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.
Why Is Food "Addiction" So Controversial?
zamphir66
Posts: 582 Member
in Debate Club
I'm probably opening the biggest can of worms ever, but here goes.
First, my position: I don't actually have a strong position on this. But I'm always curious when I see other posters have such very strong positions. As in, it seems very important to them that food have (or not have) an addictive quality. But why is it so important? That's what I suppose I'm asking.
I can actually see it from all sides. I completely jibe with the argument that food is something we actually need to survive, and *really really liking* food that's particularly satiating is not a bug but a feature of our psycho-physiology.
On the other hand, many maladaptive/disordered eating behaviors do seem to map onto our models for addiction pretty well.
I get the impression that some in the anti-FA (food addiction) camp perceive the notion as somehow abdicating all personal responsibility. But I don't really see that. Someone with Type II diabetes is largely responsible for their good/bad health outcomes following diagnosis. And yet diabetes is still very much a disease.
On the other other hand, I am sure there are at least some FA folks who do indeed take the "disease" model and use it to justify not trying, or failing once and quitting. But I think that's the wrong response.
Speaking as someone in long-term recovery from alcohol use disorder, I can say that "medicalizing" my condition has been and continues to be one of the most important factors in staying sober. It gives me resources and tools. I can talk to my doctor. And I can talk to my therapist. I take medicine to keep my mood on an even keel, and this consequently helps keep cravings at bay. I'm also exercising and eating relatively healthily, sleeping enough, etc. and so on.
So I guess, just to circle back, my main question is: Why such investment in this idea? Why such contention around the question of its existence?
First, my position: I don't actually have a strong position on this. But I'm always curious when I see other posters have such very strong positions. As in, it seems very important to them that food have (or not have) an addictive quality. But why is it so important? That's what I suppose I'm asking.
I can actually see it from all sides. I completely jibe with the argument that food is something we actually need to survive, and *really really liking* food that's particularly satiating is not a bug but a feature of our psycho-physiology.
On the other hand, many maladaptive/disordered eating behaviors do seem to map onto our models for addiction pretty well.
I get the impression that some in the anti-FA (food addiction) camp perceive the notion as somehow abdicating all personal responsibility. But I don't really see that. Someone with Type II diabetes is largely responsible for their good/bad health outcomes following diagnosis. And yet diabetes is still very much a disease.
On the other other hand, I am sure there are at least some FA folks who do indeed take the "disease" model and use it to justify not trying, or failing once and quitting. But I think that's the wrong response.
Speaking as someone in long-term recovery from alcohol use disorder, I can say that "medicalizing" my condition has been and continues to be one of the most important factors in staying sober. It gives me resources and tools. I can talk to my doctor. And I can talk to my therapist. I take medicine to keep my mood on an even keel, and this consequently helps keep cravings at bay. I'm also exercising and eating relatively healthily, sleeping enough, etc. and so on.
So I guess, just to circle back, my main question is: Why such investment in this idea? Why such contention around the question of its existence?
11
Replies
-
I guess my question would be: Can you live without alcohol? Can you live without smoking? Can you live without gambling?
You cannot live without food. Therefore it needs to be moderated. That can be a harder process for people that have mental difficulties or stresses. Saying that you are addicted does you no favors in this process. Just my opinion.22 -
snowflake954 wrote: »I guess my question would be: Can you live without alcohol? Can you live without smoking? Can you live without gambling?
You cannot live without food. Therefore it needs to be moderated. That can be a harder process for people that have mental difficulties or stresses. Saying that you are addicted does you no favors in this process. Just my opinion.
So your thesis is: "If you cannot live without X, then you also cannot be addicted to X." Is that rooted in the science of addiction, or is it more of a philosophical position? Honest question.
I agree that framing overeating as addiction does you no favors if it results in defeatism or the complete shirking of responsibility, which it sometimes does. Maybe even a lot of the time. But if it instead results in someone seeking out real, substantive help, then what's the harm?15 -
I'm pointing out a difference. It doesn't matter what I think. Mainly because the mind is a powerful thing and people that are convinced, are convinced. Hence the controversy. You asked.10
-
This is a can of worms! Lol but interesting topic none the less!!
I think addiction in general puts people on one side or the other, it’s a taboo topic and people typically don’t take a “middle of the road” stance on such topics. (I’m being general- maybe a some people here do have middle of the road opinions on this topic, it’s just not what I generally see.) that’s the short answer.
As food is a necessity, it can’t be avoided. Treatment for addiction (alcohol, opiate, marijuana, SUD, gambling, porn, etc.) is abstinence. Disordered eating has to be treated in a myriad of ways, you can’t use “typical” addiction treatment (abstinence) to treat it like you do other addictions.7 -
I am someone who has been involved in a few debates on this issue over the years. I am generally reluctant to describe anything as an addiction unless there is an indication of true dependency, like physically. I think one can have compulsions to engage in non-addictive behaviors and this is generally how I'd refer to problems controlling food intake or moderating behaviors like gambling or sex or online gaming. As the daughter of someone who died due to alcoholism, I will also add that there is an emotional component to my reaction. I know there is no intention to belittle or downplay the seriousness of addiction when people talk about food addiction, but sometimes it FEELS that way.
If someone finds addiction concepts useful in moderating their eating, I don't think it's disrespectful to use them. The bottom line is that people can ruin their lives with food. Whether it's an addiction or a compulsion doesn't change the negative impact overeating or disordered eating can have on a person. So if saying "I have an addiction to food" opens the door to solving a problem for someone, I wouldn't want to deny them that.
At the end of the day, it's hard to know what someone else's physical reality is like. Sometimes I'll watch shows like "My 600 Pound Life" and sometimes they'll show footage of someone who is physically trapped in their bed or on a couch and they're just eating these huge quantities of food with this sort of steady and joyless rhythm. It doesn't even look fun - it's not like watching someone enjoy a really tasty meal in another context. It's like they're not even tasting it. I'm more open than I used to be to the theory that there is some kind of physical dependency driving that process even if it doesn't apply to everyone who has a hard time giving up candy.
24 -
I do believe that food addiction is real, and just because we can't survive without food doesn't mean it can't be viewed as such. One of the most compelling forms of evidence I have for believing this way comes in the form of those TV shows such as "My 600-pound life" (or whatever it is called). That is not merely just overeating or "lacking willpower." That is using food in such a way as a coping mechanism that it completely impacts that person's ability to independently function in society. I have always wondered compassionately how one got to such a point, and the only answer I can come up with is that he or she must truly be addicted to food.
Having been overweight myself and being a binge eater/disordered eating at one point in my life, I can understand eating to the point of feeling sick. That period in my life was actually the time that I decided to seek out help in the form of attending Overeater's Anonymous meetings. The framework for those meetings very much follows those of AA, NA, etc....that the first step is admitting we're powerless over food, although more so certain foods than others. Acknowledging that wasn't supposed to give members the feeling of "oh well, if I'm powerless, I might as well just eat what I want, when I want." Quite the opposite, in fact. To go through the steps of the program, you had to be much more diligent with and I'd say even stricter with food than the average person trying to lose weight. A lot of people in OA treated certain foods or classes of foods (let's say, foods with white sugar) as their addiction, and that they most be avoided at all costs--just like an alcoholic would with alcohol. Now, the longer one had been a program that didn't mean never being around those foods like at a party, just like a recovering alcoholic may get to the point where he can go to a social function with alcohol without feeling tempted.
I don't consider myself a food addict, and realized OA wasn't for me. I don't need to keep certain foods out of my house, but may be tempted at times by some and may overeat or may even start to binge. I'm much more in control of it, though, and honestly the only times it may happen is if I've had to have a glass or two of wine and my inhibitions are lowered.
15 -
First, my position: I don't actually have a strong position on this. But I'm always curious when I see other posters have such very strong positions. As in, it seems very important to them that food have (or not have) an addictive quality. But why is it so important? That's what I suppose I'm asking.
I can actually see it from all sides. I completely jibe with the argument that food is something we actually need to survive, and *really really liking* food that's particularly satiating is not a bug but a feature of our psycho-physiology.
On the other hand, many maladaptive/disordered eating behaviors do seem to map onto our models for addiction pretty well.
I don't have a strong opinion on it, and in general my opinion is much like yours, I think.
(1) That one overeats doesn't mean one has an addiction, as there are lots of reasons people over eat, one just being that food is often delicious and very available. I also think that people wanting to eat when not actually needing the cals is evolutionarily adaptive, so hardly needs addition to explain it.
(2) I also think that eating disorders are at least addiction like in some ways, including extreme versions of emotional or stress eating and certainly binging. When I've seen interviews with morbidly obese people, they way they talk about food reminds me of addiction for sure (I'm also coming from a place of familiarity with alcohol addiction and think there are overlaps with some of my food issues without it being the same thing for me, but that doesn't mean others might not be addicted to food or, as I prefer to think of it, eating).
(3) I actually do dislike the notion that individual foods are addictive (or categories of foods, like "carbs"). This is because the claim makes no sense in that usually the foods are identical in all ways but taste to other foods that don't have the supposedly addictive response, and also usually the "carbs" referred to (or "sugar") doesn't include carbs/sugar in fruits or veg and is especially pronounced in foods that actually have fat or salt or both too.
(4) To the extent that people argue there is no withdrawal if one stops eating sugar or whatnot, I do think that's a bad argument, as withdrawal defines dependence, not addiction. (On the other hand, the idea that keto flu is withdrawal seems ridiculous to me, and I've seen that argued.)
I've read the arguments for allegedly hyperpalable foods being addictive (with pizza apparently scoring the highest, and I suspect it's not merely the carbs or the small amount of sugar). I intuitively dislike this idea since usually the so called hyperpalable foods aren't ones I find tasty or crave, and I think what we like and crave is to some large extent determined by what we eat/what our palate is used to. Also, I think the addiction label here is mixing up addiction with desire to eat tasty food, and while I used being an oenophile as an excuse to drink too much, I didn't see alcohol addiction as about thinking wine was tasty (many do and have no control issues with it) and I also had the same response (lack of control) with alcohol I don't care for if I actually drank it. So this just doesn't seem to make sense to me.
I don't care if people call what they have food addiction if it helps them, and for some I definitely think the same kinds of tools that helped me with addiction (CBT, for example) would be helpful to them and various cases I do think it is a have a kind of addiction or something related. I've mostly stopped commenting, but I do roll my eyes a bit when someone says "I'm addicted to carbs, because whenever I start eating chips I mean to have just a couple and I eat half the bag" especially when it turns out they are grabbing the whole bag and sitting on the couch in front of the TV with it or some such and never overeat lentils or fruit or the like, but none of my business. I also don't care if people use addicted casually (like I am addicted to books, can't stop buying them lately).11 -
Its been a very long time, so I may have this wrong, but I a come from a family with a history of addiction to various substances. I have been able to avoid those addictions, but I wanted to understand better what drove the behavior, so when I was younger I spent some time researching it. There are two types of addiction, Physiological and physical. You can have both at the same time, Addictions to substances like Heroin, Alcohol, and other drugs are physical, they alter your body's chemistry and when you come off of them you experience physical withdrawal symptoms, with some drugs you can actually die if the withdrawal is not medically supervised. The physical addiction can be overcome fairly quickly, but you are still left the with the mental or physiological need, and if you don't cope with that need in a healthy way, people tend to relapse. People can and do have phycological additions to things that don't also come with the physical addiction. Gambling and Sex addictions are examples of this. They won't have withdrawal symptoms if they stop, but they still have to cope whatever is driving the behavior. I equate physiological addictions with a compulsion.
Food addiction is a thing in my opinion, there are people who have a physiological need to overeat for some reason, and in order to properly treat it, they do need some form of mental health care. I think the show My 600lb life is a good example. While food addiction, or any physiological addiction is real, that does not negate personal accountability. No one can help you if you won't help yourself. There is no shame in getting help to control and cope with your addictions. I have no time for anyone who uses their addiction as a justification for bad choice though. I agree all day long its hard, and there will be set backs, but if you keep trying I will stand behind you. If you give up and decide there is nothing you can do because its an addiction, I'm out.16 -
Technically, cocaine isn't physically addictive, but no one much argues the semantics there. For a cocaine user, the dopamine rush can become an all-consuming compulsion. Being able to survive without a craved substance doesn't define addiction and that argument defies all logic. IMO, anything which lights up the pleasure centers of the brain and results in an irresistible obsession for more more more despite any negative consequences constitutes an addiction.
15 -
Technically, cocaine isn't physically addictive, but no one much argues the semantics there. For a cocaine user, the dopamine rush can become an all-consuming compulsion. Being able to survive without a craved substance doesn't define addiction and that argument defies all logic. IMO, anything which lights up the pleasure centers of the brain and results in an irresistible obsession for more more more despite any negative consequences constitutes an addiction.
7 -
Technically, cocaine isn't physically addictive, but no one much argues the semantics there. For a cocaine user, the dopamine rush can become an all-consuming compulsion. Being able to survive without a craved substance doesn't define addiction and that argument defies all logic. IMO, anything which lights up the pleasure centers of the brain and results in an irresistible obsession for more more more despite any negative consequences constitutes an addiction.
This is exactly the argument that people use to claim that sugar is addictive. The problem with that argument is that the people who claim sugar is addictive cannot explain why 'people who are addicted to sugar' aren't stuffing themselves on fruit that is high in sugar or vegetables that are high in sugar or something like that.... they only use it to explain why people eat snack cakes and muffins and candy and claim that the reaction to the sugar in the junk is different than the reaction to the sugar in the good stuff (even tho the sugar in the fruit and the sugar in the snacks is the exact same chemical thing). This is the problem that I have with the label of 'addiction' being applied to food - it is almost always applied in a very selective manner that cannot be justified scientifically.24 -
Technically, cocaine isn't physically addictive, but no one much argues the semantics there. For a cocaine user, the dopamine rush can become an all-consuming compulsion. Being able to survive without a craved substance doesn't define addiction and that argument defies all logic. IMO, anything which lights up the pleasure centers of the brain and results in an irresistible obsession for more more more despite any negative consequences constitutes an addiction.
This is exactly the argument that people use to claim that sugar is addictive. The problem with that argument is that the people who claim sugar is addictive cannot explain why 'people who are addicted to sugar' aren't stuffing themselves on fruit that is high in sugar or vegetables that are high in sugar or something like that.... they only use it to explain why people eat snack cakes and muffins and candy and claim that the reaction to the sugar in the junk is different than the reaction to the sugar in the good stuff (even tho the sugar in the fruit and the sugar in the snacks is the exact same chemical thing). This is the problem that I have with the label of 'addiction' being applied to food - it is almost always applied in a very selective manner that cannot be justified scientifically.
I’ll try...
https://www.verywellmind.com/how-sugar-affects-the-brain-4065218
https://www.healthdesigns.net/natural-vs-refined-sugar/
1 strawberry has 0.6 grams of sugar in it. A tootsie roll pop has 11 grams of sugar in it. A package of pop tarts (2) has 30 grams of sugar in it.
So you’d need 50 strawberries to equal eating a package of pop tarts. It’s also natural vs. processed sugars, our bodies process them differently.
Sugar lights up the reward center of our brain, just as other substances the more you light it up, the more it wants, and the larger quantity it needs for the same result.19 -
Technically, cocaine isn't physically addictive, but no one much argues the semantics there. For a cocaine user, the dopamine rush can become an all-consuming compulsion. Being able to survive without a craved substance doesn't define addiction and that argument defies all logic. IMO, anything which lights up the pleasure centers of the brain and results in an irresistible obsession for more more more despite any negative consequences constitutes an addiction.
This is exactly the argument that people use to claim that sugar is addictive. The problem with that argument is that the people who claim sugar is addictive cannot explain why 'people who are addicted to sugar' aren't stuffing themselves on fruit that is high in sugar or vegetables that are high in sugar or something like that.... they only use it to explain why people eat snack cakes and muffins and candy and claim that the reaction to the sugar in the junk is different than the reaction to the sugar in the good stuff (even tho the sugar in the fruit and the sugar in the snacks is the exact same chemical thing). This is the problem that I have with the label of 'addiction' being applied to food - it is almost always applied in a very selective manner that cannot be justified scientifically.
I’ll try...
https://www.verywellmind.com/how-sugar-affects-the-brain-4065218
https://www.healthdesigns.net/natural-vs-refined-sugar/
1 strawberry has 0.6 grams of sugar in it. A tootsie roll pop has 11 grams of sugar in it. A package of pop tarts (2) has 30 grams of sugar in it.
So you’d need 50 strawberries to equal eating a package of pop tarts. It’s also natural vs. processed sugars, our bodies process them differently.
Sugar lights up the reward center of our brain, just as other substances the more you light it up, the more it wants, and the larger quantity it needs for the same result.
Sugar is sugar, your body processes it like sugar. Now some foods with sugar have different collections of macro and micronutients and that can impact how our body reacts.
The whole point of addiction is that an addict is going to go to what is handy to get their fix, even if it isn't their ideal. Look at all the people who switch to a more dangerous drug when their drug of choice is less available. So if one is addicted to sugar, strawberries might not be one's ideal fix, but they'd be acceptable. Someone more versed in the specific science of supposed sugar addiction may be able to explain why we don't see more sugar addicts snacking on fruits like grapes (16 grams of sugar per 100 grams), dates (63 grams of sugar per 100 grams!), pineapple(10 grams of sugar per 100 grams), and watermelon (6 grams of sugar per 100 grams). They may have this explanation and I haven't seen it yet, but it seems like if it was just a SUGAR issue, many addicts would be able to ameliorate at least some of the negative impacts of their addiction by switching at least some of their intake to fruit.
This is just based on the self-professed sugar addicts I've met, but they're talking about things like cakes, candy, and ice cream.15 -
Technically, cocaine isn't physically addictive, but no one much argues the semantics there. For a cocaine user, the dopamine rush can become an all-consuming compulsion. Being able to survive without a craved substance doesn't define addiction and that argument defies all logic. IMO, anything which lights up the pleasure centers of the brain and results in an irresistible obsession for more more more despite any negative consequences constitutes an addiction.
This is exactly the argument that people use to claim that sugar is addictive. The problem with that argument is that the people who claim sugar is addictive cannot explain why 'people who are addicted to sugar' aren't stuffing themselves on fruit that is high in sugar or vegetables that are high in sugar or something like that.... they only use it to explain why people eat snack cakes and muffins and candy and claim that the reaction to the sugar in the junk is different than the reaction to the sugar in the good stuff (even tho the sugar in the fruit and the sugar in the snacks is the exact same chemical thing). This is the problem that I have with the label of 'addiction' being applied to food - it is almost always applied in a very selective manner that cannot be justified scientifically.
I’ll try...
https://www.verywellmind.com/how-sugar-affects-the-brain-4065218
https://www.healthdesigns.net/natural-vs-refined-sugar/
1 strawberry has 0.6 grams of sugar in it. A tootsie roll pop has 11 grams of sugar in it. A package of pop tarts (2) has 30 grams of sugar in it.
So you’d need 50 strawberries to equal eating a package of pop tarts. It’s also natural vs. processed sugars, our bodies process them differently.
Sugar lights up the reward center of our brain, just as other substances the more you light it up, the more it wants, and the larger quantity it needs for the same result.
No, our bodies do not.
In the article that you linked, these are 2 of the opening paragraphs:
'Natural sugars are found in fruit as fructose and in dairy products, such as milk and cheese, as lactose. These foods contain essential nutrients that keep the body healthy and help prevent disease. Natural sources of sugar are digested slower and help you feel full for longer. It also helps keep your metabolism stable.
Refined sugar, or sucrose, comes from sugar cane or sugar beets, which are processed to extract the sugar. Food manufacturers then add the chemically produced sugar, typically high-fructose corn syrup, to many packaged foods. The body breaks down refined sugar rapidly, which causes insulin and blood sugar levels to skyrocket. Since it is digested quickly, you don’t feel full after you’re done eating, regardless of how much you ate.'
In the first paragraph, the statement that natural sugars are digested slower is ONLY true if there is enough fiber/fat/protein in the food source to slow down the digestion process - as an example, check out the following link that details why the sugar is absorbed more slowly:
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/apples-and-diabetes#blood-sugar
In the second paragraph, the statement that refined sugar breaks down rapidly is false, because the breakdown of the sugar would be affected by exactly the same limitations as the breakdown of the sugar in the apple cited in the previous link.
As far as the body is concerned, sugar is sugar is sugar, regardless of where it comes from. Whether it is sucrose (table sugar), fructose (fruit sugar), high-fructose corn syrup (corn) or lactose (milk sugar), it has to be broken down into glucose for the body to do anything with it.
The candy that you cite (if eaten by itself on an empty stomach) may be processed faster than the strawberry, but it still resolves to glucose as the end product of the digestion. As to the argument that we want more and more and more, why aren't there stories all over the place of people who are eating sugar straight out of bags? I mean, why bother with eating candy or pop-tarts or some other heavily sugared item when you can get all the sugar that you crave by simply eating it out of the bag of sugar?16 -
It’s also natural vs. processed sugars, our bodies process them differently.
This isn't true. Our bodies process glucose and fructose differently -- glucose is more of an issue for diabetics, as a result, whereas huge amounts of fructose can hurt the liver. But "processed" sugar is really just natural sugar refined from sugarcane or sugarbeets. Sucrose is 50/50 fructose and glucose and easily broken down, while fruits also contain a mix of plain glucose, fructose, and also some sucrose, in widely varying percentages.
IME, most people who claim to have an issue with sugar are very specific about the sugary foods they have trouble moderating and those they don't, and it usually comes down to taste (and usually is more about foods that are also high in fat, and less about things like hard candy). This makes me think the claim that sugar itself is specifically addictive is nonsense. Plus the studies on food addiction, as I said, rank other foods more highly in terms of the supposed physical reaction (like pizza, and it's easy to make pizza with no sugar but that naturally in the tomatoes).
Basically, anything we like lights up the reward center of the brain, so I don't think that defines what is physically addictive. I do think that anything we find enjoyable has the potential, under certain circumstances, of becoming addictive in a sense (some things more than others), but focusing solely on sugar vs food more generally (or eating behaviors) seems incorrect to me.12 -
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/sucrose-glucose-fructose#which-is-worst?
While this article is speculative, there may be some truth behind the theory that sugar (refined sugar, fructose specifically) may be addictive. I don't think it is addictive for everyone, but possibly for people who are already genetically predisposed to addiction or have other mental health struggles.
One of the "My 600-lb life" shows had a man who had once been addicted to alcohol and/or drugs. Once he quit those, it appeared he used food to replace those.5 -
When it comes to food, IMO there is no such thing as a food addiction. What I do believe is this, we have not changed all that much since our pre-historic ancestors. That said, our environment, on the contrary has. So what was once a virtue, is now a vice and we fight our instincts constantly...9
-
Speakeasy76 wrote: »https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/sucrose-glucose-fructose#which-is-worst?
While this article is speculative, there may be some truth behind the theory that sugar (refined sugar, fructose specifically) may be addictive. I don't think it is addictive for everyone, but possibly for people who are already genetically predisposed to addiction or have other mental health struggles.
One of the "My 600-lb life" shows had a man who had once been addicted to alcohol and/or drugs. Once he quit those, it appeared he used food to replace those.
I know I was the one that first mentioned the show, but I think it's at least worth mentioning that multiple people who have appeared on the show have gone on to claim that some scenes were outright constructed -- either through editing or having the producers request certain scenes, which is something to keep in mind when we're using it as a basis for claims about food addiction. I have no doubt the people on that show struggle with food control, but we can't take for granted that it looks exactly like what we're seeing when we watch the show.
(I'm not at all questioning your initial point that someone who has a tendency to be addicted to one thing may be more vulnerable to other addictions, that seems like something that could easily be true).4 -
I wanted to add something to my previous comments on sugar...
The main justification for sugar being an addictive substance (at least in what I've seen and heard) is that it lights up the dopamine receptors in the brain. With that being the sole criteria for addiction, then basically anything that we do that brings us pleasure MUST also be defined as an addiction (as all things that bring us pleasure also light up the dopamine receptors in the brain). Actions such as holding hands, petting puppies, watching a sunset or sunrise, the list is endless. I guess what I'm trying to convey is that 'lighting up the dopamine receptors' is not a suffucient enough justification to claim that something is addictive - there must be some other response, action, etc that accompanies the dopamine reaction that would allow the action/food/etc to be defined as addictive. I don't know what that other thing would be, I'm not sure that anybody does outside of giving examples of the behaviors of known addictions like alcohol or gambling.12 -
I think a lot of the pushback is due to "addiction" being thrown around rather casually in regards to many things, including food and specific foods like sugar. I also think there is a fine line, but a line none the less between addiction and a behavioral disorder.
I can be a bit touchy about the subject because I've struggled with alcohol for years both physically and physiologically and it does bother me how casually "addiction" is thrown around. The sugar addiction is one that particularly gets me...if one is addicted to sugar, they could still get their fix with eating high sugar fruits, but I don't really see "sugar addicts" doing this. An alcoholic is going to get their fix with some kind of alcohol regardless of whether or not it's their preferred poison. I for one absolutely hate gin...IMO, it's about the most vile thing anyone could possibly drink...but I've consumed it on many occasions because that's all there was and I wanted my high.
I think perhaps food addiction could be a thing...maybe...but it's thrown around so casually as to be almost meaningless and often feel like a slap in the face to me. I'm far more inclined to see food issues as being various eating disorders and behavioral disorders than an actual addiction.20 -
I wanted to add something to my previous comments on sugar...
The main justification for sugar being an addictive substance (at least in what I've seen and heard) is that it lights up the dopamine receptors in the brain. With that being the sole criteria for addiction, then basically anything that we do that brings us pleasure MUST also be defined as an addiction (as all things that bring us pleasure also light up the dopamine receptors in the brain). Actions such as holding hands, petting puppies, watching a sunset or sunrise, the list is endless. I guess what I'm trying to convey is that 'lighting up the dopamine receptors' is not a suffucient enough justification to claim that something is addictive - there must be some other response, action, etc that accompanies the dopamine reaction that would allow the action/food/etc to be defined as addictive. I don't know what that other thing would be, I'm not sure that anybody does outside of giving examples of the behaviors of known addictions like alcohol or gambling.
I have heard people define the crucial distinction as that the behavior is destructive to your life, relationships, or overall happiness.
For example, someone may experience a dopamine reaction from gambling, the behavior is limited to their annual vacation in Las Vegas and the losses are ones they can easily afford. Not an addiction.
Likewise, someone may get a dopamine reaction from petting puppies or watching a sunset, but these activities fit easily into their lifestyle and don't cause any issues. We can construct thought experiments where a desire to pet dogs or look at the sun could cross the line into dangerous, destructive behaviors and in those instances, we could say someone does have an addiction to petting puppies or watching sunsets -- it just doesn't come up because those situations would be pretty darn unusual.
I get a thrill from buying a new purse. Normal.
I get a thrill from spending the rent money on purses. Addiction.
It's sort of a "consequences" model of addiction.
23 -
People that claim they are addicted to sugar have probably never dealt with a real addiction like drugs or alcohol. For me, quitting added sugar was a piece of cake compared to quitting cigarettes or alcohol.21
-
janejellyroll wrote: »Speakeasy76 wrote: »https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/sucrose-glucose-fructose#which-is-worst?
While this article is speculative, there may be some truth behind the theory that sugar (refined sugar, fructose specifically) may be addictive. I don't think it is addictive for everyone, but possibly for people who are already genetically predisposed to addiction or have other mental health struggles.
One of the "My 600-lb life" shows had a man who had once been addicted to alcohol and/or drugs. Once he quit those, it appeared he used food to replace those.
I know I was the one that first mentioned the show, but I think it's at least worth mentioning that multiple people who have appeared on the show have gone on to claim that some scenes were outright constructed -- either through editing or having the producers request certain scenes, which is something to keep in mind when we're using it as a basis for claims about food addiction. I have no doubt the people on that show struggle with food control, but we can't take for granted that it looks exactly like what we're seeing when we watch the show.
(I'm not at all questioning your initial point that someone who has a tendency to be addicted to one thing may be more vulnerable to other addictions, that seems like something that could easily be true).
I definitely think there were parts of the show that were edited to make the show entertaining, especially the appointments and interviews with the bariatric doctor. That always seemed somewhat scripted to me. I don't watch the show regularly--ironically the few times I'd watch it would be when I was in my basement on the elliptical. I'd always feel a bit guilty watching it, too, although I know the people agree to be on it and I'm assuming get free treatment.0 -
Technically, cocaine isn't physically addictive, but no one much argues the semantics there. For a cocaine user, the dopamine rush can become an all-consuming compulsion. Being able to survive without a craved substance doesn't define addiction and that argument defies all logic. IMO, anything which lights up the pleasure centers of the brain and results in an irresistible obsession for more more more despite any negative consequences constitutes an addiction.
This is exactly the argument that people use to claim that sugar is addictive. The problem with that argument is that the people who claim sugar is addictive cannot explain why 'people who are addicted to sugar' aren't stuffing themselves on fruit that is high in sugar or vegetables that are high in sugar or something like that.... they only use it to explain why people eat snack cakes and muffins and candy and claim that the reaction to the sugar in the junk is different than the reaction to the sugar in the good stuff (even tho the sugar in the fruit and the sugar in the snacks is the exact same chemical thing). This is the problem that I have with the label of 'addiction' being applied to food - it is almost always applied in a very selective manner that cannot be justified scientifically.
I’ll try...
https://www.verywellmind.com/how-sugar-affects-the-brain-4065218
https://www.healthdesigns.net/natural-vs-refined-sugar/
1 strawberry has 0.6 grams of sugar in it. A tootsie roll pop has 11 grams of sugar in it. A package of pop tarts (2) has 30 grams of sugar in it.
So you’d need 50 strawberries to equal eating a package of pop tarts. It’s also natural vs. processed sugars, our bodies process them differently.
Sugar lights up the reward center of our brain, just as other substances the more you light it up, the more it wants, and the larger quantity it needs for the same result.
No, our bodies do not.
In the article that you linked, these are 2 of the opening paragraphs:
'Natural sugars are found in fruit as fructose and in dairy products, such as milk and cheese, as lactose. These foods contain essential nutrients that keep the body healthy and help prevent disease. Natural sources of sugar are digested slower and help you feel full for longer. It also helps keep your metabolism stable.
Refined sugar, or sucrose, comes from sugar cane or sugar beets, which are processed to extract the sugar. Food manufacturers then add the chemically produced sugar, typically high-fructose corn syrup, to many packaged foods. The body breaks down refined sugar rapidly, which causes insulin and blood sugar levels to skyrocket. Since it is digested quickly, you don’t feel full after you’re done eating, regardless of how much you ate.'
In the first paragraph, the statement that natural sugars are digested slower is ONLY true if there is enough fiber/fat/protein in the food source to slow down the digestion process - as an example, check out the following link that details why the sugar is absorbed more slowly:
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/apples-and-diabetes#blood-sugar
In the second paragraph, the statement that refined sugar breaks down rapidly is false, because the breakdown of the sugar would be affected by exactly the same limitations as the breakdown of the sugar in the apple cited in the previous link.
As far as the body is concerned, sugar is sugar is sugar, regardless of where it comes from. Whether it is sucrose (table sugar), fructose (fruit sugar), high-fructose corn syrup (corn) or lactose (milk sugar), it has to be broken down into glucose for the body to do anything with it.
The candy that you cite (if eaten by itself on an empty stomach) may be processed faster than the strawberry, but it still resolves to glucose as the end product of the digestion. As to the argument that we want more and more and more, why aren't there stories all over the place of people who are eating sugar straight out of bags? I mean, why bother with eating candy or pop-tarts or some other heavily sugared item when you can get all the sugar that you crave by simply eating it out of the bag of sugar?
Hi... I’m quoting you because you bolded the statement I’d like to touch on... thank you (and others) for clarifying what I said. I was trying to refer to how the body reacts (blood sugar, etc.) and misspoke. I apologize for my poor choice of words in trying to summarize. I understand the body processes sugar the same, I’m outside of my edit timeframe or I’d go edit my wording to avoid spreading any misinformation. Thanks for calling that out so nobody takes my mess up as valid info!
As to your question regarding eating sugar out of the bag, I definitely don’t have the answer. I’m also not a “sugar addict” or “food addict” so maybe others could speak to this a bit better than I could, but again I’ll take a stab at it. In my opinion, I think it probably comes down to social acceptance. Nobody bats an eye if you bring a dozen donuts to the office party or have a bowl of candy on your desk... if you brought a bag of sugar to the party or others saw you eating sugar out of the bag you’d probably get a lot of stares, side eyes, and be labeled a “weirdo.” Doesn’t mean people don’t want more to satisfy the “itch” they’re just going to choose something like candy bars instead of 50 strawberries or the bag of sugar. It’s cheaper and more readily available. Also, probably taste and satisfaction... I know plenty of people (myself included) who consume plenty of sugar- 39g in a can of Coke, I can easily drink 2 of those- that roughly converts to 19 teaspoons. You couldn’t get me to eat 1 raw tsp of sugar, let alone 19!1 -
Speakeasy76 wrote: »https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/sucrose-glucose-fructose#which-is-worst?
While this article is speculative, there may be some truth behind the theory that sugar (refined sugar, fructose specifically) may be addictive. I don't think it is addictive for everyone, but possibly for people who are already genetically predisposed to addiction or have other mental health struggles.
One of the "My 600-lb life" shows had a man who had once been addicted to alcohol and/or drugs. Once he quit those, it appeared he used food to replace those.
I think it's a little bit unfortunate that the interesting topic of food or eating addiction is getting sidetracked into the sugar is the devil topic, but I have to respond to this.
Healthline is rarely a site I would rely on, as they have a ton of woo.
Part of that article is fine -- as I said above, glucose and fructose ARE processed differently. But both sucrose (which is your typical white sugar, and what is used in most higher end or homemade dessert foods) and HFCS (which is super cheap, so used in a lot of cheaper premade stuff) are a mix of fructose (50% for sucrose and 55% for HFCS) and glucose (50% for fructose and 45% for HFCS). That minimal difference alone makes it hard for me to believe there's some significant difference between the two, although IMO usually better tasting more worth it dessert foods have sucrose.
More significantly, this idea that sucrose and HFCS are worse than other sugars since both fructose and glucose are present makes 0 sense, as fruit contains (in different percentages depending on the fruit) fructose, glucose, and even sucrose. So both are present when one eats fruit too.
I think it's possible that for some people sweetness is their main trigger so their trigger foods tend to be sweet ones, but I don't think it's because sugar specifically (let alone HFCS or sucrose specifically) are inherently addictive. Once again, it's really incredibly common for people to have lots of trouble moderating sweet baked goods (which contain plenty of fat) but zero issues with fruit juice or hard candies (which are basically pure sugar). I also see nothing to support an idea that people in general are more inclined to have trouble moderating only sweet foods and not high cal, very palatable savory foods. People do have taste preferences that in some are more focused on sweet, in others more on savory, of course.
Like I said, I do think eating or food addiction (or something like it) is real, and in that alcohol addiction is often related to a dysfunctional way of dealing with stress or painful emotions, I certainly don't find it surprising that people could replace it with food (and I personally have done that).8 -
I wanted to add something to my previous comments on sugar...
The main justification for sugar being an addictive substance (at least in what I've seen and heard) is that it lights up the dopamine receptors in the brain. With that being the sole criteria for addiction, then basically anything that we do that brings us pleasure MUST also be defined as an addiction (as all things that bring us pleasure also light up the dopamine receptors in the brain). Actions such as holding hands, petting puppies, watching a sunset or sunrise, the list is endless. I guess what I'm trying to convey is that 'lighting up the dopamine receptors' is not a suffucient enough justification to claim that something is addictive - there must be some other response, action, etc that accompanies the dopamine reaction that would allow the action/food/etc to be defined as addictive. I don't know what that other thing would be, I'm not sure that anybody does outside of giving examples of the behaviors of known addictions like alcohol or gambling.
https://www.conncoll.edu/news/news-archive/2013/student-faculty-research-suggests-oreos-can-be-compared-to-drugs-of-abuse-in-lab-rats.html
This is a pretty interesting study. There’s also a lot of neuropsychology and neuroscience research related to addiction that’s really interesting (to me anyways!). I don’t want to stray too far from the original topic or misspeak on the research... but there’s a lot of info and research out there that can be pretty enlightening if you’re interested. Our brains are a wild structure!6 -
As to your question regarding eating sugar out of the bag, I definitely don’t have the answer. I’m also not a “sugar addict” or “food addict” so maybe others could speak to this a bit better than I could, but again I’ll take a stab at it. In my opinion, I think it probably comes down to social acceptance. Nobody bats an eye if you bring a dozen donuts to the office party or have a bowl of candy on your desk... if you brought a bag of sugar to the party or others saw you eating sugar out of the bag you’d probably get a lot of stares, side eyes, and be labeled a “weirdo.” Doesn’t mean people don’t want more to satisfy the “itch” they’re just going to choose something like candy bars instead of 50 strawberries or the bag of sugar. It’s cheaper and more readily available. Also, probably taste and satisfaction... I know plenty of people (myself included) who consume plenty of sugar- 39g in a can of Coke, I can easily drink 2 of those- that roughly converts to 19 teaspoons. You couldn’t get me to eat 1 raw tsp of sugar, let alone 19!
I don't think it's social acceptance, as people with addictive behavior know that behavior is not socially acceptable, and even non food addicted fat people often know their eating habits may not be socially acceptable. When I was obese, I would always order healthy, lower cal foods when eating out with normal weight people, and even if they got a dessert, I would always decline, since I thought people would judge the fat person eating high cal foods. I've heard plenty of stories too, about someone ordering a pizza and three small cokes, so they wouldn't be assumed to be eating it all themselves.
I also think eating in secret is likely very common even among those without specific disordered eating, but certainly those with disordered or addictive tendencies. If sugar were the best way to feed a high or whatever, I think people would certainly eat sugar in secret just as they might secretly eat a whole large pizza or an entire large bag of chips or, yes, a dozen donuts.
Thus, I think the reason people don't generally (not saying there aren't exceptions) eat plain sugar is that it doesn't taste good, especially compared to a bowl of ice cream or an apple. And that goes back to the fact that I really don't think it is the addictive power of sugar that causes overeating, but that people tend to overeat foods that taste good to them, when they are available.
I don't think sugar creates a high. I do think that anything we enjoy (and tasty food in general, actually) lights up the pleasure center of the brain (or however one wants to put it) and that it is possible for any such thing to probably become an addiction given the right circumstances. But again, that's more supportive of a possible food or eating addiction than "sugar is an addictive substance."6 -
As to your question regarding eating sugar out of the bag, I definitely don’t have the answer. I’m also not a “sugar addict” or “food addict” so maybe others could speak to this a bit better than I could, but again I’ll take a stab at it. In my opinion, I think it probably comes down to social acceptance. Nobody bats an eye if you bring a dozen donuts to the office party or have a bowl of candy on your desk... if you brought a bag of sugar to the party or others saw you eating sugar out of the bag you’d probably get a lot of stares, side eyes, and be labeled a “weirdo.” Doesn’t mean people don’t want more to satisfy the “itch” they’re just going to choose something like candy bars instead of 50 strawberries or the bag of sugar. It’s cheaper and more readily available. Also, probably taste and satisfaction... I know plenty of people (myself included) who consume plenty of sugar- 39g in a can of Coke, I can easily drink 2 of those- that roughly converts to 19 teaspoons. You couldn’t get me to eat 1 raw tsp of sugar, let alone 19!
I don't think it's social acceptance, as people with addictive behavior know that behavior is not socially acceptable, and even non food addicted fat people often know their eating habits may not be socially acceptable. When I was obese, I would always order healthy, lower cal foods when eating out with normal weight people, and even if they got a dessert, I would always decline, since I thought people would judge the fat person eating high cal foods. I've heard plenty of stories too, about someone ordering a pizza and three small cokes, so they wouldn't be assumed to be eating it all themselves.
I also think eating in secret is likely very common even among those without specific disordered eating, but certainly those with disordered or addictive tendencies. If sugar were the best way to feed a high or whatever, I think people would certainly eat sugar in secret just as they might secretly eat a whole large pizza or an entire large bag of chips or, yes, a dozen donuts.
You don’t think it has anything to do with social acceptance? But you also acknowledge that you adjusted your own behavior for fear of judgment. And acknowledge that eating in secret is likely very common, which is typically done to avoid judgment or shame. Just as people typically use drugs privately and not out in the open or people become “closet alcoholics.” Just because people know it’s socially unacceptable doesn’t necessarily stop them, but they will typically adjust their behavior socially for the sake of social acceptance.5 -
Just for background before I say anything, I come from a family of alcoholics, including my dad who it nearly killed until he quit...and then ultimately died from lung cancer, likely from a different addiction (cigarettes). I'm a licensed independent clinical social worker and worked in addictions treatment for a decade. Since then, I've run a cooccurring program, prison based treatment programs, etc.
Here's my 2 cents, for what it's worth. And take it for what you want. As far as addiction goes, we KNOW that when we're talking about drugs, they're not all as physically addicting. We have data that supports that. We have data that supports the difference in physical dependence in marijuana and opiates, for example. We know that on it's own, marijuana is not particularly "addicting" But I can tell you it's addicting (and I'm not anti-weed, don't come at me for that here). It's a substance that SOME people have a problem with. Like alcohol. Alcohol, for most of us is also not particularly addicting either. But again, we KNOW that alcohol can absolutely destroy some people. We know gambling does the same thing and we don't ingest "gambling" at all. I think it's important to identify that not all addictions come from the same source even if they have similar consequences. "gambling" doesn't come from the effect of some drug on the brain, for example. that's not how it works. Opiates hijack nearly every pathway in your brain - opiates are VERY addictive, and very quickly, for obvious reasons. Addiction is less about what you put into your body and more about the behaviors it leads you to. More about consequences. More about why you continue to do something that is clearly harmful to your health, family, etc etc.
We know that addiction can be genetic. We know it can be learned as well. We know it is highly associated with trauma. We know trauma changes the brain. We know our genes give us the basics of what we have to work with. We know that the age we started doing something changes how our brain develops We know that there are likely some people who were genetically predisposed to an addiction and experienced a tragedy/trauma that pushed them over the edge. We know that there are some who used a substance to cope or manage and found themselves physically addicted before they knew it (like chronic pain or grief). Ultimately, addiction, in its simplest form is about feeling better and escaping whatever pain you happen to be in, even for just a few quick minutes, because you know it will work, despite whatever the consequences are. A feeling about what you HAVE to do and an inability to function fully until its obtained.
Humans are compulsive creatures, some of us more than others. Is food an addiction? Is surely is a compulsion for a lot of us. I don't personally feel like I am a food addict, but I definitely struggle with compulsive eating. Watching people eat their way to being 700 lbs must certainly be an indicator of something not being right. And those people live almost in exactly the same way as any drug addict, with almost exactly the same set of consequences. Our reward pathways are at work in every single addiction, behavioral or otherwise. Our behaviors don't necessarily change when we quit drinking or doing meth - and thats why you see so many addicts fall into other compulsive behaviors - some not so harmful, and some very harmful.
I think the thing that bugs me the most about this topic is the sense that calling something an "addiction" somehow minimizes responsibility - and it absolutely does not. Alcoholics are responsible for their addictions, Coke addicts are responsible for their actions. Food addicts are responsible for their actions. Sex addicts are responsible for their actions. None of that changes. Calling something an addicition should really do nothing but help provide a framework for making positive changes - it should not assume anything about why it happens (leave that to the professionals) and what has happened to the brain (again, professionals). It should allow us to have some compassion and empathy and understanding for the struggles people face, while still holding people responsible and accountable for how they got to where they are in life.
If I look at my own family, my dad was very much a "traditional" addict. Primarily alcohol, but he'd dabble in coke and weed periodically. I have an uncle who is also an alcoholic, but quit years and year ago. My dad struggled until he was in his 50s and then finally quit. I didnt grow up with him, didn't really watch anyt of it or learn any of it. But my siblings did. We're all in our 30s now. One of us quit drinking in college when she realized that she was really having a problem with it. One of them...I'm not sure where he stands. And Ive never really had a problem with it...but we all clearly inherited some sort of compulsive tendencies from him. Food, alcohol, whatever it may be. We're fine and all, but like....it didn't just come out of the sky. And guess what? When my dad was drinking, he rarely ate sweets, weighed about 170 lbs his whole life. Quit drinking and started binge eating (which was still probably healthier and he was much happier) and was 100 lbs heavier within a few years of being sober. that's addict behavior. A cousin obsesses about everyt calorie of food she puts into her mouth. An aunt the same. Another cousin an alcoholic. There's clealry a pattern here. A former boss of mine was also a recovering alcoholic...had been sober for decades. Didn't relapse on alcohol, but was probably 450 lbs and under 5 ft tall and could barely function. A smart, educated woman who worked in the field....you could predict her behavior - it;s the same behavior an alcoholic has. It's absurd to think that you can only develop an addiction to a drug/alcohol when these examples are everywhere.
Anyway. i don't say any of that to diminish the experience or seriousness of an addiction. Not by any means. I think the poster who is frustrated with how causually we use that term is 100% correct. Most of us have sugar habits. Carb habits. Comfort/Junk food habits. and some of us might eat in that grey area between addiction and compulsive/disordered eating (that's where I live). But there are absolutely those for whom food IS a real addiction, just as dangerous as any other.
31 -
As to your question regarding eating sugar out of the bag, I definitely don’t have the answer. I’m also not a “sugar addict” or “food addict” so maybe others could speak to this a bit better than I could, but again I’ll take a stab at it. In my opinion, I think it probably comes down to social acceptance. Nobody bats an eye if you bring a dozen donuts to the office party or have a bowl of candy on your desk... if you brought a bag of sugar to the party or others saw you eating sugar out of the bag you’d probably get a lot of stares, side eyes, and be labeled a “weirdo.” Doesn’t mean people don’t want more to satisfy the “itch” they’re just going to choose something like candy bars instead of 50 strawberries or the bag of sugar. It’s cheaper and more readily available. Also, probably taste and satisfaction... I know plenty of people (myself included) who consume plenty of sugar- 39g in a can of Coke, I can easily drink 2 of those- that roughly converts to 19 teaspoons. You couldn’t get me to eat 1 raw tsp of sugar, let alone 19!
I don't think it's social acceptance, as people with addictive behavior know that behavior is not socially acceptable, and even non food addicted fat people often know their eating habits may not be socially acceptable. When I was obese, I would always order healthy, lower cal foods when eating out with normal weight people, and even if they got a dessert, I would always decline, since I thought people would judge the fat person eating high cal foods. I've heard plenty of stories too, about someone ordering a pizza and three small cokes, so they wouldn't be assumed to be eating it all themselves.
I also think eating in secret is likely very common even among those without specific disordered eating, but certainly those with disordered or addictive tendencies. If sugar were the best way to feed a high or whatever, I think people would certainly eat sugar in secret just as they might secretly eat a whole large pizza or an entire large bag of chips or, yes, a dozen donuts.
You don’t think it has anything to do with social acceptance? But you also acknowledge that you adjusted your own behavior for fear of judgment. And acknowledge that eating in secret is likely very common, which is typically done to avoid judgment or shame. Just as people typically use drugs privately and not out in the open or people become “closet alcoholics.” Just because people know it’s socially unacceptable doesn’t necessarily stop them, but they will typically adjust their behavior socially for the sake of social acceptance.
I don't think it's social acceptance since I don't think eating a dozen donuts OR sugar out of the bag are socially acceptable and both would likely be done as much in secret as possible. (The sugar has the benefit of giving you way more sugar for way fewer cals too.)
As I understood it, you were arguing that people don't eat sugar out of the bag (despite being addicted to sugar) but overindulge in other sweet treats because the former was not socially acceptable -- did I misunderstand? Eating sugar out of the bag is obviously something that would be done at home, not publicly (unless one were to go to a restaurant with sugar packets and go to town). Thus, I don't think the reason alleged sugar addicts eat other foods rather than straight sugar can be that the latter is less socially acceptable.
And again, to be clear, I think food/eating addiction is probably a thing (I'm not sure how it's different from disordered eating or if it needs to be for us to use the term). I don't think the argument for a specific sugar addiction because sugar is allegedly so incredibly physically addicting makes sense at all.
I also don't think you need dependence (the physical aspect of addiction) for something to be addictive.2
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