no sugar or flour, food addiction?

wunderkindking wrote: »

Fortunately I didn't have to. I started at 190ish and am now 126ish. While eating the freaking cookie when I wanted it (or bread, or cake or potatoes or candy or ice cream or whatever). My only restrictions were in making sure I get ENOUGH protein and fat and stay/stayed within my calories. Those are the only restrictions I have now.

@wunderkindking I'm curious at what level you set your protein and fat percentage goals. I used to do keto but had to stop because of some health concerns and ended up gaining back all the weight I had lost. So, now I'm monitoring calories/macros/fiber/sugar, but I'm really not sure what percentages I should aim for with my macros now.

lemurcat2 wrote: »

Xellercin wrote: »

You've quoted a bunch of statements and concepts that people say that are exactly the gibberish mish mash of pop culture/12 step/movie scenes nonsense on which most people base their understanding of addiction.

I don't disagree, but usually in these kinds of threads that's what is being argued against, since those are the claims that are made. That's why I said the problem was people using "addiction" in different ways and therefore talking past each other in many cases.

Just saying what I am arguing against is "silliness" wouldn't work for a debate thread -- even if it didn't get a strike (and it might!) it's not an effective argument, which is why I think it can be worth breaking down the arguments and addressing them.

Literally my only point that I am trying to make is that most people don't actually understand what addiction is. The best thing anyone can do if they want to explain anything about addiction to anyone is to learn what the current biopsychological understanding of addiction is.

Xellercin wrote: »

lemurcat2 wrote: »

Xellercin wrote: »

You've quoted a bunch of statements and concepts that people say that are exactly the gibberish mish mash of pop culture/12 step/movie scenes nonsense on which most people base their understanding of addiction.

I don't disagree, but usually in these kinds of threads that's what is being argued against, since those are the claims that are made. That's why I said the problem was people using "addiction" in different ways and therefore talking past each other in many cases.

Just saying what I am arguing against is "silliness" wouldn't work for a debate thread -- even if it didn't get a strike (and it might!) it's not an effective argument, which is why I think it can be worth breaking down the arguments and addressing them.

Literally my only point that I am trying to make is that most people don't actually understand what addiction is. The best thing anyone can do if they want to explain anything about addiction to anyone is to learn what the current biopsychological understanding of addiction is.

And my point in posting the post that you initially responded to as the starting place for your initial post was that this current conversation involves a lot of people talking past each other because they are using different definitions of addiction. That's why I think it would make conversation easier if people would define what they mean by addiction before they use the term or, perhaps even better, maybe we should move away from a term with as many preconceptions as "addiction" (many of which people may be attached to for various reasons) and instead just focus on what we are saying without using that word (or at least after defining it first in a short and clear way). Otherwise the discussion always seems to go around in circles, and I am actually kind of interested in trying to figure out where people are agreeing or disagreeing in reality vs on the meaning of a term that is always a hot button.

I get that you think the conversation would work better if we all agreed on and used your definition of "addiction" (and it seems reasonably similar to the definition I also understand with the term), but the fact is that there are many definitions in play and it has sources in all kinds of uses, including just common usage and AA usage and dieting lit usage, etc., so rather than expect people will use it in one particular way I think it is necessary to say "well, what do you mean by that?" if it is not clear. And also to ask "how does that answer relate to behavior and how to modify it, if there's an issue?"

It also often leads to interesting answers.

lemurcat2 wrote: »

And my point in posting the post that you initially responded to as the starting place for your initial post was that this current conversation involves a lot of people talking past each other because they are using different definitions of addiction. That's why I think it would make conversation easier if people would define what they mean by addiction before they use the term or, perhaps even better, maybe we should move away from a term with as many preconceptions as "addiction" (many of which people may be attached to for various reasons) and instead just focus on what we are saying without using that word (or at least after defining it first in a short and clear way). Otherwise the discussion always seems to go around in circles, and I am actually kind of interested in trying to figure out where people are agreeing or disagreeing in reality vs on the meaning of a term that is always a hot button.

I get that you think the conversation would work better if we all agreed on and used your definition of "addiction" (and it seems reasonably similar to the definition I also understand with the term), but the fact is that there are many definitions in play and it has sources in all kinds of uses, including just common usage and AA usage and dieting lit usage, etc., so rather than expect people will use it in one particular way I think it is necessary to say "well, what do you mean by that?" if it is not clear. And also to ask "how does that answer relate to behavior and how to modify it, if there's an issue?"

It also often leads to interesting answers.

No one should use "my" definition of addiction, if they want to understand what addiction is, they should seek out what the current actual medical and scientific understanding of it is.

I'm not disagreeing with you. The only thing I have been saying is that, yes, it's extremely difficult to have a valid conversation about a complex topic when almost no one actually knows what they're talking about, but all seem to think that they do.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I wasn't proposing how to solve the problem of the conversation going around in circles, I was literally only explaining what I see as the source of the problem. If you want to try and solve it, by all means go ahead and try. I'm honestly not arguing with anything you are saying on that front.

I've been making one point, and one point only: that few people who talk about addiction have any legitimate understanding of it, even though they like to state things as if they do. How that plays out is going to be complex, and I don't have solutions for it, because we know that people don't generally feel the need to actually know things before stating that they do.

“Do you think there is food addiction?

Yeah. Based on actual definitions of how addiction works, it does tick the boxes for addiction.

“Some people say don't eat sugar or flour. That seems like a hard way to live, not ever having a cookie? They say they don't struggle. What do you think?”

First, I think we’re all different, and that’s going to make the experience of completely giving up something a different one for each of us.

I don't mean 'we all experience the world differently,' but 'we all have very different bodies.' At a base level, we're all different. And based on research I’ve seen, we know less about the human mind and body than many people seem to think we do.* And there many processes and traits in our bodies that people seem to remain unaware of, even if they ARE medically known. So the factors that are going to determine how we experience hunger, cravings, addiction, weight gain? We know some about them, but there is also a lot that has never even been studied.

Which means there very well could be a lot of individualized body-related issues that could be a good explanation for why some people feel ‘addicted’ to them, or why some people can’t seem to stop eating them unless they drop them entirely.

As an example:
Estimates by the CDC are that 1 in 3 people in the USA are prediabetic, with around 80% being undiagnosed.

In prediabetes, the liver slowly becomes more resistant to insulin, which basically results in higher blood sugar levels in the blood, more insulin in the bloodstream, and the liver putting more into fat storage. Excess insulin (hyperinsulinemia) in the blood causes carbohydrate cravings, and animal studies and epidemiological evidence support the idea that excess inulin is a major factor in obesity as well as failures in diet and behavior modification attempts for losing weight.

And unsurprisingly, one medically recommended diet that helps prediabetes is a very low carb diet. Which again, in the USA, is thought to be 1 in 3 people - which means about 96 million people might be helped by eating less carbs.

So for the above group of folks? Doesn’t seem outside the bounds of speculation to say that they likely have much cravings for carbs and sugars so bad it could feel like, or qualify for, an addiction. Or that they find it better if they just ‘fully drop’ flour and sugar (because then, they’d just be having fruit, etc… carbs, which would be a much lower carb diet, in all likelihood).

Re: the ‘they say they don’t struggle.’
I struggle a LOT. I have medical reasons that I can’t have sugar or flour (celiac plus a rare disorder that severely restricts my allowed foods). I have to avoid these if i don’t want to be sick. So I don’t have a choice: I HAVE to avoid these things, whole hog. Moderation won’t work with what I have.

And yes, after a while of avoiding these, the cravings go down. That does seem to get easier, even if I can still miss certain foods. But some days, man, it is HARD to avoid. But I still feel better enough that it's good to do it this way.


* re: what we don’t know about how our bodies work.

The majority of medical studies, for decades, were only done on men, typically white men (psychological studies were primarily white, college aged men). A huge number of medical studies NOW are only done on men, primarily white men. And it turns out, the genetic and physical differences between people impacts a LOT, like how our bodies work, how they interact with drugs or medical equipment, etc… (and that’s going to include weight gain, you know?)

Some examples:

Women have different heart attack symptoms than men.

Women have a lot of differences in how they respond to drugs. As an example: Drug warnings for ‘wait X hours after eating before taking this medication’ were based on how quickly men’s stomachs empty. Women’s stomachs physiologically take longer to empty, so they should actually wait longer after eating before taking meds that need an empty stomach. https://www.aafp.org/afp/2009/1201/p1254.html#:~:text=Pharmacodynamic%20differences%20in%20women%20include,experience%20an%20adverse%20drug%20reaction.

Women do not benefit from carb loading before athletics, and can actually have poorer performance, even. They do not respond the same to higher levels of protein and muscle gain as men do.


Different races can have genetic differences that can result in alterations in things ranging from the most basic, ‘are-you-an-idiot?’ level things, to drug effectiveness and more.

Ex of ‘are you an idiot’ stuff - Pulse oximeters - if you know how they work, it’s blindingly obvious that the darker your skin is, the more inaccurate they will be…in the way that makes it MORE dangerous. And that is exactly what studies have found (although these are still used pretty much everywhere) (https://pubs.asahq.org/anesthesiology/article/102/4/715/7364/Effects-of-Skin-Pigmentation-on-Pulse-Oximeter )

Drug effectiveness -
There are simply many drugs that do not have the same % effectiveness for different populations, or cause more negative side effects or blatant harm to certain populations. Example: albuterol, for asthma, shows no improvement for about 67% of people who identify as Puerto Rican. Black patients have a higher risk of major bleeding from warfarin than do white patients. (https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2708114#:~:text=Patients%20of%20African%20descent%20have,warfarin%20than%20do%20white%20patients. )

wunderkindking wrote: »

I mean... carbs might make you mega hungry in an hour or two.

Me? Well if I don't get enough protein I'm hungry but if I don't have carbs with my fat and protein I get shaky, and am STARVED pretty darned quick. Almost every time I eat it's protein + fat + carbs. Because that's what keeps me from getting hungry or just feeling like hot garbage.

Because I'm not diabetic.

the nausea and shakiness were certainly what I was experiencing when I had more carbs in my diet. I would eat carbs, have energy, and then in a couple of hours be nauseous, would literally grind to a halt. had headaches, etc.

Had to have more carbs. That rollercoaster is how addictions work. I think I was certainly carb addicted.

It's not shameful to say it's an addiction: there's no shame in it. I was raised hard out in the high carb low fat world of my mother producing diet milk and 'scrapings of butter'.

Everything was boiled or steamed. Diets were years of misery and hunger. My entire youth was spent with a rumbling stomach, eating everything that was made available because we were underfed. They call it 'food insecurity' nowadays; and children raised with food insecurity apparently have no way of self-limiting food. I agree with that.

I gave up dieting for years because I couldn't bear being hungry all the time. So for me, not being hungry is huge. when I say I am not suffering hunger, that's a big deal for me.

I have one very large meal a day, containing everything I love, (food not junk) and if I need to snack in between times I'm eating fish, or meat, or half a cucumber. Or a tomato. I'm reaching for high nutrient foods, not sweet, and can be as fat as they like so long as it's the fat God made them with. This is the antithesis of 30 yrs of dieting beliefs.

Whatever others may do is them. I am talking about me. carbs/sugar can definitely cause a rollercoaster of insulin response, energy deprivation (and fat storage), nausea and cravings, followed by more carbs.

Bridgie3 wrote: »

the nausea and shakiness were certainly what I was experiencing when I had more carbs in my diet. I would eat carbs, have energy, and then in a couple of hours be nauseous, would literally grind to a halt. had headaches, etc.

Had to have more carbs. That rollercoaster is how addictions work. I think I was certainly carb addicted.

This isn't how addictions work. It's a pretty common result of a diet that is full of fast carbs and too low on fat and protein and fiber, but lots of people who have this issue and a bad habit of grabbing more fast carbs if they felt low on energy or tired or hungry manage to switch their diets to ones that promote more consistent energy levels and have no problems, and they need not cut out carbs or even go low carb (and of course low carb diets typically include carbs anyway),

I gave up dieting for years because I couldn't bear being hungry all the time. So for me, not being hungry is huge. when I say I am not suffering hunger, that's a big deal for me.

Of course, and excellent that you'd found something that works for you, but the disagreement was about speaking for everyone in terms of what leads to more or less hunger.

I have one very large meal a day, containing everything I love, (food not junk) and if I need to snack in between times I'm eating fish, or meat, or half a cucumber. Or a tomato. I'm reaching for high nutrient foods, not sweet, and can be as fat as they like so long as it's the fat God made them with. This is the antithesis of 30 yrs of dieting beliefs.

Re the promotion of low carb and not worrying about fat, it actually seems like something that has gone in and out of fashion lots of times within the past 30 years. It's hardly like low carb is new or that fat demonization has been consistently in fashion. (Also the idea that a food that is mostly carbs = junk and is not food is something I strongly disagree with. Most so called "junk" foods are actually a mix of carbs and fat, and plenty of high nutrient foods are mostly carbs. Do you you need to eat them to be healthy? Generally not, although I would look askance at a diet so low carb that it cut way down on veg or avoided them entirely.)

Whatever others may do is them. I am talking about me. carbs/sugar can definitely cause a rollercoaster of insulin response, energy deprivation (and fat storage), nausea and cravings, followed by more carbs.

It's not actually true that you store less fat on low carb (or more on high carb) if calories are equal, as you seem to be saying, but I absolutely think low carb works well for some so congratulate you on finding a way of eating that you like and that works for you.

I would say don’t consume sugar. It is basically poor man’s cocaine. Highly addictive.

chrismacboy wrote: »

I would say don’t consume sugar. It is basically poor man’s cocaine. Highly addictive.

Yeah no. It's HYPERPALATABLE for any living entity on Earth these days. People don't usually eat what's best. They eat what tastes good. Sugar is in many products today because it makes things taste better. Take sugar out of many foods and lots of people stop eating it. Food companies know this.
And as mentioned above.................who kills someone or robs them for a package of sugar?

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

chrismacboy wrote: »

I would say don’t consume sugar. It is basically poor man’s cocaine. Highly addictive.

1. I eat a reasonable amount of sugar
2. I am not addicted and can give it up any time I want (having worked with people suffering addiction I use the term in its pure sense)

So why do I eat sugar? Because I have an endocrine issue which means my blood sugar can fluctuate wildly, and I need to fuel my 2.5 hr workouts somehow. I can’t eat a protein or fat meal whilst throwing weights around, but I can ingest a handful of sweets or a small banana and still lift without ab cramps or throwing up. I also like a biscuit with my cup of tea, and I benefit from the fibre and vitamins in a range of fruit (some of which are high in sugar). I get protein and vitamins from milk (which contains naturally occurring sugar) and I love carrots (high in sugar).

Carb loading in women has not been adequately studied (women aren’t included in many scientific studies because we’re “complicated”) but as with all studies, individual tolerances will vary hugely. I would say though, that when I’m starving if someone tried to take my food off me - I might react a tad aggressively!

DFW_Tom wrote: »

"When an individual eats sugar, the brain produces huge surges of dopamine. This is similar to the way the brain reacts to the ingestion of substances like heroin and cocaine."
- https://wellnessretreatrecovery.com/sugar-and-dopamine-link-sweets-addiction/

As niner says, that's what happens when we do pleasant things: Dopamine!! In my case, I'm not sure it would even much happen with sugar, because I don't really enjoy super-sugary sweet things: I'm more of a savory/salty fan. Maybe I get dopamine rushes from sauerkraut, I dunno.

For my tastes, melodramatic statements like that about food and eating are not very helpful. There can be kernels of truth, as in this case, but IME extreme measures (like cutting out literally all added sugar under the assumption that it's evil and addictive) just make weight management more difficult, as a practical matter, for most people.

(I'd observe that the passage you quoted seems to be from a site about addiction (to more extreme substances) and recovery from that, and that the cast of the overall article seems to be suggesting that people who've been addicted to more-dangerous substances should use caution in recovery so as not to chase other sources of dopamine rushes, ones that may be detrimental to some extent, even if not to the extent that (say) opiates are. That's a little different context than the majority of people on MFP are in, I think. (Some are, sure.))

Of course no one should be overloading their eating routine with added sugar: Doing that tends to put us over a reasonable calorie level (sugar alone is not typically sating), or short-change our needful nutrition at reasonable calories. Others may vary, but I've found it more productive to concern myself primarily with getting nutritious foods into my eating habits (for protein, fiber, healthy fats, plenty of micros), rather than focusing on getting supposedly-bad foods out of my habitual eating. If I focus on nutrition, calories, and satiation, the less nutrient-dense foods tend to gradually drop out of rotation almost automagically.

I guess if someone is (say) an inveterate gamer, finds it helpful to conceive of him/herself as on some kind of heroic quest, maybe the demonization of some foods as "addictive" and the elevation of others as "superfoods" is helpful. Generally, though, I feel like it feeds into the stupid myth that being fat is some kind of sin, that weight loss is an epic battle of good vs. evil, thus we need necessarily suffer difficult challenges in order to expiate the sin of fatness. Nah.

Do you think there is food addiction?

-first line of the original post

I can agree with those here who say some people's cravings after consuming some types of foods (like sugar or high glycemic CHOs) might seem like addiction, but it doesn't meet the exact definition. Seems if some of these foods are creating a uncontrollable craving to overeat, then it is best to stay away from them - addictive or not. If it walks, talks and acts like an addiction, then treat it like one.

There have been numerous reports by members here on MFP (and other open forums) of some suffering a lifetime of always being hungry (and over consuming) until they cut out all added sugars and greatly reduced their CHO intake. We hear them say things like, "For the first time in my life, I was able to lose weight consistently while not being hungry." Even though these folks are most likely a minority of the population, it doesn't make their experience any less valid. It should not be dismissed.

Defenders of the MyPlate balanced diet, calories in - calories out model don't seem to appreciate that not everyone's reactions to certain foods are the same. That continuing to push one type of diet for everyone (unless they have a diagnosed disease) continues the cycle of metabolic syndrome that leads to obesity and cardio vascular disease.

I'm happy for those of you who can enjoy an occasional treat, like a donut, without it triggering your insulin resistance cravings for the rest of the box of donuts only to have the need to fill your stomach again within a couple of hours with more carbs. The CI-CO model should fit your wheel house nicely. Just please stop telling the few of us who can't eat donuts that sugar is ok. That cutting our CHO intake is bad for us. You might as well be telling the obese that they are weak, that their CVD and high blood pressure is the price they pay for not having any will power.

hello all. I, like many of you I'm sure, have tried many times and ways to shed what was 30 and is now about 80 pounds. On one of my many 'diets'- an elimination plan supervised by my naturopath- i eliminated almost every carb for about a month..no fruit except for berries in small amounts, green vegetables and protein. I'm not diabetic and have no other sensitivities or restrictions on what I can eat. After about 8 months on this plan, which allowed me to add a few new things over the weeks, but still no grain based carbs, i managed about 12 pounds. But, what was very different after this process was that i no longer experienced the cravings for sweet carbs I'd had before. no longer do i stash chocolate everywhere, jokingly referring to it as 'medicinal'. I am more aware of my emotional responses that prod me to find a food comfort - a sweet something that is more about upset and/or fatigue. So, addiction I'm not so sure of, but i would agree that some food choices are harder to resist when we aren't at our emotional best. Maybe I am not addicted, but I'd say its possible for my system to be more insistent about how i feed my body... Now, I am trying to just stick to my calories, get more frequent exercise, and stop 'shoulding' on myself. I just want to feel better, get back to gym workouts someday, though walking is hard enough now. Any change i can stick to has to be comfortable for my whole life...

We, the whole fam damily, are carb addicts. We are not morbidly obese but are all overweight. We do not discriminate against any carb let alone starchy potatoes, pasta, bread and sweets. So on this weight reduction journey it is difficult to practice moderation for us. Thus, we have cut them out. I used to buy my flour by the 25# bag, make a loaf of bread each day, buy the 20# potato bag and use it in a week, go through a pound of sugar a week. No more. In this home it is a matter of living or dying too soon after Mr. had open heart surgery Oct 21. It isnt just the daily bread but the butter that got smeared on it, the gravy it sopped up, the mayo that would be on a sandwich. The cookies would be raisin and nut filled oatmeal but still…24 would disappear in as many hours. Sometimes we would enjoy two bottles of red wine at night because it tasted so good.

We still have an odd potato, but I buy them singles now. I still make my famous bread but only every other week for Sunday supper. I only make 4 ‘healthy’fied oatmeal cookies’ at a time once a month or so for afternoon tea. We take tea without sugar or honey now. We only have whole wheat pasta every other week or less often. Our rice is only brown and once a week or less often. Wine on special occasions or bi-weekly Sunday suppers, but one bottle for the table.

Mr. Is down 35# and I’m down 30# just by making the right food choices and eliminating poor habits. It was difficult, and anyone who would eat my bread would agree that it was a mighty feat to give up. These eating habits must be our forever habits because we can really cook well and bake well and you can’t stop at one helping. Things can go really bad really fast in this house.

Each person must make their own decisions based on knowing themselves. For us it is not unhealthy to give it up, but it is unhealthy not to.