|
Discendo Vox posted:It can go in crazy emails too, I think. A quick trip to google and wikipedia suggests that casein has no harmful health effects aside from a brief mention of a possible allergy. A google of "casein addictive" leads to Dr. Oz and a similar cohort of nuts. That said, when you see addiction claims about specific food components, that's usually the audience that's targeted. Yeah, somebody posted the same thing almost immediately. I then went more behaviorally (and probably non-rigorously, please don't hit me, Discendo!) and said that I have not encountered any cheese eaters which acted in any way like drug addicts, which should be a bit more common if there is an actual addictive component to the cheese itself.
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2014 04:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 20:54 |
|
|
I only hit you cuz I love you. :hug: The best argument I can see for cheese as addictive substance (this is a terrible argument I am about to make) is that it's got a major luxury market built up around strange and sensorially limited features of it, similar to the legal nonprescription stuff, like cigars and wine. Not a great comparison, though. I do like to imagine the terminology that would result from a market for illegal cheese abuse. "Cheese pushers". "Huffing Cheese". "Cheeseheads." France would have Jamaica's reputation. On an only tangentially related note, I need to take another look at why Oz's license hasn't been revoked.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2014 04:54
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I only hit you cuz I love you. :hug: They're already called cheese-mongers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2014 05:15
|
|
|
Sinding Johansson posted:Ok, I'm going to try to restate your argument so you can tell me if I'm understanding it before I try and rebut any of it. So, there are two types of addiction, psychological and chemical. Psychological addiction is reinforced by chemical addiction. For a substance to be described as addictive, it must have at least one of the following properties: To my knowledge, "addiction" refers purely to a psychological phenomenon that is characterised by what you would describe as addictive behavior: a compulsive desire or perceived need to use a particular substance. Chemical dependence is not strictly addiction, but is often described as addiction or addictive in the vernacular, and is a component in the establishment of addictive behavior. Chemical dependence is a property of some substances that are particularly prone to producing addiction in people, because the symptoms of withdrawal form a key part of the reinforcement of the addictive behavior. Addiction, because it is a behavior, is purely a psychological phenomenon, but it is based in physical effects. You become addicted because the behavior produces some effect that you develop an attachment to, which can be a purely pleasant one, or it can be both a combination of pleasant sensations/feelings and a desire to avoid the negative consequences of withdrawal. The key thing that makes an addiction what it is, is that it is compulsive, which is different from a logical decision to do something. A compulsion overrules the rational mind and causes people to behave in ways they feel they can't control and may not consciously want to do. Because the compulsion is subconscious or otherwise something that the patient feels they can't control, it is very difficult to break the behavior. This is further exacerbated with substances which cause chemical dependence because the withdrawal symptoms will consistently validate the person's addictive behavior, even in the absence of the high or whatever beneficial effect they may use the substance to produce. Addiction (I think) is diagnosed by a psychologist if the person is presenting compulsive behavior associated with their substance use, which is what distinguishes it from pure chemical dependence, some people can use a substance, even if it's one they are dependent on, without forming compulsive behavior patterns around it, they can literally "stop any time they want". An addict can't, because they are acting based on compulsion rather than conscious decision.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2014 05:30
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Addiction (I think) is diagnosed by a psychologist if the person is presenting compulsive behavior associated with their substance use, which is what distinguishes it from pure chemical dependence, some people can use a substance, even if it's one they are dependent on, without forming compulsive behavior patterns around it, they can literally "stop any time they want". An addict can't, because they are acting based on compulsion rather than conscious decision. This is what we use at work (still imperfect): quote:ICD-10 Diagnostic guidelines Note that evidence of a withdrawal syndrome is not necessary for a diagnosis. It can certainly be a feature but it is by no means the principle driver of problematic drug use/addiction. KingEup fucked around with this message at 07:21 on Dec 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2014 07:13
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I only hit you cuz I love you. :hug: I think he probably gets away with it in the same way that Fox News gets away with a lot of the poo poo they do. Just say "well it's entertainment!" and you can say whatever you freaking please.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2014 18:04
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:To my knowledge, "addiction" refers purely to a psychological phenomenon that is characterised by what you would describe as addictive behavior: a compulsive desire or perceived need to use a particular substance. You are correct, psychologically, addiction is diagnosed behaviourally. There is an assumption when you make such a diagnosis that the behaviour you're interpreting is linked to a specific mental state but it may not be and the addiction research is somewhat inconsistent. To further muddy the waters, psychologically, addiction is also typically only diagnosed when the addictive behaviours are presenting an impairment in social/vocational/economical etc areas. As an example of this, you wouldn't typically diagnose a gambling addiction in someone while they're winning even though most psychologists would agree that they likely have the same cognitive biases, compulsions, justifications etc. As an aside, this isn't unique to addiction; psychological disorders in general are only identified when they create some marked impairment in a person's life. Where a person might be diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder if they act without regard for the rights and norms of the people around them in some contexts, in the business world, such behaviour may instead attract a promotion and a raise rather than a diagnosis. Context is key and, while some psychologists toy around with terms such as "functional addiction" (to refer to people who meet every criteria for an addiction diagnosis but lack any sort of functional impairment), these terms aren't well grounded and lack clinical utility. The problem with trying to disentangle the difference between physical dependance and addiction is that different practitioners will operate within their own understanding of what these terms mean - there's no consensus (even among addiction researchers). From a psychological perspective, addiction refers to a set of behaviours and physical dependance just refers to a property of a substance that can make those behaviours more likely.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 03:49
|
|
|
A fellow goon, Clint Cornelius, wrote an EXCELLENT free e-book called Brain Over Brawn and I think it would be awesome if it were added to the OP. I had a NASM Personal Training certification (expired after 3 years) and I consider that book essential reading for anyone interested in making positive lifestyle changes, or anyone interested in the obesity crisis. It has helped me tremendously. http://brainoverbrawn.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/brainoverbrawn.pdf The same principles that make people addicted to food are the same principles that make people physically fit. From an evolutionary perspective, calories equalled survival. If you acquired food and didn't know when your next meal was coming, you had to ration it. Foods that spoiled quickly were eaten first, and calorie dense foods that lasted longer were kept safe, in case there was a longer period of time before that next meal. Bodies that processed food efficiently would survive, and less efficient designs died off. So when you bite into a chocolate bar, your mind/body responds with huge positivity; if you were in a dire situation, that thing could really come in handy. Also keep in mind, you'd be burning calories off from day-to-day activity and by fighting against others to get your food. Now imagine you've never had to fight for a meal in your life, you walk into a grocery store and there are thousands upon thousands of food choices. People instinctively buy those foods that give them that big happy response, but aren't working it off, so all of that basic fuel goes into 'storage.' From there, those foods that spoil easily (fruits, veggies, milk, etc.) begin to taste bland in comparison to the triple-fudge Applebee's sundae (which has been competing with every other restaurant to have the best tasting sundae.) Thankfully, that process can be reversed by slowly working down to blander foods, and then the occasional calorie-dense food tastes delicious. Two thirds of Americans are overweight or obese, about half of them resolute to making positive lifestyle changes, about 5% succeed in maintaining them. That's because, among other things, everyone is competing to sell you their 'one true method' to weight loss; many of which are "extreme, ineffective, or both." A world with more fit people would be happier, sexier, and more economically sound, but telling the 500lb woman on an electric scooter that she should be ashamed of herself and eat a loving apple doesn't get you there; education does. The comparison of the overall cost of an unhealthy lifestyle versus a healthy one is where the motivation to change behavior lies. "Food" and "addiction" are two very ambiguous terms. My question is if you can be addicted to healthy food as much as you can be addicted to junk food, and I don't know the answer to that, but my best guess is a yes. It's a globally complex problem, but when you've got more people dying from obesity than from starvation, I find it really difficult to deny the legitimacy of food addiction.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 06:48
|
|
|
jryan42988 posted:
This is interesting, makes sense to me, and seems very much in line with my own experiences. I have prior experience with substance dependency (mostly benzos, which I was prescribed relatively long term from a relatively young age, from which it was not pretty or easy to withdraw). I was also a compulsive pot smoker in my teenage years. Anyway, getting off benzos has left me more or less 'addicted' to exercise. What I mean by that is that when I was dependent on benzos I would think "I feel very anxious / depressed right now" and feel an overwhelming, almost inescapable compulsion to take a pill, and then very quickly feel better. Now when I find myself thinking "I feel very anxious or depressed right now", I feel a strong, hard-to-resist compulsion to go run a couple miles and move some weights around, and then very quickly feel better. The thought patterns are the same, and the side effects of not giving in to that compulsion are similar, if much less severe: going without benzos for 2-3 days when I was severely dependent left me with intractable insomnia, anorexia and various other physical and mental problems. Going without any exercise for 4-5 days at this point generally causes moderate insomnia, mild loss of appetite, and mild mental distress. Of course, I was convinced that taking benzos all the time was bad for me, and I'm basically convinced that the kind of exercising I do is good for me. I just think it's sort of interesting that I've managed to move from "bad" to "good" behavior, without, apparently, making too many changes to the underlaying thought processes. I suppose that is a positive development, because my experience thus far is that behavioral changes are a lot easier to manifest than significant cognitive changes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 20:04
|
|
|
Tim Raines IRL posted:Of course, I was convinced that taking benzos all the time was bad for me, and I'm basically convinced that the kind of exercising I do is good for me. I just think it's sort of interesting that I've managed to move from "bad" to "good" behavior, without, apparently, making too many changes to the underlaying thought processes. I suppose that is a positive development, because my experience thus far is that behavioral changes are a lot easier to manifest than significant cognitive changes. One of the most detrimental things that ever happened to me was when I stopped being a seething pit of omnidirectional hatred. Because it's a lot harder to do stuff without a burning and barely contained anger to keep me focused. You can turn intense emotion to both productive and destructive ends without changing the emotion itself much.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 20:59
|
|
|
For those interested in the best possible scientific argument for classifying eating disorders as addictions, (and if you have access to Springer databases), read Timothy D Brewerton & Amy Baker Dennis, Eds., Eating Disorders, Addictions and Substance Use Disorders, especially Chapter 13, "Are Eating Disorders Addictions?" which is Tim Brewerton's summarizing argument for why eating disorders are addictions. Brewerton is a top researcher and clinician in the area of eating disorders, and he makes the strongest possible case for reclassification there. I don't agree with it, but it's a really, really good summary of work in the area, if you understand that it's also effectively an advocacy piece. Brewerton acknowledges several problems with his position toward the end of the paper, the most salient being a total lack of good clinical evidence for the normal standards of withdrawal and tolerance as understood in the prior research literature, and that the evidence can't point to a coherent etiology, having to merge empirical claims and studies about salt, fat, sugar and general eating behavior to support the overarching "food addiction" thesis. I think Dr. Brewerton is guilty of some selective citation and quotation (ironically including the same Volkow quote that came up in this thread), but he also lays out exactly why there's an excellent match between some parts of the typical substance abuse model and the broader behavioral abuse model. Brewerton is an extremely well-qualified scientist, and his is the best writing from this side of the argument I've encountered, bar none. That said, there are also problems- for example, if you're reading the chapter, mentally white out any citations to Robert Lustig- his work isn't credible in the nutrition or addiction fields, and if Brewerton's focus was in those areas he'd probably know that. After discussing his views, my impression is that, within the academy, the drive to incorporate eating disorders and other compulsive behavioral disorders into the addiction definition is coming from clinicians and psychiatrists for the following reasons: 1. Clinicians especially are desperate for federal research funding and insurance coverage for their patients, who are suffering and dying without a good source of support and treatment, and 2. Clinicians see and are exposed to behavior in-clinic from those most seriously effected by eating disorders that have psychiatric and behavioral traits that are indistinguishable from those found in drug addicts. The crucial problem is that the distinction between substance abuse and behavioral disorders of this sort is neurological and chemical, and it's not immediately observable. At the same time, we know it's there, and that it matters for understanding the causal mechanisms of both kinds of problems, despite their similarities. The drive to classify "food addiction" as a thing comes from the best of intentions, but I think it would ultimately confuse and harm research, policy and, ultimately, treatment in both areas. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 19:24 on Dec 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 19:21
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:. I think I made this point in my first reply to this thread but I'll expand on it. I completely agree with your reasons why there is an impetus to classify food addiction as a "thing" among mental health professionals but I'd point out that you're venturing into the philosophy underpinning diagnostics in general. From a practitioner point of view, a diagnosis is useful when it has the clinical utility to advise a treatment program, communicate to other professionals and advise stakeholders to treatment (e.g., insurance, medicare in Australia, health care services) what is driving therapy. I admit that I'm out of my depth to comment on the research aspect because I don't research in this area but as a practitioners, "food addiction" has a great deal of clinical utility and I can't think of a practitioner who wouldn't instantly know what you're talking about if you use the term. If you wanted to be more formal, I guess you'd need to use impulse control disorder NOS to label a food addiction if you were billing insurance or medicare but if I were to use the term "food addiction" in correspondence with other professionals, I can't think of anyone I've met who wouldn't understand what I'm trying to communicate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 23:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 20:54 |
|
|
Serrath posted:I think I made this point in my first reply to this thread but I'll expand on it. I completely agree with your reasons why there is an impetus to classify food addiction as a "thing" among mental health professionals but I'd point out that you're venturing into the philosophy underpinning diagnostics in general. From a practitioner point of view, a diagnosis is useful when it has the clinical utility to advise a treatment program, communicate to other professionals and advise stakeholders to treatment (e.g., insurance, medicare in Australia, health care services) what is driving therapy. I admit that I'm out of my depth to comment on the research aspect because I don't research in this area but as a practitioners, "food addiction" has a great deal of clinical utility and I can't think of a practitioner who wouldn't instantly know what you're talking about if you use the term. Well, Brewerton goes into some of the problems- it's insufficiently precise, because although there are behavioral similarities at the broad level, eating disorders have a bunch of behavioral features that don't map very well onto the direct substance model. In particular, there are sub-classifications of eating disorders that would all get lumped together under addiction, and purging in particular doesn't make much sense under the traditional frame. The cultural, personal and psychological elements that mediate the "addiction behavior" means that at the level of treatment, you have to do a lot more characterization to get to a point of clinical utility after saying someone is a "food addict". A lot of this is my own background in philosophy of science. I'm worried that the convenience of the diagnostic "disorder" classification will hamper more precise labeling, and, correspondingly, the development of new treatments (not just Volkow's stuff, either- clinical and behavioral interventions, too).
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 01:37
|
|