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
-
And same studies could be applied to petting puppies and holding babies.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.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Omg. This explains the connection between my addiction and the collection of dogs I've amassed. I have a predisposition to addiction, but I didn't realize it went as far as puppies. But here I am, sitting typing this with two chihuahua's in my lap and a borrowed australian shepherd snoring beside me. Thank God I'm infertile, or else I'd be like that Duggar lady.4 -
Highly patatable and sugar are definitely two different categories, but if the cravings are specifically towards high sugar items, rather than greasy, salty, or just tasty, than the addiction is the sugar. I can easily eat myself sick with pixie sticks and sugar cubes, but though I absolutely love pizza, I'm not going to go out of my way to pigout on it, especially if I don't feel great.
Someone else may be addicted to the highly palatable, or high carb, or spicy or salty items. Just like someone can be addicted to heroin AND cocaine, but not necessarily Vicodine or alchohol. Another might be addicted to more than one category. In my case, it is the sugar.
To call it a sugar addiction because you eat too much candy but not too much fruit is like saying an alcoholic is addicted to beer but not whiskey. If the issue is sugar, you'd go for bananas as fast as you'd go for a twinkie because the substance is in both, just like alcohol is in both wine and whiskey.
Does your "addiction" cause you to overeat fruit or does fruit satisfy your cravings for sweets? If no to either question, you are not addicted to sugar. You just eat too much of the foods you like because you like them.7 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »To call it a sugar addiction because you eat too much candy but not too much fruit is like saying an alcoholic is addicted to beer but not whiskey.
^^^This...
6 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Highly patatable and sugar are definitely two different categories, but if the cravings are specifically towards high sugar items, rather than greasy, salty, or just tasty, than the addiction is the sugar. I can easily eat myself sick with pixie sticks and sugar cubes, but though I absolutely love pizza, I'm not going to go out of my way to pigout on it, especially if I don't feel great.
Someone else may be addicted to the highly palatable, or high carb, or spicy or salty items. Just like someone can be addicted to heroin AND cocaine, but not necessarily Vicodine or alchohol. Another might be addicted to more than one category. In my case, it is the sugar.
To call it a sugar addiction because you eat too much candy but not too much fruit is like saying an alcoholic is addicted to beer but not whiskey. If the issue is sugar, you'd go for bananas as fast as you'd go for a twinkie because the substance is in both, just like alcohol is in both wine and whiskey.
.
Or chewing a saltine until it gets sweet.0 -
I used to eat cane sugar by the tablespoon. In my 20s, sugar sandwiches were a mainstay of my diet. Every tea and every coffee I drank had at least 4 heaped teaspoons in them, so much that there'd be a syrup at the bottom of the cup that I'd then spoon out and eat (or stick my fingers in and suck them clean). But then, I'm a recovered addict from alcohol, cocaine and amphetamine that's managed to keep a lid on his addictions for 21 years and all I can say is, hardly any of you know Jack Schitt about addiction.
I know a lot about addiction.
Claiming that people with a taste for plain sugar = addicts, while people with a taste for other foods (swedish meatballs, nuts, cheese, sugar + fat, maybe, pasta, the list goes on) = what? just gluttons? is really weird.
And no, I don't think that I enjoy swedish meatballs and sometimes have a taste for them means I am addicted to them.
When I was a kid I'd eat salt. Weird, but not an addiction. I still really like salt + fat (that's why I like cheese, which has those combinations of taste) and it can make me more likely to overeat something (although not so much because I've developed my palate and tend to like salt and fat as more subtle contributors to a food now). That you really really like sugar doesn't seem all that different.
I never enjoyed sugary coffee, but many people start drinking coffee super sweet (when young -- it's inborn in us to like sweet, I think), and then, as they develop more adult palates often prefer it less sweet (not always, some always have a super strong sweet tooth -- my grandfather always said his mother loved super sweet tea (he thought it was a Swedish thing, beats me)).
When I was a kid I loved cinnamon toast (bread with butter and cinnamon sugar, broiled). I'd make it more buttery, but that's my taste, I certainly enjoyed the sugar. I'd probably still like it, although I haven't thought to have it since I've been an adult. I also liked pixie stix (my tastes have changed, now I would not) and koolaid or the occasional coke.
When I was in college I liked my coffee half milk, although I now like it black -- again, changing tastes, although lots of people continue to love lots of milk in coffee. Does me liking milk in it make me a dairy addict?
I really don't understand this idea that if your tastes run to sugar you must be an addict, but people with different preferences and different foods they have control over cannot understand the difficulties of sugar addiction.8 -
All I know is don't bring a bunch of cookies to my house. I will hate you forever and ever lol. They are my weakness and I can't stop myself....maybe I have a cookie addiction lol0
-
Carlos_421 wrote: »Highly patatable and sugar are definitely two different categories, but if the cravings are specifically towards high sugar items, rather than greasy, salty, or just tasty, than the addiction is the sugar. I can easily eat myself sick with pixie sticks and sugar cubes, but though I absolutely love pizza, I'm not going to go out of my way to pigout on it, especially if I don't feel great.
Someone else may be addicted to the highly palatable, or high carb, or spicy or salty items. Just like someone can be addicted to heroin AND cocaine, but not necessarily Vicodine or alchohol. Another might be addicted to more than one category. In my case, it is the sugar.
To call it a sugar addiction because you eat too much candy but not too much fruit is like saying an alcoholic is addicted to beer but not whiskey. If the issue is sugar, you'd go for bananas as fast as you'd go for a twinkie because the substance is in both, just like alcohol is in both wine and whiskey.
Does your "addiction" cause you to overeat fruit or does fruit satisfy your cravings for sweets? If no to either question, you are not addicted to sugar. You just eat too much of the foods you like because you like them.
You CAN be addicted to beer and not whiskey.It's not particularly likely, or common, buy it IS possible. ANYTHING can be involved in an addiction. It is entirely due to the reward system in your brain, NOT the actual substance itself. Everything else is simply a matter of the side effects of the particular indulgence. Sugary sweets are addictive if you become addicted to them. Sex is addictive if you become addicted to it . World of Warcraft is addictive if you become addicted to it. Celery is addictive if you become addicted to it. Some substances or activities have a larger percentage of people who are obsessed with obtaining them, to the point of having a serious negative impact on thier life. Those things are generally considered "more" addictive than others. It is possible to be addicted to celery, which means that technically it can be addictive, although it is not particularly likely. More people are going to crave sweets than celery, so it is generally considered more addictive than celery is.
Fortunately for sugar addicts, the side effects of too much sugar aren't nearly as bad as the side effects if too much alchohol,or Vicodin and Benadryl, and they are much easier to recover from. And the withdrawals aren't nearly as likely to make you as sick as more poisonous addictions like alcohol or various drugs. But just because the side effects aren't as severe, does not mean that the person who is having extreme difficulty not indulging is not addicted.And telling the person that they are not "actually" addicted, simply because you don't think sugar is serious or specific enough to cause an actual addiction is about as realistic as telling someone with depression that they can not possibly be "actually" depressed, because they aren't dealing with issues that are sad enough to be depressed over.
10 -
You obviously didn't ready ALL of the ASAM's definition to addiction.Carlos_421 wrote: »Highly patatable and sugar are definitely two different categories, but if the cravings are specifically towards high sugar items, rather than greasy, salty, or just tasty, than the addiction is the sugar. I can easily eat myself sick with pixie sticks and sugar cubes, but though I absolutely love pizza, I'm not going to go out of my way to pigout on it, especially if I don't feel great.
Someone else may be addicted to the highly palatable, or high carb, or spicy or salty items. Just like someone can be addicted to heroin AND cocaine, but not necessarily Vicodine or alchohol. Another might be addicted to more than one category. In my case, it is the sugar.
To call it a sugar addiction because you eat too much candy but not too much fruit is like saying an alcoholic is addicted to beer but not whiskey. If the issue is sugar, you'd go for bananas as fast as you'd go for a twinkie because the substance is in both, just like alcohol is in both wine and whiskey.
Does your "addiction" cause you to overeat fruit or does fruit satisfy your cravings for sweets? If no to either question, you are not addicted to sugar. You just eat too much of the foods you like because you like them.
You CAN be addicted to beer and not whiskey.It's not particularly likely, or common, buy it IS possible. ANYTHING can be involved in an addiction. It is entirely due to the reward system in your brain, NOT the actual substance itself. Everything else is simply a matter of the side effects of the particular indulgence. Sugary sweets are addictive if you become addicted to them. Sex is addictive if you become addicted to it . World of Warcraft is addictive if you become addicted to it. Celery is addictive if you become addicted to it. Some substances or activities have a larger percentage of people who are obsessed with obtaining them, to the point of having a serious negative impact on thier life. Those things are generally considered "more" addictive than others. It is possible to be addicted to celery, which means that technically it can be addictive, although it is not particularly likely. More people are going to crave sweets than celery, so it is generally considered more addictive than celery is.
Fortunately for sugar addicts, the side effects of too much sugar aren't nearly as bad as the side effects if too much alchohol,or Vicodin and Benadryl, and they are much easier to recover from. And the withdrawals aren't nearly as likely to make you as sick as more poisonous addictions like alcohol or various drugs. But just because the side effects aren't as severe, does not mean that the person who is having extreme difficulty not indulging is not addicted.And telling the person that they are not "actually" addicted, simply because you don't think sugar is serious or specific enough to cause an actual addiction is about as realistic as telling someone with depression that they can not possibly be "actually" depressed, because they aren't dealing with issues that are sad enough to be depressed over.
https://www.asam.org/docs/default-source/publications/asam-news-archives/vol26-3.pdf?sfvrsn=0
"The definition does not say that there is such a thing as, say, baseball
addiction. What it says is that we must look to see if repeated
engagement in play and study of baseball causes or is the result of
neurobiologic manifestations that lead to impaired control over
further involvement in baseball. It says we must perform research
to see if such individuals then demonstrate other manifestations
of addiction such as significant impairment in executive function,
persistent risk and/or recurrence of relapse and so forth.
The definition therefore avoids the current controversy regarding
such activities as Internet use, videogame play and other activities
that are so much part of our contemporary culture. It also avoids
defining addiction in such a way as to imply that time spent involved
in an activity has any relationship to the presence of addiction.
Surely there have been individuals over the years who have
spent "excessive" time reading, yet there has never been a serious
inquiry as to whether reading addiction exists as an entity. The new
definition cleanly avoids discussion of the substrate of addiction, or
of the marker; if you prefer; and rather addresses the underlying
nature of the disorder.
Disease definitions are living entities; they always represent a work in
progress and as such are destined to change as science advances. ASAM
invites your feedback regarding the new definition. Feel free to write
me directly at drgitlow@aol.com with your comments and concerns."
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
4 -
You CAN be addicted to beer and not whiskey.
I find it highly unlikely that a person can be addicted to beer and not whiskey, that is a preference, not an addiction. If you are addicted to alcohol, you will drink NYQUIL if need be. Please don't insult real people with real addictions...
7 -
You CAN be addicted to beer and not whiskey.
I find it highly unlikely that a person can be addicted to beer and not whiskey, that is a preference, not an addiction. If you are addicted to alcohol, you will drink NYQUIL if need be. Please don't insult real people with real addictions...
Just as someone with a heroin addiction will prefer heroin, but will accept Vicodin or Fentanyl and in a "real crisis" will probably even use Meth or Cocaine to take the edge off.4 -
stanmann571 wrote: »You CAN be addicted to beer and not whiskey.
I find it highly unlikely that a person can be addicted to beer and not whiskey, that is a preference, not an addiction. If you are addicted to alcohol, you will drink NYQUIL if need be. Please don't insult real people with real addictions...
Just as someone with a heroin addiction will prefer heroin, but will accept Vicodin or Fentanyl and in a "real crisis" will probably even use Meth or Cocaine to take the edge off.
Exactly, I have first hand experience with family members. Beer may be your drug of choice (wine was for one family member) but if you're out of your particular go-to, you'll drink the whiskey to fill the need.
eta: General "you" not directed at anyone in this thread.2 -
stanmann571 wrote: »You CAN be addicted to beer and not whiskey.
I find it highly unlikely that a person can be addicted to beer and not whiskey, that is a preference, not an addiction. If you are addicted to alcohol, you will drink NYQUIL if need be. Please don't insult real people with real addictions...
Just as someone with a heroin addiction will prefer heroin, but will accept Vicodin or Fentanyl and in a "real crisis" will probably even use Meth or Cocaine to take the edge off.
Exactly, I have first hand experience with family members. Beer may be your drug of choice (wine was for one family member) but if you're out of your particular go-to, you'll drink the whiskey to fill the need.
eta: General "you" not directed at anyone in this thread.
It's really, really common for people with problems with alcohol to decide they just will stick to wine and beer or to cut out the thing they most commonly have issues with. I have never once heard of this working. It would be nice if it did.
Personally, I had a strong preference for good wine (I liked to think I was an oenophile, not a drunk). Did I drink whiskey or beer or gin & tonics or even terrible wine to excess at times when decent wine was not available? Sure thing.
It's also true that people with gambling issues (focused on, say, blackjack) don't generally have the ability to switch to poker and be fine, or betting on horse races, or even playing the stock market without it being an issue.2 -
Fortunately for sugar addicts, the side effects of too much sugar aren't nearly as bad as the side effects if too much alchohol, or Vicodin and Benadryl, and they are much easier to recover from. And the withdrawals aren't nearly as likely to make you as sick as more poisonous addictions like alcohol or various drugs.
There are no withdrawals from sugar. (Other than the withdrawal from food, i.e., starving, if you stop eating, or the keto flu if you cut way, way, way down on carbs, but it makes no sense to call those things withdrawal and it has nothing to do with having been "addicted.")
That quitting something does not lead to withdrawal doesn't matter to whether it's addictive in a psychological sense, but worth noting.But just because the side effects aren't as severe, does not mean that the person who is having extreme difficulty not indulging is not addicted.
The reason the addiction is not "sugar" is that people are fine with sugar in many forms (in most cases) and seem to have issues with specific sugary treats (and often other foods, or sugar specifically combined with other tastes or ingredients).
Can there be issues with eating that are akin to addictions? Sure, to some extent, and some are worse than others. Is the average 600+ lb person's relationship with food or eating like an addiction? IMO, probably, in most cases.
I object to people claiming sugar is physically addictive and that it's sugar specifically, not hyperpalatable foods or food more generally (if you have problems with sweet things, you have an addiction; if you go nuts on Big Macs or chips, well, you just overeat or whatever). I also -- most of all -- have problems with people saying it's exactly like (or sometimes worse) heroin addiction. That's not true. That doesn't mean that food issues, which encompass EDs, of course, cannot be super difficult, painful, and serious. It doesn't have to be conceptualized as an "addiction" to be those things.And telling the person that they are not "actually" addicted, simply because you don't think sugar is serious or specific enough to cause an actual addiction is about as realistic as telling someone with depression that they can not possibly be "actually" depressed, because they aren't dealing with issues that are sad enough to be depressed over.
No, it's the opposite, because depression is not about the issues one is dealing with.
Lots of times people who say they are "addicted" to sweets seem to think that addiction is just really, really enjoying something a lot and finding it difficult not to overindulge because it's so tasty! That's not what addiction is.
Like I said, I do think food issues can be like addiction (although IME different too -- I was obese and kept using food in some ways as a replacement for alcohol, because it was a crutch and did not have the bad effects of alcohol, even though yes it's bad for your health to be fat. Even so, eating/food was not the center of my life (like I think an addictive substance becomes, killing the other things you should value), and I was not trapped or enslaved in the same way (which doesn't mean I was not responsible for my actions when in the addiction, of course). I had my soul back, and that I would certainly use food in some similar ways -- to dysfunctionally deal with feelings, because it was pleasurable and would take my mind off other things in the moment -- does not make it really the same thing.
Can it become the same thing? Sure, like I said, I think to become 600 lbs it probably must, at least for many. But when people say that they mean to eat a cookie and end up eating a whole sleeve, so must be addicted, or take a spoonful of ice cream and eat a pint (because so yummy!) and that = addiction, I think they don't get addiction.
The question is WHY? Would you eat the ice cream if you thought something really significant was at stake if you did? In most cases, I don't think people are doing so because they really care about the ice cream over their life, say, but because the negatives of the ice cream are far away (I'll be fat one extra day or it will take me one day longer to lose, or I should get around to losing because I am going to look bad in those photos) and many people are awful at balancing long and short term consequences.
If someone has diabetes and is told they MUST quit eating sweets and believes it and yet cannot, yeah, that's probably more similar. (Most of the time even then I think if they understood they wouldn't be hungry all the time or only eating food they think tastes bad -- as many think because they have a distorted idea of what healthy eating is -- even they would stop, because it's less about the ice cream as being able to enjoy eating.)10 -
stanmann571 wrote: »You CAN be addicted to beer and not whiskey.
I find it highly unlikely that a person can be addicted to beer and not whiskey, that is a preference, not an addiction. If you are addicted to alcohol, you will drink NYQUIL if need be. Please don't insult real people with real addictions...
Just as someone with a heroin addiction will prefer heroin, but will accept Vicodin or Fentanyl and in a "real crisis" will probably even use Meth or Cocaine to take the edge off.
This is 100% true.
As for the beer/whiskey thing. I live with someone who i would say is an alcoholic... These days he only drinks beer, 4-5 years ago it was anything/everything particularly spirits all day everyday, from 8-9am onwards!
There was a full bottle of jack Daniels (his spirit of choice) sitting here for over a month that his friend left here, which remained untouched the whole time. He knows once her starts he wont stop, to my surprise he didn't touch a drop!
I honestly don't know what label to put on him anymore... He definitely can not go a day without drinking, and the minute the clock strikes 12pm that first bottle of beer is opened, and he stops drinking after dinner, so 6 hours of steady drinking a day. He no longer gets drunk, as he knows that's a relationship deal breaker for me, but he does walk that fine line each and everyday. Maybe he's a "functioning alcoholic", I honestly have no idea anymore..0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »You CAN be addicted to beer and not whiskey.
I find it highly unlikely that a person can be addicted to beer and not whiskey, that is a preference, not an addiction. If you are addicted to alcohol, you will drink NYQUIL if need be. Please don't insult real people with real addictions...
Just as someone with a heroin addiction will prefer heroin, but will accept Vicodin or Fentanyl and in a "real crisis" will probably even use Meth or Cocaine to take the edge off.
Exactly, I have first hand experience with family members. Beer may be your drug of choice (wine was for one family member) but if you're out of your particular go-to, you'll drink the whiskey to fill the need.
eta: General "you" not directed at anyone in this thread.
It's really, really common for people with problems with alcohol to decide they just will stick to wine and beer or to cut out the thing they most commonly have issues with. I have never once heard of this working. It would be nice if it did.
@lemurcat12 This is exactly what my husband did. He knows what spirits and wine do to him, so he has completely abstained from them and just sticks to mid/low strength beer.
0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »You CAN be addicted to beer and not whiskey.
I find it highly unlikely that a person can be addicted to beer and not whiskey, that is a preference, not an addiction. If you are addicted to alcohol, you will drink NYQUIL if need be. Please don't insult real people with real addictions...
Just as someone with a heroin addiction will prefer heroin, but will accept Vicodin or Fentanyl and in a "real crisis" will probably even use Meth or Cocaine to take the edge off.
This is 100% true.
As for the beer/whiskey thing. I live with someone who i would say is an alcoholic... These days he only drinks beer, 4-5 years ago it was anything/everything particularly spirits all day everyday, from 8-9am onwards!
There was a full bottle of jack Daniels (his spirit of choice) sitting here for over a month that his friend left here, which remained untouched the whole time. He knows once her starts he wont stop, to my surprise he didn't touch a drop!
I honestly don't know what label to put on him anymore... He definitely can not go a day without drinking, and the minute the clock strikes 12pm that first bottle of beer is opened, and he stops drinking after dinner, so 6 hours of steady drinking a day. He no longer gets drunk, as he knows that's a relationship deal breaker for me, but he does walk that fine line each and everyday. Maybe he's a "functioning alcoholic", I honestly have no idea anymore..
That's the correct label. And I have known people who choose that lifestyle.
IF it's not a deal breaker, and it doesn't drive any deal breakers(abuse/unemployability) Then you do you, and he does him, and don't worry about the label.
It will generally drive a reduced lifespan, and other health issues similar to obesity, but again, that's you(family) doing you, and having to decide what's what.1 -
stanmann571 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »You CAN be addicted to beer and not whiskey.
I find it highly unlikely that a person can be addicted to beer and not whiskey, that is a preference, not an addiction. If you are addicted to alcohol, you will drink NYQUIL if need be. Please don't insult real people with real addictions...
Just as someone with a heroin addiction will prefer heroin, but will accept Vicodin or Fentanyl and in a "real crisis" will probably even use Meth or Cocaine to take the edge off.
This is 100% true.
As for the beer/whiskey thing. I live with someone who i would say is an alcoholic... These days he only drinks beer, 4-5 years ago it was anything/everything particularly spirits all day everyday, from 8-9am onwards!
There was a full bottle of jack Daniels (his spirit of choice) sitting here for over a month that his friend left here, which remained untouched the whole time. He knows once her starts he wont stop, to my surprise he didn't touch a drop!
I honestly don't know what label to put on him anymore... He definitely can not go a day without drinking, and the minute the clock strikes 12pm that first bottle of beer is opened, and he stops drinking after dinner, so 6 hours of steady drinking a day. He no longer gets drunk, as he knows that's a relationship deal breaker for me, but he does walk that fine line each and everyday. Maybe he's a "functioning alcoholic", I honestly have no idea anymore..
That's the correct label. And I have known people who choose that lifestyle.
IF it's not a deal breaker, and it doesn't drive any deal breakers(abuse/unemployability) Then you do you, and he does him, and don't worry about the label.
It will generally drive a reduced lifespan, and other health issues similar to obesity, but again, that's you(family) doing you, and having to decide what's what.
I do picture him lying in a hospital with cirrhosis or some other horrible disease. But arguing with him at this stage is futile, he has all the excuses under the sun..
"I'm not an alcoholic, I just enjoy a beer"
"I don't get smashed like i used to" as if i should be grateful.
"It's only beer, not hard liquor" Somewhere in his brain he has talked himself into thinking beer wont do him any/as much damage as the harder stuff.
It's *kitten* infuriating
1 -
This content has been removed.
-
I should make clear, in case I didn't sufficiently, that I think food/eating issues are complicated, I think addiction is complicated, and I really don't have a problem with someone deciding for themselves that they feel like their relationship to certain kinds of foods (sweets or whatever) is addictive or similar and that they do better not consuming them.
What bothers me is when someone pops into a thread and says "you should quit sugar" -- usually but not always meaning SOME foods with sugar (and often other things) -- "the evidence has proven it's as addictive as cocaine."
That is not saying "I specifically have developed an issue with specific foods, just like one could with celery." It's claiming there's something distinct and unique about sugary foods for all, that sugar itself is different from other foods in being, supposedly, addictive.
On the other hand, I certainly think some people do better with abstinence than moderation (or some form of moderation that is very like abstinence, I don't think there's always a clear line, what do you call "I bake pie only for holidays" which is what I do?). I also think some people have trigger foods or find certain foods really hard to control (for whatever reason). For me it's more about the context of eating than the foods (why I mostly don't snack), but I would agree there are contexts in which control is hard, and if that's how someone defines addiction (it is not how I define addiction), then yes, that's a real thing.
But I don't think sugary foods are special in evoking this effect or that having trouble with sugary foods = addiction (because sugar is just like cocaine!) or that overeating sugar is, for the most part, anything like being a drug addict (I've been someone who regularly overeats and felt a lack of control much of the time about some of my eating behaviors, I don't think I know what it's like to take crack). Nor do I think that experiences like this with sugar are different (just like cocaine!) than experiences with cheese or chicken wings or chips or whatever. They might be for an individual, but not in a way that justifies saying people in general should beware of sugar.6 -
I have a major sweet tooth. What some people call addiction, I call cravings. What some people call "sugar binges", I call lack of willpower.
If someone says they have a binge eating disorder, but it only pertains to sugary items.. Then IMHO it is not BED, but again, the cravings/willpower issue.
Just my personal experience on the issue.7 -
My two cents: IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT WE CALL IT.
I say this not as someone who has no strong opinion on this issue (I do), but as someone who works in intervention and relapse prevention for a living, and sees that what we call this problem is much less important than how we address it effectively. Whether one believes sugar is a substance that is addictive or not, many strategies that apply to making lifestyle changes to address addiction can be useful to someone trying to give up trigger foods.
It is helpful to analyze current eating habits: Who do I spend time with that influences my habits with junk food/sugar/ processed food? Where do I tend to eat it? Are there certain times of day that I'm more likely to turn to this food? What kinds of activities do I associate with eating this kind of food (do I eat it absentmindedly while watching tv, while working, while driving)?
It is helpful to consider my emotional connection to this type of food: Do I eat this to cope with negative emotions or memories, rather than considering more positive coping strategies that might be more constructive in my life?
It is helpful to recognize the impact this type of food has had on my life, and to acknowledge what I might gain from changing: What are some things I have lost as a result of my poor eating choices? What kinds of outcomes are likely if I continue eating like this? What outcomes are possible if I change? What are some things I could achieve if I had a healthier lifestyle?
It is helpful to consider past efforts: What was effective when I tried to change before? What triggered my "relapse?" What can I do differently this time?
And finally, it is helpful to identify and build my support. What kind of support system do I have in place to help me to make better choices and provide some additional accountability (MFP, WW meetings, a walking buddy)?
It is NOT helpful to make people feel stupid for asking for help when they feel completely out of control for compulsively putting something unhealthy into their body. I haven't read this entire thread, and I'm aware that this particular part of the forum is specifically for debate, but it really gets under my skin to see people ridiculed every time this topic comes up.16 -
My experience with addicts is that they are chasing the high, the altering of their mood and emotions. Not the taste of their drug of choice. The feeling of the whiskey hitting their stomach, the moment of euphoria when the heroine hits the blood stream. Makes sense to me that people who are “addicted” to sugar may be experiencing some of those same key things on an emotional level. The mood altering effects the escape. Most people I know get into addictions because they blunt some uncomfortable part of reality. We all know food can be used to blunt discomfort so why would that not become an addiction?6
-
It is NOT helpful to make people feel stupid for asking for help when they feel completely out of control for compulsively putting something unhealthy into their body. I haven't read this entire thread, and I'm aware that this particular part of the forum is specifically for debate, but it really gets under my skin to see people ridiculed every time this topic comes up.
Maybe read the thread before generalizing or making assumptions about what has been said or presuming to lecture.
Personally I agree that it doesn't much matter what it's called EXCEPT when it detracts from exactly the kind of analysis that you seem to recommend. Too often, I think, people say the A word and others jump in to talk about how specific foods are allegedly uniquely addictive and thus the problem and the answer must be abstinence. (I think sometimes abstaining from trigger foods can be helpful, btw.)
My response is always that instead of generalizing about the experience of everyone who uses (or doesn't use) the A word (which often has to do with personal ideas about what addiction is or isn't or even whether you've read one of those awful quizzes under which basically 85% of people or more would be classified as "addicted" to food or sugar or some guru pushing the notion), the thing to do -- whatever word you find you wish to use -- is to be SPECIFIC about precisely what you are talking about and what's going on. WHAT specific foods do you feel out of control with (carbs? so carrots? probably not), and even more important, WHEN and under what circumstances. It's something I've struggled with (and many of us here who do not use the addiction word for ourself) and still do to some extent. Language choice should not detract from that and discussion of different approaches (vs. those who jump in to say "yes, sugar is just like cocaine, the solution is only to avoid it, it's the devil") and, importantly, the SPECIFICS are important.
I found that I tended to emotionally eat/stress eat, so finding other ways to deal with stress and negative emotions, being conscious/mindful of what was behind an impulse to eat, and looking at the setting -- mostly at work or with an impulse purchase after work when exhausted -- helped me find solutions that made sense for me (not snacking, journaling, taking time to workout or cook as a stress relief, having established habits, so on). Also, seeing how I was stuffing emotions and how I had certain patterns of behavior and triggers (circumstances for me, not foods) was useful.
I don't think saying "the circumstances matter" -- which is what I see said in all of the addiction threads that pop up (heck, I say it) -- is mockery. I think the derailment comes when people bring in the cocaine thing, but sigh, I suppose not worth rearguing this. I just think the hectoring tone -- respond to specific posts if you have an issue and maybe we can have a conversion -- is NOT helpful or fair at all.7 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »It is NOT helpful to make people feel stupid for asking for help when they feel completely out of control for compulsively putting something unhealthy into their body. I haven't read this entire thread, and I'm aware that this particular part of the forum is specifically for debate, but it really gets under my skin to see people ridiculed every time this topic comes up.
Maybe read the thread before generalizing or making assumptions about what has been said or presuming to lecture.
Personally I agree that it doesn't much matter what it's called EXCEPT when it detracts from exactly the kind of analysis that you seem to recommend. Too often, I think, people say the A word and others jump in to talk about how specific foods are allegedly uniquely addictive and thus the problem and the answer must be abstinence. (I think sometimes abstaining from trigger foods can be helpful, btw.)
My response is always that instead of generalizing about the experience of everyone who uses (or doesn't use) the A word (which often has to do with personal ideas about what addiction is or isn't or even whether you've read one of those awful quizzes under which basically 85% of people or more would be classified as "addicted" to food or sugar or some guru pushing the notion), the thing to do -- whatever word you find you wish to use -- is to be SPECIFIC about precisely what you are talking about and what's going on. WHAT specific foods do you feel out of control with (carbs? so carrots? probably not), and even more important, WHEN and under what circumstances. It's something I've struggled with (and many of us here who do not use the addiction word for ourself) and still do to some extent. Language choice should not detract from that and discussion of different approaches (vs. those who jump in to say "yes, sugar is just like cocaine, the solution is only to avoid it, it's the devil") and, importantly, the SPECIFICS are important.
I found that I tended to emotionally eat/stress eat, so finding other ways to deal with stress and negative emotions, being conscious/mindful of what was behind an impulse to eat, and looking at the setting -- mostly at work or with an impulse purchase after work when exhausted -- helped me find solutions that made sense for me (not snacking, journaling, taking time to workout or cook as a stress relief, having established habits, so on). Also, seeing how I was stuffing emotions and how I had certain patterns of behavior and triggers (circumstances for me, not foods) was useful.
I don't think saying "the circumstances matter" -- which is what I see said in all of the addiction threads that pop up (heck, I say it) -- is mockery. I think the derailment comes when people bring in the cocaine thing, but sigh, I suppose not worth rearguing this. I just think the hectoring tone -- respond to specific posts if you have an issue and maybe we can have a conversion -- is NOT helpful or fair at all.
It wasn't my intention to lecture, or use a "hectoring tone"--and I didn't have time to read all 230+ comments in the thread before The Walking Dead came on before submitting my thoughts.4 -
Ugh, I had a long comment after that, and it got chopped off. I have to go to work now, but I'll try to respond later.4
-
I am sorry if I misread you. My way of reading people who jump in and complain about how others have posted and then proclaim something (what matters is not what we call it, but the specifics and what can help) is that they are assuming no one else made that same point and were instead posting, well, wrongly. Here, I think a lot of the posts in the thread have made that point (that when it comes to advice what it's called doesn't matter, as well as that the specifics matter) and not just been debating.
Also, this was split from a prior thread so that thread could be all about advice and not the debate, and the intent was that this one focus on the topic of "sugar addiction."
I may be oversensitive, since I do think it's important to provide helpful advice (although I think we need to know more details to really do so than that OP feels out of control around certain foods or in his or her eating), and thus IMO always do or try to. This thread is really about a lot of things (none relating to the specific OP, that's why it's here).5 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I am sorry if I misread you. My way of reading people who jump in and complain about how others have posted and then proclaim something (what matters is not what we call it, but the specifics and what can help) is that they are assuming no one else made that same point and were instead posting, well, wrongly. Here, I think a lot of the posts in the thread have made that point (that when it comes to advice what it's called doesn't matter, as well as that the specifics matter) and not just been debating.
Also, this was split from a prior thread so that thread could be all about advice and not the debate, and the intent was that this one focus on the topic of "sugar addiction."
I may be oversensitive, since I do think it's important to provide helpful advice (although I think we need to know more details to really do so than that OP feels out of control around certain foods or in his or her eating), and thus IMO always do or try to. This thread is really about a lot of things (none relating to the specific OP, that's why it's here).
I don't think you misread anything, or if you did, I did as well.
She did seem to be strongly inferring that the posts denying the validity of "sugar addiction" were done in a wrong manner ("It is NOT helpful to make people feel stupid for asking for help when they feel completely out of control for compulsively putting something unhealthy into their body") while admitting that she hadn't even read the other responses in this thread.5 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I am sorry if I misread you. My way of reading people who jump in and complain about how others have posted and then proclaim something (what matters is not what we call it, but the specifics and what can help) is that they are assuming no one else made that same point and were instead posting, well, wrongly. Here, I think a lot of the posts in the thread have made that point (that when it comes to advice what it's called doesn't matter, as well as that the specifics matter) and not just been debating.
Also, this was split from a prior thread so that thread could be all about advice and not the debate, and the intent was that this one focus on the topic of "sugar addiction."
I may be oversensitive, since I do think it's important to provide helpful advice (although I think we need to know more details to really do so than that OP feels out of control around certain foods or in his or her eating), and thus IMO always do or try to. This thread is really about a lot of things (none relating to the specific OP, that's why it's here).
As I reread my earlier post, I can see why it would be taken as a lecture, so I apologize for my tone. I actually did read several of the responses before posting, but what I wrote was not in response to any of the posts I read in this particular thread. I enjoy reading threads, but rarely comment (due to time, my introverted nature, and honestly, a fear of being "woo-d"). (Thanks for those, whoever! Lol) This topic is very meaningful to me because so often I see very interesting parallels between addiction/recovery and binge eating/weight loss and maintenance in the prevention/intervention field, and I want to share them! But I never have the time to do the topic justice, so I just read what other people post and keep all thoughts to myself. The above was a bit of that, plus some misplaced frustration. I get kind of worked up when I read posts written by people who compare their compulsion to binge eat sugary foods to addiction and are promptly shut down by those who are (understandably) tired of the cocaine comparisons (which, I absolutely agree, inspire derailment). More than anything, I meant to be helpful. And apparently I really suck at that here! Lol7 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
I know a lot about addiction.
I really don't understand this idea that if your tastes run to sugar you must be an addict, but people with different preferences and different foods they have control over cannot understand the difficulties of sugar addiction.
Without even looking up brain studies I'm going to say that for most people sugar causes a brief but intense release of a host of brain chemicals including dopamine and seratonin.
I have experience with addiction and a good sugar buzz could be momentarily compared to a low dose opiate buzz. The sugar high is fleeting but it's real. Not every sugar user is an addict and sugar use doesn't cause your brain to grow new sugar receptors which have to be filled constantly or withdrawals result (like opiates).
But choosing to ingest sugar to feel better does become habit forming.
8 -
joelrivard wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
I know a lot about addiction.
I really don't understand this idea that if your tastes run to sugar you must be an addict, but people with different preferences and different foods they have control over cannot understand the difficulties of sugar addiction.
Without even looking up brain studies I'm going to say that for most people sugar causes a brief but intense release of a host of brain chemicals including dopamine and seratonin.
I have experience with addiction and a good sugar buzz could be momentarily compared to a low dose opiate buzz. The sugar high is fleeting but it's real. Not every sugar user is an addict and sugar use doesn't cause your brain to grow new sugar receptors which have to be filled constantly or withdrawals result (like opiates).
But choosing to ingest sugar to feel better does become habit forming.
The bolded is exactly why we have a problem with the comparison to opiates. Might as well compare spraining your ankle with getting your whole foot amputated, because hey you can't properly walk with either, right?.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
- 424 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