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?
Options
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
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 919 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions