Why CAN'T you eat whatever you want?? *Little* rant...

I could eat what my family eats, but I choose to be healthy instead. That isn't to say I don't indulge (I have a spike day every Sunday, and in many ways eat worse than they do on those days), but 85% of the time I'm on point.

This ... is ... so ... *kitten* backwards.

Do you understand how asinine this belief of "spiking" (or cheating) on a single day is? If you distributed that over every single day then it would be no different. People don't seem to get this. There should be no cheat day because this signifies that certain foods are inherently "bad" for you but this simply isn't true. If people were smart enough to simply moderate their eating then you could eat here and there instead of going on some "spike" at the end of the week (or beginning).

I'm so tired of this nonsense of "eating healthy." Most of these people have no clue what healthy is and they use the word to put themselves on a pedestal. Good for you. You're eating restrictively for no reason.

Sometimes you gotta restrict your diet to get down to the REAL weight you want to be at.

For some of us, it's an addiction. It's like telling an alcoholic he can have *just one* beer.

If you think food "addiction" is the same as alcoholism then you have no clue. "Addiction" of food is psychological, not physical. Alcoholism is a physical addiction which can result in withdrawal. The only way food is addictive is through reward pathways but this is true of ANYTHING. This isn't the same as the physical addiction of cocaine, alcohol, and caffeine. Someone might cite dopamine release from sugar but dopamine is a neurotransmitter which mediates psychological dependence. Texting, lifting weights, kissing, sex, running, etc. all release dopamine. Are you going to say you're physically addicted to all these things? Food really isn't physically addictive like alcohol or cocaine. This is why people who insist that "chocolate" or "sugar" is addictive make no sense.

Now, some people will have a harder time getting over these psychological hurdles but we should be careful how we refer to things. Food isn't the same as alcoholism or drug addiction. People just need to learn that the pleasure signals do not need to be constantly on when eating. It's hard to explain because we live in an era where psychological disorders have raised exponentially. This is something I studied a lot in sociology and it has become a problem since everyone thinks they are damaged goods and cannot be culpable for their actions.

Honestly, I offended a plethora of binge eaters already (in a different thread) but I don't feel particularly bad about it. Most people have no idea what the causes of binge eating are. The majority of binge eaters aren't biologically damaged individuals. Anyways, I'm getting off topic but the point is this: people need to stop comparing eating food to actual, physically addicting things such as alcohol. It's absurd.

I plan on getting drunk tonight! I'm on a weightloss program...not a death program....I'm human and I'll do what other humans do...live my life.

I think those are the people who haven't made "the shift" yet. The shift is when you realize "I don't WANT to eat what they are eating because I don't WANT to be overweight/unhealthy." And, yes, also realizing that it's okay to eat bad things or too much of something on occassion... realizing "on occassion" doesn't mean daily.

And, if you're lucky, part of the shift is that not only do you choose not to eat something - and are okay with your decision - it's that when you do eat it, it no longer has the same "satisfaction" that it used to. I don' t mean that you satisfaction loses over guilt, either. I mean that it just doesn't taste as good as you remember it! That is awesome and makes it so much easier to choose the "good" over the "bad" on a regular basis.

But, you have to open yourself up to making "the shift", realizing that it is possible and may happen if you "let" it happen. Didn't say it was easy, just saying it's possible.

"This is something I studied a lot in sociology and it has become a problem since everyone thinks they are damaged goods and cannot be culpable for their actions. "

Funny, I have studied sociology a lot and an addiction specialist I am NOT.

Where do you get this info?

For some of us, it's an addiction. It's like telling an alcoholic he can have *just one* beer.

If you think food "addiction" is the same as alcoholism then you have no clue. "Addiction" of food is psychological, not physical. Alcoholism is a physical addiction which can result in withdrawal. The only way food is addictive is through reward pathways but this is true of ANYTHING. This isn't the same as the physical addiction of cocaine, alcohol, and caffeine. Someone might cite dopamine release from sugar but dopamine is a neurotransmitter which mediates psychological dependence. Texting, lifting weights, kissing, sex, running, etc. all release dopamine. Are you going to say you're physically addicted to all these things? Food really isn't physically addictive like alcohol or cocaine. This is why people who insist that "chocolate" or "sugar" is addictive make no sense.

Now, some people will have a harder time getting over these psychological hurdles but we should be careful how we refer to things. Food isn't the same as alcoholism or drug addiction. People just need to learn that the pleasure signals do not need to be constantly on when eating. It's hard to explain because we live in an era where psychological disorders have raised exponentially. This is something I studied a lot in sociology and it has become a problem since everyone thinks they are damaged goods and cannot be culpable for their actions.

Honestly, I offended a plethora of binge eaters already (in a different thread) but I don't feel particularly bad about it. Most people have no idea what the causes of binge eating are. The majority of binge eaters aren't biologically damaged individuals. Anyways, I'm getting off topic but the point is this: people need to stop comparing eating food to actual, physically addicting things such as alcohol. It's absurd.

For some of us, it's an addiction. It's like telling an alcoholic he can have *just one* beer.

If you think food "addiction" is the same as alcoholism then you have no clue. "Addiction" of food is psychological, not physical. Alcoholism is a physical addiction which can result in withdrawal. The only way food is addictive is through reward pathways but this is true of ANYTHING. This isn't the same as the physical addiction of cocaine, alcohol, and caffeine. Someone might cite dopamine release from sugar but dopamine is a neurotransmitter which mediates psychological dependence. Texting, lifting weights, kissing, sex, running, etc. all release dopamine. Are you going to say you're physically addicted to all these things? Food really isn't physically addictive like alcohol or cocaine. This is why people who insist that "chocolate" or "sugar" is addictive make no sense.

Now, some people will have a harder time getting over these psychological hurdles but we should be careful how we refer to things. Food isn't the same as alcoholism or drug addiction. People just need to learn that the pleasure signals do not need to be constantly on when eating. It's hard to explain because we live in an era where psychological disorders have raised exponentially. This is something I studied a lot in sociology and it has become a problem since everyone thinks they are damaged goods and cannot be culpable for their actions.

Honestly, I offended a plethora of binge eaters already (in a different thread) but I don't feel particularly bad about it. Most people have no idea what the causes of binge eating are. The majority of binge eaters aren't biologically damaged individuals. Anyways, I'm getting off topic but the point is this: people need to stop comparing eating food to actual, physically addicting things such as alcohol. It's absurd.

I agree with some of what you've said, and disagree with other parts, confused with the rest. Is you're argument that unless a substance is physically addictive, it doesn't qualify as an addiction at all? A mental addiction can be "absurd to you", fine, but it's still very real...