons themselves, not the end product (unlike nicotine, heroin, alcohol, etc.).
5 -
kristen8000 wrote: »When I hear someone say they are addicted to sugar, the image that comes to my mind is them, ingesting tablespoons of cane sugar in private, like a junky.
Everyone has something they love. But that doesn't mean you NEED it.
Totally have done this, eaten sugar from a spoon, though not often. I've torn the kitchen apart at midnight (don't mean damaged), driven out for doughnuts in the middle of the night, snuck sugary food and hidden the evidence from family. Years ago, I had roommates and if they had sugary food I'd eat it without permission (I'd steal it). It's not always that bad, but I've had periods where it was pretty out of control.
When I gave up added sugar (mostly, can't claim 100%), I experienced headaches and dizziness. Now I sometimes dream about it. I don't know if it's clinically addictive but it's a serious problem for some people. Fruit doesn't trigger cravings for more, more, more sugar and for me, neither does a little serving of pasta or white bread.
I'm genuinely curious about this.
Do you enjoy the taste of plain sugar? When you were craving something sweet and had some, was it satisfying so that you kept eating it and consumed lots of calories?
When you wanted something sweet was it normal specific foods you enjoyed or just sugar?
Did you ever try having fruit when craving sugar (in your mind)? How about juice?
How did you end up dealing with the issue? When you'd consume sugar in secret (I assume you mean sugary treats) and steal it, were you telling yourself you could not have sugar? Why did you not just buy your own rather than take something not yours?
I do think these sound like addictive-type behaviors (a behavioral addiction of sorts) but I am less convinced (although open to the idea) that it's physical. I think one thing that happens that results in a loss of control around sugary sweets is that you tell yourself you cannot have them and then when you do go nuts (looking for something and taking it seem similar to this, as does an obsession with it being around, and trying sugar as a substitute for the sweet thing you really want).
I also think (again) that another way that the addictive-like behaviors can manifest is using sweets (or some other tasty food, it need not always be sweets) to self sooth.
Of course that it can be really easy to overeat tasty foods, that some have a bigger sweet tooth than others, and that many of us can have issues when it comes to control with food in general may be related to why one would decide to cut it out in the first place.
I've never stolen food (I have no reason to, it's easy to access), but I have hidden my consumption of it, and I've gone out at night to get it. I don't personally consider my issues with food to be addiction (and they are not so focused on sugar), but I see links, as I said above.4 -
cmriverside wrote: »I use a lot of words to describe my problematic relationship with sugar. And I have used many of them in this thread.
Stop cherry-picking one sentence without taking all of my post. Context.
Have fun arguing amongst yourselves. It's a pointless discussion as it always is. "Addict/addiction/alcoholism" it's a matter of choice of words. No one gets to define it for another. ::shrug:: I personally don't care what people call it. If it's a problem, it's a problem.
I talked about my experience. You can't change that, no matter how many pages of talking. Just like I said on page one.
I don't know why you are making this all about you. It wasn't particularly about your experience at all until you offered it up as one way that "sugar addiction" manifests.
I doubt that what OP was talking about was the same, and without asking for more details we could not know. Asking for more details and what someone has tried is NOT "invalidating."
(I also don't care whether it's called addiction or not.)10 -
cmriverside wrote: »I use a lot of words to describe my problematic relationship with sugar. And I have used many of them in this thread.
Stop cherry-picking one sentence without taking all of my post. Context.
Have fun arguing amongst yourselves. It's a pointless discussion as it always is. "Addict/addiction/alcoholism" it's a matter of choice of words. No one gets to define it for another. ::shrug:: I personally don't care what people call it. If it's a problem, it's a problem.
I talked about my experience. You can't change that, no matter how many pages of talking. Just like I said on page one.
Still don't know who you're speaking to.5 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »I use a lot of words to describe my problematic relationship with sugar. And I have used many of them in this thread.
Stop cherry-picking one sentence without taking all of my post. Context.
Have fun arguing amongst yourselves. It's a pointless discussion as it always is. "Addict/addiction/alcoholism" it's a matter of choice of words. No one gets to define it for another. ::shrug:: I personally don't care what people call it. If it's a problem, it's a problem.
I talked about my experience. You can't change that, no matter how many pages of talking. Just like I said on page one.
I don't know why you are making this all about you. It wasn't particularly about your experience at all until you offered it up as one way that "sugar addiction" manifests.
I doubt that what OP was talking about was the same, and without asking for more details we could not know. Asking for more details and what someone has tried is NOT "invalidating."
(I also don't care whether it's called addiction or not.)
Nor is debating whether or not sugar is addictive.5 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »I use a lot of words to describe my problematic relationship with sugar. And I have used many of them in this thread.
Stop cherry-picking one sentence without taking all of my post. Context.
Have fun arguing amongst yourselves. It's a pointless discussion as it always is. "Addict/addiction/alcoholism" it's a matter of choice of words. No one gets to define it for another. ::shrug:: I personally don't care what people call it. If it's a problem, it's a problem.
I talked about my experience. You can't change that, no matter how many pages of talking. Just like I said on page one.
Still don't know who you're speaking to.
How is this woo-worthy? I legitimately don't know who you're addressing because you haven't let us know. You're not quoting anyone.6
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 900 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions