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

189101214

Replies

  • mph323
    mph323 Posts: 3,565 Member
    edited December 2017
    J72FIT wrote: »
    Momepro 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.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    mph323 wrote: »
    J72FIT wrote: »
    Momepro 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.
  • Christine_72
    Christine_72 Posts: 16,049 Member
    J72FIT wrote: »
    Momepro 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..
  • Christine_72
    Christine_72 Posts: 16,049 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    mph323 wrote: »
    J72FIT wrote: »
    Momepro 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.

  • stanmann571
    stanmann571 Posts: 5,728 Member
    J72FIT wrote: »
    Momepro 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.
  • Christine_72
    Christine_72 Posts: 16,049 Member
    J72FIT wrote: »
    Momepro 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 :rage:
  • Adamanda5
    Adamanda5 Posts: 38 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Adamanda5 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.
  • Adamanda5
    Adamanda5 Posts: 38 Member
    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.
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    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?.