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
-
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 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »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.
Their side cares, so anyone debating otherwise is automatically categorized as woo.
I interpret these votes of woo as being awesome. Appeals to logos are always awesome.9 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »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.
Their side cares, so anyone debating otherwise is automatically categorized as woo.
I interpret these votes of woo as being awesome. Appeals to logos are always awesome.
Especially when the appeal to logos is in response to an appeal to pathos.3 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
@lemurcat12 I'll see if can answer at all concisely.
Do I like the taste of sugar? White sugar, not especially by itself. I made a syrup with water a few times & drank it. When I discovered grenadine I thought that was great. I do like the taste of brown sugar, could easily eat a teaspoonful. I like honey, smetimes mixed with peanut butter 50/50. I have eaten cake sprinkles directly from a jar, taste is so-so. The best is real maple syrup, I have sipped that many times. I've had these behaviors since I was a kid, maybe about age 9. I used to drink huge amounts of juice, too, which I didn't have to sneak like plain sugars. (We never had regular sugar, soda, candy, sugary cereals, etc. at my house as a kid but we did have honey and real maple syrup.)
Satisfying? I wouldn't say so. I like the initial sugar taste but it's a letdown when it's gone and I want more.
What did I want? Sugar. I mean, I like chocolate, cake, cookies, etc but it's all about the sugar delivery. Caramel is my favorite.
Why did I take my roommate's sweets? It was always something I was initially offered a piece of, then they would just let it sit there for days. It didn't happen very many times but it drove me crazy that it might go to waste and it was so close.
How did I deal with the issue? It came and went in severity. If I was busy, eating healthy, certain things going well, it was probably a bit more under control. To really give it up: 1) I quit coffee. I only like coffee really sweet and artificial sweeteners are blech, including stevia. I changed to tea 9 months ago and gradually stopped sweetening it. 2) I started having a TBSP of apple cider vinegar followed by a TBSP of molasses after dinner. I KNOW molasses is sugar, too (I know!), but it's got nutrients & I was actually taking it mostly for iron. Anyway, not sure which helped but I stopped having nighttime sugar cravings, they just went away. 3) I increased fiber intake and started MFP for the 3rd time and made a decision to not have any food with *added* sugar any more. It hasn't been that long, we'll see. I still have fruit, one or two a day, it's not a problem. Many articles I've read point to the fruit's fiber and other nutrients in not triggering cravings. I have juice sometimes, I like it in my smoothie. I also still have molasses if my iron is low. (I know it's sugar!) Two nights ago I had a bite of my BF's cannoli (not a euphemism) and didn't go crazy.
P.S. I've never been diabetic or been diagnosed with pre-diabetes. However, my cholesterol was borderline high and I started reading articles about a link between sugar and blood cholesterol so that was the impetus for me to work on the problem. And weight loss, too, but the cholesterol thing was new and I'm getting older. My chol dropped 38 points in 60 days.
PPS It was much easier to give up coffee than it was to give up sugar.5 -
Thanks for answering, I appreciate it! Couple of follow ups.Do I like the taste of sugar? White sugar, not especially by itself. I made a syrup with water a few times & drank it. When I discovered grenadine I thought that was great. I do like the taste of brown sugar, could easily eat a teaspoonful. I like honey, smetimes mixed with peanut butter 50/50. I have eaten cake sprinkles directly from a jar, taste is so-so. The best is real maple syrup, I have sipped that many times. I've had these behaviors since I was a kid, maybe about age 9. I used to drink huge amounts of juice, too, which I didn't have to sneak like plain sugars. (We never had regular sugar, soda, candy, sugary cereals, etc. at my house as a kid but we did have honey and real maple syrup.)
Would you want to consume sweet foods like this that you didn't particularly enjoy the taste of? Or is it about seeking a particular taste?Satisfying? I wouldn't say so. I like the initial sugar taste but it's a letdown when it's gone and I want more.
I guess what I meant was if you were jonesing for a cookie and didn't have any, would you think sugar was an adequate substitute? I've been at home and wanted something to eat, ideally some ice cream (for example) and it's never crossed my mind to eat sugar because for me that doesn't have the taste I'm looking for (and just sugar is not an appealing taste for me).
I don't think this has much to do with the addiction thing, but I find it interesting. It's quite normal for humans to enjoy a sweet taste, obviously -- it's the first taste we apparently seek out, and evolutionarily it makes sense, but plain sugar has never been something I enjoy outside of fruit (I love syrup and honey on things, but not alone, too overwhelming for me).Why did I take my roommate's sweets? It was always something I was initially offered a piece of, then they would just let it sit there for days. It didn't happen very many times but it drove me crazy that it might go to waste and it was so close.
Ah, I get this.
Glad what you are doing is working. Even though I'm not a sugar fiend in that savory foods tend to be more my weakness and just sugar (like sugary cereal, which I dislike) doesn't appeal to me, I do tend to gravitate in part to sweet foods for snacking and emotional eating, so I found cutting out added sugar for a while (about a month) when I started and not snacking (I still don't) to be very helpful.2 -
3 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Thanks for answering, I appreciate it! Couple of follow ups.,Would you want to consume sweet foods like this that you didn't particularly enjoy the taste of? Or is it about seeking a particular taste?
I prefer the things I like the taste of, but I'd eat something with sugar I don't like that much if there was nothing else. Like, I'd never buy gummy worms but if there was a bowl of them I'd eat 'em.I guess what I meant was if you were jonesing for a cookie and didn't have any, would you think sugar was an adequate substitute? I've been at home and wanted something to eat, ideally some ice cream (for example) and it's never crossed my mind to eat sugar because for me that doesn't have the taste I'm looking for (and just sugar is not an appealing taste for me).
I wouldn't really crave a specific food. I'd think. "What do I have that's SWEET," and hunt through the cupboards. If all I had was jam, I'd eat jam and bread. (Or eat it straight.) If all I had was sugar, I might have a spoonful or I might think of something I could put it in, like tea or cereal. Yes, if I bought ice cream I'd eat the whole pint but that's not what the craving is.
I've eaten candy until I had sores in my mouth, and I mean as a middle-aged person.4 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »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.
When someone posts to the forum asking for help with what they perceive as an addiction, getting "No you're not" or "Sugar is not addictive" (that ends there) responses is absolutely invalidating. That's why the mods have asked that debating the nature of sugar addiction be kept here in Debate.
@lemurcat12 this is not directed towards people like you who give thoughtful nuanced answers, which I do not consider invalidating.7 -
lemurcat12 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.
I realize this is my pet peeve, but I also think calling it what it is can be helpful.
If someone insists that their issue is just addiction to blackjack, and ignores that they have an issue with the lottery ('cause they are in denial that that's gambling) or the stock market, that's a problem.
The issue with "sugar" or "carbs" on this site is really the opposite. It's so trendy to see sugar (or carbs) as the source of all evil, that people blame them and claim "sugar addiction" when the truth is (with some exceptions, sure) that their issues if they actually think about it are different. For example, they may have zero problems consuming fruit (and not even have an interest in fruit sometimes). Yet fruit is a high sugar food, and if the issue were -- as is often claimed -- a physical issue with sugar or even a "behavioral" addiction to "sugar" (whatever that would mean), fruit ought to inspire the same reaction.
Similarly, it may be that the issue isn't sugar at all, but a use of foods the person likes (often sweets if the person has a sweet tooth, but perhaps cupcakes and cookies, not soda, because of taste preferences, or even oatmeal cookies, not Oreos) for emotional purposes. If the person stops sweets, they may find they are using other foods that they love for the same purpose.
Or in other cases it might not be this at all. It might be a pattern of saying "this is bad for me, I'm never eating this again" and then blowing it and feeling like it's ruined but also thinking "I'll never have this again, so I might as well make the best of it and eat it ALL!"
Or it could be an eating addiction of sorts, or a bingeing problem.
I don't really care if the person wants to call the issue "addiction" and in some cases I might agree (and it doesn't really matter," but being specific about what's going on is ESSENTIAL to getting good advice and working it out for yourself, IMO.
The idea that it's just a SUGAR ADDICTION because SUGAR is BAD and ADDICTIVE, physically, like heroin (which is commonly insisted on, not by OP, but by some other poster quoting some anti sugar guru or another), and that all sugar addictions are the same and mean you can never have sugar (or never have BAD sugar, because fruit sugar is different and not addictive -- which makes no sense, it just doesn't, it's scientifically inaccurate), IMO really prevents a sensible discussion of what would help with feeling out of control and getting a handle on it, IMO.
I get the impression that you want to prevent this kind of more specific discussion and just say "oh, well, it's sugar addiction, so..." and I really don't see how that's helpful. Whether it's called addiction or not, it's generally not really just sugar or all sugar, the issue is NOT that the body is having a physical withdrawal (it could be keto flu, but one can cut way down on sugary treats without keto flu), and making it all about sugar rather than being specific about what exactly is the difficulty, what is being craved or overeaten or missed or whatever and when and why and under what circumstances seems to me to be what prevents real discussion of strategies.
And I will note I gave some strategy ideas in the other thread that I found helpful in my own experience.
No, the specific type of discussions I want to prevent are those that invalidate the posters struggle. @newmeadow summed it up well.Anyone who is unable to moderate their intake of sugar should go to live, in-person ADDICTION support groups that advocate abstinence from sugar (not including naturally occurring sugar in fresh fruit, vegetables and dairy).
Those support groups include: www.oa.org, www.greysheet.org, www.foodaddicts.org, www.foodaddictsanonymous.org
Never discuss it on MFP unless you want to be diminished, humiliated, dog piled, laughed at and dismissed.
Now the rest of you who are so cocksure about addiction being an elite and selective experience based on whether or not one mainlines or has to go to jail for robbing grandmas on the street corner, go virtuously eat a single frosted cupcake or a dainty half cup of ice cream. And then come back to MFP and brag about it. Thank you for your service.
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.
@cmriverside @newmeadow I suggest you don't answer that publicly.5 -
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.
Yes, invalidation is indeed very hurtful. Whenever I see a sugar addiction thread in the general forums I always ask that the moderators do what Em did (move to Debate and/or post a warning like Em did http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/comment/40452642/#Comment_40452642) because of the inevitable invalidating, mocking, hurtful responses.
(Again, this does not apply to the posters giving thoughtful, nuanced replies.)6 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »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.
Perhaps you are unaware of the two different uses of the Woo reaction?
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10570889/new-community-reaction-woo#latest
Woo can mean two things. You can click it both to mean woo as in woo-hoo or to express that you think an idea or approach is too good to be true.3 -
kshama2001 wrote: »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.
@cmriverside @newmeadow I suggest you don't answer that publicly.
I am well aware to whom they are referring.
Since I don't drink at all, it doesn't matter to me what they think about me not calling myself an alcoholic, because they're wrong about my consumption of alcohol and my "attachment" to it. They're also wrong about me being an alcoholic. I was never addicted to the stuff. I had problematic usage of it that might have gotten worse, but might not have. I stopped before there was ever an issue that bad.
I don't need validation, I had an invalidating mother too. I learned long ago that the only validation I need is my own.
11 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »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.
Not the same way I need oxygen.
I do not need to take in any sugars at all. I can make my own. It is not essential to life to ingest it.
On the other hand, oxygen intake is as essential as you can get.1 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »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.
Not the same way I need oxygen.
I do not need to take in any sugars at all. I can make my own. It is not essential to life to ingest it.
On the other hand, oxygen intake is as essential as you can get.
This is semantics and drawing really fine lines.
Essential to take in vs. essential to survive.
I am aware that you are using the word "essential" as if it were in the context of the phrase "essential nutrient", but we've moved the discussion past that and aren't talking in that context.
The fact is, you need glucose to survive, so much so, that your body makes it.
You want to mince words and say something isn't necessary because you don't need to take it in because your body makes it? Well, it's still there in your body. There's no getting around that.
It's necessary to survive.5 -
It is not invalidating to a person's experience to enlighten them to known facts and redirect they're thinking so that they can properly address their problem.kshama2001 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »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.
When someone posts to the forum asking for help with what they perceive as an addiction, getting "No you're not" or "Sugar is not addictive" (that ends there) responses is absolutely invalidating. That's why the mods have asked that debating the nature of sugar addiction be kept here in Debate.
@lemurcat12 this is not directed towards people like you who give thoughtful nuanced answers, which I do not consider invalidating.
Are you their lawyer??kshama2001 wrote: »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.
@cmriverside @newmeadow I suggest you don't answer that publicly.kshama2001 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »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.
Perhaps you are unaware of the two different uses of the Woo reaction?
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10570889/new-community-reaction-woo#latest
Woo can mean two things. You can click it both to mean woo as in woo-hoo or to express that you think an idea or approach is too good to be true.
I'm fully aware of the different meanings of the word "woo." None apply to the fact that I don't know who she's directing her comments to.7 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »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.
Not the same way I need oxygen.
I do not need to take in any sugars at all. I can make my own. It is not essential to life to ingest it.
On the other hand, oxygen intake is as essential as you can get.
This is semantics and drawing really fine lines.
Essential to take in vs. essential to survive.
I am aware that you are using the word "essential" as if it were in the context of the phrase "essential nutrient", but we've moved the discussion past that and aren't talking in that context.
The fact is, you need glucose to survive, so much so, that your body makes it.
You want to mince words and say something isn't necessary because you don't need to take it in because your body makes it? Well, it's still there in your body. There's no getting around that.
It's necessary to survive.
I don't think I am mincing words. I never said glucose is not necessary to survive. Or essential to survival. I said I don't need to consume it, which is true. It is not necessary/essential to take in/consume/eat glucose (in the form of carbohydrates) - I can live fine without consuming it.
Oxygen must be consumed. It is essential/necessary to take it in as I cannot make it. Oxygen and glucose are different that way. One can be made by the body and one cannot. I see a difference there. Perhaps you do not see the distinction - that's okay. We'll just disagree on another thing.
3 -
I would say my former neighbor was addicted to it. Had type 2 diabetes and would always drink soda, eat junk food, and if someone brought her baked goods she would eat it all and not share with her husband. Anyone who eats sugar to the point their legs have open, seeping diabetic sores, then continues eating is an addict. Ew Dx8
-
Why do you assume her issue was not with eating in general or food but specifically sugar (which is also in fruit, for example)?
I do think people can have addictive behaviors re eating. I don't think this is necessarily the case with someone who fails to lose weight despite a health reason, as there are so many other causes, especially for someone sick: depression is one (and failing to make changes because one believes it doesn't/wouldn't matter or it's too late, everything is already ruined). Not understanding how to make a change and built up frustration from past failures (including cycles of NEVER AGAIN followed by a binge, which can be a common result of all or nothing thinking). Thinking the only alternatives are being always hungry/never eating anything you enjoy vs. just not caring/doing anything different.
Hard to say without knowing the advice given, but our understanding culturally of how weight loss works and what it involves is not very good.
Often it goes beyond poor eating choices (and certainly beyond overeating sugar specifically). For example, many people whose health would be improved by being less sedentary nevertheless remain sedentary. Why? Not sure, I do think part of this is that they give themselves fatalistic messages (it wouldn't matter anyway, so why be unhappy or why even try), but I notice no one seems so quick to insist this kind of complicated human behavior might be addictive. (It might be with this too, of course, in some sense -- addiction is complicated. I think different terms would likely fit better, however, and perhaps be more empowering.)7 -
kshama2001 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »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.
Perhaps you are unaware of the two different uses of the Woo reaction?
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10570889/new-community-reaction-woo#latest
Woo can mean two things. You can click it both to mean woo as in woo-hoo or to express that you think an idea or approach is too good to be true.
Generally in debate forum it only has one use.5 -
divinehipster69 wrote: »I would say my former neighbor was addicted to it. Had type 2 diabetes and would always drink soda, eat junk food, and if someone brought her baked goods she would eat it all and not share with her husband. Anyone who eats sugar to the point their legs have open, seeping diabetic sores, then continues eating is an addict. Ew Dx
Or perhaps she had a disconnect between her choices and their long term consequences.4
This discussion has been closed.
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