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 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 -
I think that's a very good way to explain it, janejellyroll.
Re:Antiopelle wrote: »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.
Since a couple of my posts might seem like I was saying this, I will clarify. It is my impression that the vast majority of people who come on MFP and claim to have a "sugar addiction," upon questioning or providing more details, are merely saying they struggle to moderate specific tasty foods (usually, but not always, with sugar AND fat, and often other non sugary foods). They don't have trouble moderating foods that have sugar but which they don't like that much, and they don't struggle to control themselves with fruit or eat sugar out of the bag. I think some people do tend to mostly have problems moderating sweet-type foods, but I don't think there's any broad pattern where foods with sugar are generally more difficult to control--it's going to depend on personal food preferences. I just think the sugar addiction thing comes up so commonly because (1) dessert type foods are more obviously perceived as the problem source of extra cals vs what's on a dinner plate; and (2) sugar is the current favorite demon that diet publications and the media generally likes to focus on.
I am NOT saying no one ever has a form of compulsive eating that involves eating foods just because they are there; in fact my understanding of binging specifically is that it typically CAN involve any foods that happen to be on hand.
I also tend to see "eating" addiction as more about the activity/feeling of eating probably vs. specific foods (although that's more speculative).4 -
I think that's a very good way to explain it, janejellyroll.
Re:Antiopelle wrote: »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.
Since a couple of my posts might seem like I was saying this, I will clarify. It is my impression that the vast majority of people who come on MFP and claim to have a "sugar addiction," upon questioning or providing more details, are merely saying they struggle to moderate specific tasty foods (usually, but not always, with sugar AND fat, and often other non sugary foods). They don't have trouble moderating foods that have sugar but which they don't like that much, and they don't struggle to control themselves with fruit or eat sugar out of the bag. I think some people do tend to mostly have problems moderating sweet-type foods, but I don't think there's any broad pattern where foods with sugar are generally more difficult to control--it's going to depend on personal food preferences. I just think the sugar addiction thing comes up so commonly because (1) dessert type foods are more obviously perceived as the problem source of extra cals vs what's on a dinner plate; and (2) sugar is the current favorite demon that diet publications and the media generally likes to focus on.
I am NOT saying no one ever has a form of compulsive eating that involves eating foods just because they are there; in fact my understanding of binging specifically is that it typically CAN involve any foods that happen to be on hand.
I also tend to see "eating" addiction as more about the activity/feeling of eating probably vs. specific foods (although that's more speculative).
Exactly. If I implied that I think no one ever eats sugar plain, nor does that to a dysfunctional degree or for what they consider inappropriate reasons, that was not my intention. It just doesn't seem to be the common case in "sugar addiction!!" posts, which IMO are commonly as Lemur describes.5 -
I think that's a very good way to explain it, janejellyroll.
That's kind because now that I look at that post again, I see that my language was kind of garbled. I was multi-tasking while I was writing it (talking to my husband about the weird grinding noise our refrigerator is making) and now it's too late to edit.
Glad my point didn't get lost in the midst of that.
5 -
I think that's a very good way to explain it, janejellyroll.
Re:Antiopelle wrote: »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.
Since a couple of my posts might seem like I was saying this, I will clarify. It is my impression that the vast majority of people who come on MFP and claim to have a "sugar addiction," upon questioning or providing more details, are merely saying they struggle to moderate specific tasty foods (usually, but not always, with sugar AND fat, and often other non sugary foods). They don't have trouble moderating foods that have sugar but which they don't like that much, and they don't struggle to control themselves with fruit or eat sugar out of the bag. I think some people do tend to mostly have problems moderating sweet-type foods, but I don't think there's any broad pattern where foods with sugar are generally more difficult to control--it's going to depend on personal food preferences. I just think the sugar addiction thing comes up so commonly because (1) dessert type foods are more obviously perceived as the problem source of extra cals vs what's on a dinner plate; and (2) sugar is the current favorite demon that diet publications and the media generally likes to focus on.
I am NOT saying no one ever has a form of compulsive eating that involves eating foods just because they are there; in fact my understanding of binging specifically is that it typically CAN involve any foods that happen to be on hand.
I also tend to see "eating" addiction as more about the activity/feeling of eating probably vs. specific foods (although that's more speculative).
Exactly. If I implied that I think no one ever eats sugar plain, nor does that to a dysfunctional degree or for what they consider inappropriate reasons, that was not my intention. It just doesn't seem to be the common case in "sugar addiction!!" posts, which IMO are commonly as Lemur describes.
I think one good reason for us to be thoughtful around the language of food and addiction is specifically so we have a way to talk about those situations where people are eating sugar right out of the bag or binging on non-palatable foods. It seems to be to be something potentially distinct from the "Help, I just ate the whole pint of ice cream" situations.
I do think we could still potentially be talking about a compulsion, not an addiction, in these situations. But when it comes to actually tackling the problem, it doesn't seem so important to me that we settle the compulsion/addiction question as long as those who are actually helping with treatment understand the current preferred protocol for treatment.4 -
I think that's a very good way to explain it, janejellyroll.
Re:Antiopelle wrote: »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.
Since a couple of my posts might seem like I was saying this, I will clarify. It is my impression that the vast majority of people who come on MFP and claim to have a "sugar addiction," upon questioning or providing more details, are merely saying they struggle to moderate specific tasty foods (usually, but not always, with sugar AND fat, and often other non sugary foods). They don't have trouble moderating foods that have sugar but which they don't like that much, and they don't struggle to control themselves with fruit or eat sugar out of the bag. I think some people do tend to mostly have problems moderating sweet-type foods, but I don't think there's any broad pattern where foods with sugar are generally more difficult to control--it's going to depend on personal food preferences. I just think the sugar addiction thing comes up so commonly because (1) dessert type foods are more obviously perceived as the problem source of extra cals vs what's on a dinner plate; and (2) sugar is the current favorite demon that diet publications and the media generally likes to focus on.
I am NOT saying no one ever has a form of compulsive eating that involves eating foods just because they are there; in fact my understanding of binging specifically is that it typically CAN involve any foods that happen to be on hand.
I also tend to see "eating" addiction as more about the activity/feeling of eating probably vs. specific foods (although that's more speculative).
I agree with you that a big part of this could be that our current nutritional moment has it drummed into us that sweet foods are "empty calories" and also that we tend to tack sweet foods on at the end of meals or between meals, so when we're thinking of the "extra" stuff we ate, it just jumps out.
If the average person has a meal with some large servings/seconds of standard dinner foods followed by cake, I'm guessing that a few days later they're much more likely to remember the cake as an extra instead of, say, the extra helping of cheddar broccoli soup.
This isn't to say that some people aren't genuinely struggling with sweets, but I think there are a lot of people who are just struggling with excess calories overall, but framing has us more likely to remember the M&Ms we have on Thursday afternoon than the chicken wings on Friday night.
(This is just speculation, I don't know of any research on this specific area of calorie intake self-reporting).4 -
janejellyroll wrote: »I think that's a very good way to explain it, janejellyroll.
Re:Antiopelle wrote: »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.
Since a couple of my posts might seem like I was saying this, I will clarify. It is my impression that the vast majority of people who come on MFP and claim to have a "sugar addiction," upon questioning or providing more details, are merely saying they struggle to moderate specific tasty foods (usually, but not always, with sugar AND fat, and often other non sugary foods). They don't have trouble moderating foods that have sugar but which they don't like that much, and they don't struggle to control themselves with fruit or eat sugar out of the bag. I think some people do tend to mostly have problems moderating sweet-type foods, but I don't think there's any broad pattern where foods with sugar are generally more difficult to control--it's going to depend on personal food preferences. I just think the sugar addiction thing comes up so commonly because (1) dessert type foods are more obviously perceived as the problem source of extra cals vs what's on a dinner plate; and (2) sugar is the current favorite demon that diet publications and the media generally likes to focus on.
I am NOT saying no one ever has a form of compulsive eating that involves eating foods just because they are there; in fact my understanding of binging specifically is that it typically CAN involve any foods that happen to be on hand.
I also tend to see "eating" addiction as more about the activity/feeling of eating probably vs. specific foods (although that's more speculative).
I agree with you that a big part of this could be that our current nutritional moment has it drummed into us that sweet foods are "empty calories" and also that we tend to tack sweet foods on at the end of meals or between meals, so when we're thinking of the "extra" stuff we ate, it just jumps out.
If the average person has a meal with some large servings/seconds of standard dinner foods followed by cake, I'm guessing that a few days later they're much more likely to remember the cake as an extra instead of, say, the extra helping of cheddar broccoli soup.
This isn't to say that some people aren't genuinely struggling with sweets, but I think there are a lot of people who are just struggling with excess calories overall, but framing has us more likely to remember the M&Ms we have on Thursday afternoon than the chicken wings on Friday night.
(This is just speculation, I don't know of any research on this specific area of calorie intake self-reporting).
I think that's true - though of course the desserts can be a good plan to reduce, when it's time to reduce calories, if they're less central to our needs and desires.
The . . . hmmm . . . nutritional mythology, maybe even? . . . that many of us had before improving our nutrition education will play into this, too, IMO.
For example, one might think of broccoli cheese soup as a pretty healthy thing (maybe a little high in cheese, but calcium is good, right?), and gosh, broccoli - at least superfood adjacent. But reading the labels on prepared foods like that can reveal that in terms of nutrition/calorie balance, depending on the recipe/formula, we might not be lots worse off if we'd had pumpkin pie or perhaps even some of the more moderate forms of cheesecake instead.
The whole health-aura of salads is legendary, in this respect: After calorie counting for a while, many of us realize that the cheesy pasta or rich meaty entree at a restaurant *may* be fewer calories than some entree salads, and the salad not hugely better in nutrition, if the other mains had some decent veggies in/with. (Crispy chicken salad, anyone? Taco salad with the crispy tortilla bowl and plenty meat/cheese/beans? 😆)
Not that any of that has anything to do with addiction, specifically, though. But now I want pumpkin pie. 😐2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »I think that's a very good way to explain it, janejellyroll.
Re:Antiopelle wrote: »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.
Since a couple of my posts might seem like I was saying this, I will clarify. It is my impression that the vast majority of people who come on MFP and claim to have a "sugar addiction," upon questioning or providing more details, are merely saying they struggle to moderate specific tasty foods (usually, but not always, with sugar AND fat, and often other non sugary foods). They don't have trouble moderating foods that have sugar but which they don't like that much, and they don't struggle to control themselves with fruit or eat sugar out of the bag. I think some people do tend to mostly have problems moderating sweet-type foods, but I don't think there's any broad pattern where foods with sugar are generally more difficult to control--it's going to depend on personal food preferences. I just think the sugar addiction thing comes up so commonly because (1) dessert type foods are more obviously perceived as the problem source of extra cals vs what's on a dinner plate; and (2) sugar is the current favorite demon that diet publications and the media generally likes to focus on.
I am NOT saying no one ever has a form of compulsive eating that involves eating foods just because they are there; in fact my understanding of binging specifically is that it typically CAN involve any foods that happen to be on hand.
I also tend to see "eating" addiction as more about the activity/feeling of eating probably vs. specific foods (although that's more speculative).
I agree with you that a big part of this could be that our current nutritional moment has it drummed into us that sweet foods are "empty calories" and also that we tend to tack sweet foods on at the end of meals or between meals, so when we're thinking of the "extra" stuff we ate, it just jumps out.
If the average person has a meal with some large servings/seconds of standard dinner foods followed by cake, I'm guessing that a few days later they're much more likely to remember the cake as an extra instead of, say, the extra helping of cheddar broccoli soup.
This isn't to say that some people aren't genuinely struggling with sweets, but I think there are a lot of people who are just struggling with excess calories overall, but framing has us more likely to remember the M&Ms we have on Thursday afternoon than the chicken wings on Friday night.
(This is just speculation, I don't know of any research on this specific area of calorie intake self-reporting).
I think that's true - though of course the desserts can be a good plan to reduce, when it's time to reduce calories, if they're less central to our needs and desires.
The . . . hmmm . . . nutritional mythology, maybe even? . . . that many of us had before improving our nutrition education will play into this, too, IMO.
For example, one might think of broccoli cheese soup as a pretty healthy thing (maybe a little high in cheese, but calcium is good, right?), and gosh, broccoli - at least superfood adjacent. But reading the labels on prepared foods like that can reveal that in terms of nutrition/calorie balance, depending on the recipe/formula, we might not be lots worse off if we'd had pumpkin pie or perhaps even some of the more moderate forms of cheesecake instead.
The whole health-aura of salads is legendary, in this respect: After calorie counting for a while, many of us realize that the cheesy pasta or rich meaty entree at a restaurant *may* be fewer calories than some entree salads, and the salad not hugely better in nutrition, if the other mains had some decent veggies in/with. (Crispy chicken salad, anyone? Taco salad with the crispy tortilla bowl and plenty meat/cheese/beans? 😆)
Not that any of that has anything to do with addiction, specifically, though. But now I want pumpkin pie. 😐
Desserts can be a good place to cut, absolutely. It's just that that second bowl of broccoli-cheddar soup may ALSO be a great place to cut, I just think that current "nutritional wisdom" may lead some of us to focus on the desserts to the exclusion of the excess savory calories than many of us are probably also eating.
(And this is, of course, a vast over-simplification, as the person who is successful at weight management is likely making a bunch of smaller cuts instead of just focusing on sweet stuff).
2 -
Given this logic then petting puppies is as physically addictive as cocaine..,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.
3 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »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.
Refined sugar has no fibers, it goes straight to the bloodstream, like alcohol. Fruit has fibers in it which slows down a lot the entrance in the bloodstream. You get different effect in the body. Your brain will demand the quick rush.
The barrier that people place in food addiction is because you really don't have the same withdrawal effect from abstinence that you would have from alcohol or drugs. I smoked for 30 years and I didn't have and withdrawal symptoms without cigarettes, yet I couldn't stay without smoking.
Cheese has the same chemical effect on brain that opioids have.
So yes, scientifically it is a real addiction because it can be chemically proven, even though they all have different effect in case of abstinence.6 -
Lots of people rob grocery stores to get their cheese fix.10
-
L1zardQueen wrote: »Lots of people rob grocery stores to get their cheese fix.
👀 who told you about my Friday night habits?!12 -
L1zardQueen wrote: »Lots of people rob grocery stores to get their cheese fix.
👀 who told you about my Friday night habits?!
Shh, it’s a secret.3 -
L1zardQueen wrote: »Lots of people rob grocery stores to get their cheese fix.
That can be easily proven (it was also proven through MRI). Take a person who eats a lot of cheese and keep them 1 month without dairy, yet living cheese in their refrigerator.1 -
L1zardQueen wrote: »Lots of people rob grocery stores to get their cheese fix.
That can be easily proven (it was also proven through MRI). Take a person who eats a lot of cheese and keep them 1 month without dairy, yet living cheese in their refrigerator.
I could easily give up cheese for one month or longer and I love cheese. I am sure as heck glad I don’t have an opioid addiction though. You cannot equate cheese lover to opioid addiction. Does not compute. Sorry14 -
L1zardQueen wrote: »Lots of people rob grocery stores to get their cheese fix.
That can be easily proven (it was also proven through MRI). Take a person who eats a lot of cheese and keep them 1 month without dairy, yet living cheese in their refrigerator.
Yeah, pleasure centers in the brain light up on fMRI when contemplating tasty food, in receptive individuals. Also for things like petting cute kittens. Definitive: Petting kittens is addictive.
I eat cheese daily. Pretty sure I could go a month with some in the fridge, but not eat it. Maybe not if it was a fully ripe well-made brie, or Cypress Grove Humboldt Fog, but y'know, just general cheese, sure, no problem. No dairy at all for a month? Hard for me to get enough protein given current habits, but as long as I get to eat anything else I want, probably could. Cheese in the fridge wouldn't make it harder, except the ones I mentioned. (<= this paragraph is just joking around.)8 -
L1zardQueen wrote: »Lots of people rob grocery stores to get their cheese fix.
That can be easily proven (it was also proven through MRI). Take a person who eats a lot of cheese and keep them 1 month without dairy, yet living cheese in their refrigerator.
Yeah, pleasure centers in the brain light up on fMRI when contemplating tasty food, in receptive individuals. Also for things like petting cute kittens. Definitive: Petting kittens is addictive.
I eat cheese daily. Pretty sure I could go a month with some in the fridge, but not eat it. Maybe not if it was a fully ripe well-made brie, or Cypress Grove Humboldt Fog, but y'know, just general cheese, sure, no problem. No dairy at all for a month? Hard for me to get enough protein given current habits, but as long as I get to eat anything else I want, probably could. Cheese in the fridge wouldn't make it harder, except the ones I mentioned. (<= this paragraph is just joking around.)
Only if you get aroused by kittens...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3083244/
Sorry I couldn't resist it. I wanted to play the smartass too this time.0 -
L1zardQueen wrote: »L1zardQueen wrote: »Lots of people rob grocery stores to get their cheese fix.
That can be easily proven (it was also proven through MRI). Take a person who eats a lot of cheese and keep them 1 month without dairy, yet living cheese in their refrigerator.
I could easily give up cheese for one month or longer and I love cheese. I am sure as heck glad I don’t have an opioid addiction though. You cannot equate cheese lover to opioid addiction. Does not compute. Sorry
As someone who is lactose intolerant I generally avoid dairy, however cheese doesn’t bother me. I LOVE cheese... as someone who can sit and eat nearly a whole block of Colby, pepper Jack, etc. and always has cheese in the fridge because it’s used multiple times a week. I could easily go a month without eating it... I’d gladly do so over experiencing opioid withdrawal!7 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »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.
Refined sugar has no fibers, it goes straight to the bloodstream, like alcohol. Fruit has fibers in it which slows down a lot the entrance in the bloodstream. You get different effect in the body. Your brain will demand the quick rush.
The barrier that people place in food addiction is because you really don't have the same withdrawal effect from abstinence that you would have from alcohol or drugs. I smoked for 30 years and I didn't have and withdrawal symptoms without cigarettes, yet I couldn't stay without smoking.
Cheese has the same chemical effect on brain that opioids have.
So yes, scientifically it is a real addiction because it can be chemically proven, even though they all have different effect in case of abstinence.
No, it is not physically addictive and has not been scientifically proven...
8 -
L1zardQueen wrote: »Lots of people rob grocery stores to get their cheese fix.L1zardQueen wrote: »Lots of people rob grocery stores to get their cheese fix.
Or lose their homes and families to their cheese addiction 🙄🙄🤦♂️🤦♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️14 -
L1zardQueen wrote: »Lots of people rob grocery stores to get their cheese fix.
That can be easily proven (it was also proven through MRI). Take a person who eats a lot of cheese and keep them 1 month without dairy, yet living cheese in their refrigerator.
Yeah, pleasure centers in the brain light up on fMRI when contemplating tasty food, in receptive individuals. Also for things like petting cute kittens. Definitive: Petting kittens is addictive.
I eat cheese daily. Pretty sure I could go a month with some in the fridge, but not eat it. Maybe not if it was a fully ripe well-made brie, or Cypress Grove Humboldt Fog, but y'know, just general cheese, sure, no problem. No dairy at all for a month? Hard for me to get enough protein given current habits, but as long as I get to eat anything else I want, probably could. Cheese in the fridge wouldn't make it harder, except the ones I mentioned. (<= this paragraph is just joking around.)
What's being ignored here is that when people have sufficient motivation, they quit cheese ALL the time. Vegans exist and we managed to do it without checking ourselves into rehab centers. I also know some people who have stopped eating cheese due to various allergy/intolerance issues, they also all managed to do it by deciding "No more cheese for me."
That most people eat cheese is not evidence that it's the equivalent of Oxycontin, it's just an indicator that for most people it's a tasty, easily obtained, affordable, and satisfying food that they have no real reason to give up.
12
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions