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?
Replies
-
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 -
I also want to add, wether or not it is a clinical addiction really does not matter. What matters is how it feels to the individual going through it...14
-
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.
I understand what you’re saying. As both of us addressed, I think it has more to do with taste/satisfaction. I even pointed out I can easily consume large amounts of sugar, but wouldn’t eat even a teaspoon of raw sugar. I also believe there’s a small social acceptance aspect to it (if someone really wanted to eat raw sugar). But I believe social acceptance plays a role in how the majority go about indulging in whatever addiction they are living with.
I was addressing a hypothetical question about eating sugar out of the bag... don’t know of anybody doing this, but if they wanted to (meaning taste or satisfaction wasn’t the issue for them) then it’s likely social acceptance that prevents them from doing it. However, as to why people don’t do it to feed their “sugar addiction” is probably more to do with taste/satisfaction.
I feel like I’m talking in circles, so I hope that clarifies.0 -
L1zardQueen wrote: »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.
Since I'm not a fan of the 12 step model I'm not going to label myself an addict/former addict/recovering addict.
But I did self-medicate with alcohol and other substances and behaviors - quitting those was a LOT easier than dealing with my food issues, which are still unresolved.15 -
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.
I understand what you’re saying. As both of us addressed, I think it has more to do with taste/satisfaction. I even pointed out I can easily consume large amounts of sugar, but wouldn’t eat even a teaspoon of raw sugar. I also believe there’s a small social acceptance aspect to it (if someone really wanted to eat raw sugar). But I believe social acceptance plays a role in how the majority go about indulging in whatever addiction they are living with.
I was addressing a hypothetical question about eating sugar out of the bag... don’t know of anybody doing this, but if they wanted to (meaning taste or satisfaction wasn’t the issue for them) then it’s likely social acceptance that prevents them from doing it. However, as to why people don’t do it to feed their “sugar addiction” is probably more to do with taste/satisfaction.
I feel like I’m talking in circles, so I hope that clarifies.
Yeah, it seems like we largely agree, except I don't really think there are people who would like to eat plain sugar but don't due to social acceptability.
I don't believe sugar addiction is real, but I do think food/eating addiction could manifest largely in overeating dessert type foods if one has a sweet tooth and tends to find many dessert foods the most tasty/desirable (although often the preferred foods have as much fat as sugar and it's the combo that's extra palatable for many IMO).
What frustrates me is people who equate "I want to eat dessert even after a full meal when I don't need the cals" as addiction, but I also do think there are lots of eating behaviors that are quite like addiction.5 -
janejellyroll wrote: »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.
I'm quoting this post not to disagree with it (or strictly to agree, even), but simply to riff further out on what I see as a somewhat related line.
At times, I'm sure I've reacted quite strongly to posts/threads about "food addiction". In part, that's an *emotional* reaction on my part, not mostly an analytically-derived, logical, rational one. In that sense, I can't justify it in the way the OP seems to hope.
I think the reason is partly that I *do* think some eating behaviors can be so dysfunctional that they might as well be an addiction - they're certainly at least very deep psychological compulsions. But I think (in a statistical sense) that is something that happens at the margin: Unusual, very severe instances. The number of posts I see here from people whom I'd consider to be so darkly troubled as to justify using terms like "addicted" are few. (I'm sure there are others who feel too much shame to post.) But I'm not a psychologist or other expert on addiction.
But it's a near-daily occurrence to see "addicted to sugar!!!" posts (or similar) that are really abuses of the terminology, IMO - trivializations of the addiction concept. I'm talking about a fair segment of the people who like cookies and will eat a whole sleeve of them, or whole bags of M&Ms or whatever. They don't, as others here have observed, drink honey or maple syrup from the bottle, or eat table sugar by the spoonful, or anything like that. They dramatically overeat foods they find tasty and not very filling. It's really not a surprising phenomenon, in terms of human history and probable wiring via natural selection.
Nonetheless, in our current world, it's a problem, and depending on details it can be a thorny one, but IMO it doesn't really rise to the level of a "sugar addiction". A person doesn't need to be "an addict" to have a hard-to-solve problem with moderating something. It's a self-dramatization, basically, IMO.
I agree with Lemur: I don't mind people using the "addicted" term knowingly casually, as in the "addicted to books" example as a hyperbolic way to say one spends a lot of discretionary time reading (or just petting books!), or someone saying "these pretzels are addictive" because they're super tasty. That's not in the same class as the self-dramatizations in some of the "addicted to sugar!!!" posts.
One of my flaws is that I mostly don't like drama, and I especially don't like what I perceive as self-dramatization. Perversely, and perhaps somewhat ironically, this probably makes me more vehement or vociferous on the subject of food addiction, when it's claimed in what seems to me like a facile way.
Many of us have, or have had, dysfunctional eating behaviors. They vary. They can be difficult, even very difficult. But I don't think "addiction" is a helpful or descriptive model, in most cases. A few, maybe.
Somehow, the discussions sometimes start there with a claim of addiction (because cookies), and proceed into the dopamine receptor stuff, and other science-y seeming things. Often I think those things are a red herring or tangent, in dealing in a practical way with the specific eating related dysfunctions that were the starting point.
To underscore and clarify: I don't necessarily think the specific people I'm saying I feel are self-dramatizing have no eating-related dysfunctions, nor that their dysfunctions themselves are trivial or easily resolved. I just think that many or most of them are pushing the needle all the way over into the red zone in a not very clear-headed way.
I find it hard to help them when I feel that way about the posts, and that probably shows in the strength of what I might say in the moment about "sugar addiction" if I do engage. That's not a justification: More an explanation of my own behavior, which is not necessarily good behavior.11 -
I remembered another wrinkle to this discussion that sometimes (often?) comes up in these parts. It's the two-step shuffle from "food addiction" to "the food-industrial complex is wholly responsible for my addiction and ought to do something about it."
I think that conclusion is unhelpful, even if food addition is "real," whatever that means. It betrays an external locus of control.
In recovering from alcohol, I've often had the thought, or heard others express the thought, that it's terrible how much Big Alcohol spends on ad buys, how normalized drinking is, the rise of "Mommy Wine Culture," the nonsensicalness of the phrase "drugs and alcohol" (as if alcohol weren't a drug), and how, if someone could swoop in and just fix all that, wouldn't our recovery be so much easier?
Well, maybe. But that's not going to happen. We live in the world we live in. I can control what I can control, and I have to gracefully let go of what I can't.10 -
I remembered another wrinkle to this discussion that sometimes (often?) comes up in these parts. It's the two-step shuffle from "food addiction" to "the food-industrial complex is wholly responsible for my addiction and ought to do something about it."
I think that conclusion is unhelpful, even if food addition is "real," whatever that means. It betrays an external locus of control.
In recovering from alcohol, I've often had the thought, or heard others express the thought, that it's terrible how much Big Alcohol spends on ad buys, how normalized drinking is, the rise of "Mommy Wine Culture," the nonsensicalness of the phrase "drugs and alcohol" (as if alcohol weren't a drug), and how, if someone could swoop in and just fix all that, wouldn't our recovery be so much easier?
Well, maybe. But that's not going to happen. We live in the world we live in. I can control what I can control, and I have to gracefully let go of what I can't.
Hmm, while I do see "the food-industrial complex is wholly responsible" posts in "addicted to sugar!!!" threads, my recollection is that they are mainly RESPONSES from others - the OPs are asking for practical strategies to deal with their perceived issue.0 -
I am grateful for the policy of keeping sugar debates here in Debate and not in an "addicted to sugar!!!" thread:
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10331444/welcome-to-the-debate-health-and-fitness-category-please-readAs a result of creating this category, our team is asking that members respectfully allow the main forums as place to address the OP's questions as opposed to debating the semantics and/or arguing the use of terms. For example, if an OP requests help on their sugar addiction, that you do not debate the nature of addiction in that discussion but rather respectfully provide them a solution; keep in mind that not every person wants or needs to know all the semantics of the science behind things. If they would like to know more about the science, they can voluntarily join the discussion in these forums. Or as is always an option, simply refrain from posting.3 -
I will just post my two cents from my personal and very anecdotal experience. I'm not claiming that food addiction exists or not; I will leave that to people who are professionals in the matter, but after reading some posts stating that people will not chase non-palatable foods or will never eat sugar out of a bag ... well I can say I did.
First of all, let me say that my BMI has ranged between 24 and 26 for the last two decades, so no one who knows me in person will ever assume that I had (an in certain way still have) a disordered relationship to food, except my husband of 30 years. I also don't believe that sugar is addictive in itself. I wanted to point this out as my actions described below might lead you to think the contrary.
* As a child and teenager, I ate sugar cubes out of the bag for at least a decade. It started when soaking a cube in my mothers' coffee cup, and then even when no coffee was available, I would eat them just plain out of the bag. Did it taste good? No, but it was just something I did without thinking.
* Also as a teenager, I started to eat non-palatable foods mostly out of boredom. When still living at home my parents found it funny when I started to search through all the cupboards and fridge for "something to eat", especially after dinner. If there was nothing, I would create something - anything really (ketchup on a slice of bread anyone?). At some point it was almost a daily occurrence.
When I moved in with my husband he called this behavior "raiding", as I would raid the whole kitchen in search of something. Of course as I watched my cal intake, there were mostly no cookies, or pizza or other nutrient dense/highly processed foods available, but I would always find something to create, even mix some flower with an egg and water and cook in oil if needed. Even if it didn't taste good at all, it would have calmed my need (fix?).
Since then I've learned at lot, also from the forums here on MFP, and I have better coping strategies (no food off limits, integrate high volume foods, watch for enough protein, etc).
* Also on account of non-palatable foods: if I bought something at the store thinking that it would taste good (let's say a new brand of rice cakes) and it didn't, I would still eat the whole pack and not throw it away. It might even trigger me in eating it all in one go as putting it in the cupboard would mean it would stay there for eternity. Did enjoy it? Certainly not, but at such a moment, my mind seemed to shut out all rational thoughts. This is definitely a behavior that I managed to quit entirely.
* What I still experience today, after three decades: sometimes for up to 2 days in a row, I will think of nothing but food. I'll wake up in the morning thinking of what I will eat today. What I will eat, what I can have, what I will be deprived of, how much can I workout to compensate with food ... it's a continuous thinking cycle and calculation that takes up most of my time until I go to sleep again and it takes an enormous amount of willpower not to give into a binge. I know these cycles will pass and that my rational thinking will take over eventually, but I do feel as if these days are wasted time that I could have used for fun or development instead of food. I also believe that if this is my only remnant of distorted eating, I'm good for now.
Can one call this addiction or merely compulsion? As I said in the beginning, I'll leave that to the pro's.
16 -
janejellyroll wrote: »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.
But it's a near-daily occurrence to see "addicted to sugar!!!" posts (or similar) that are really abuses of the terminology, IMO - trivializations of the addiction concept. I'm talking about a fair segment of the people who like cookies and will eat a whole sleeve of them, or whole bags of M&Ms or whatever. They don't, as others here have observed, drink honey or maple syrup from the bottle, or eat table sugar by the spoonful, or anything like that. They dramatically overeat foods they find tasty and not very filling. It's really not a surprising phenomenon, in terms of human history and probable wiring via natural selection.
Nonetheless, in our current world, it's a problem, and depending on details it can be a thorny one, but IMO it doesn't really rise to the level of a "sugar addiction". A person doesn't need to be "an addict" to have a hard-to-solve problem with moderating something. It's a self-dramatization, basically, IMO.
I think you're hitting on something noteworthy here: I think a portion of the pushback on the food addiction concept comes from the fact that is used relatively widely in situations that don't seem to warrant it.
Wanting tasty foods with sugar and being able to eat large quantities of them isn't an addiction, it's just normal human physiology. We literally evolved to do this. Now that we're surrounded with sugar and it's maladaptive. People try to describe what it feels like and grab the best language available, but we see people use "addiction" to describe what seems like a relatively normal struggle to moderate tasty foods, it can inspire pushback.
This isn't to say that the struggle isn't serious and noteworthy to the people going through it. But if we saw people regularly describe themselves as alcoholics because they just don't like to stay no to a second glass of wine on Friday night, there might be more pushback against that. This isn't to say that a sub-addiction inability/unwillingness to moderate more routine alcohol consumption can't have consequences for someone's life or that it isn't worth focusing on alcohol consumption issues that aren't related to actual addiction. It's just that if "alcoholic" comes to mean "Gosh, it's hard to stop at one cocktail," we're losing the potentially valuable ability to describe a real disease with specific needs for treatment.
It's HARD to say no to tasty food and, other than the language of clinical language of addiction, we lack a real vocabulary to talk about what it feels like to want to say no while we find ourselves saying yes.
(And it's totally possible that within the larger overall population of people who are just trying to describe their relationship with food the best way they can there is a smaller group that is experiencing something that is more akin to the level of addiction).
6
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.5K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.2K Fitness and Exercise
- 382 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.6K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.1K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 878 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions