|
Is it really real. I mean, addiction as we know it is a lot of varied and open to interpretation than traditional understandings that were mostly based on physical drug dependencies We know that anything pleasurable whatsoever can lead to irrational thought patterns that drive actions and we could often describe them as addictive. What about food addiction? There are fundamental differences obviously between food and other addictions, because we need to eat food whether or not we are addicted. Is it a legitimate addiction? When people make seemingly illogical decisions regarding food, is that "just being gluttonous", or can we say they are suffering some kind of addictive potency? If someone wakes up in the morning and says "I am sick of treating my body this way I need to step it up no junk food" and then in the evening they are binge eating.. again.. is it just a fail of willpower or is there an addictive element? And how does one address it? Even if a person adopts a diet that manages to restore a normal relationship with food, so many treats and celebrations and socialising revolves around eating, often "treat" food.
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 01:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 22:51 |
|
|
echinopsis posted:Is it a legitimate addiction? When people make seemingly illogical decisions regarding food, is that "just being gluttonous", or can we say they are suffering some kind of addictive potency? If someone wakes up in the morning and says "I am sick of treating my body this way I need to step it up no junk food" and then in the evening they are binge eating.. again.. is it just a fail of willpower or is there an addictive element? Just because something is addictive doesn't mean you are absolved from any responsibility for failing to quit it. Smoking is very addictive, and it's still a failure of willpower if someone gives up after making the decision to quit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 01:30
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Just because something is addictive doesn't mean you are absolved from any responsibility for failing to quit it. Smoking is very addictive, and it's still a failure of willpower if someone gives up after making the decision to quit. I don't disagree with any of this but yes, food addiction can very much be a real, legitimate addiction.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 01:35
|
|
|
You can become addicted to literally anything. Psychological addiction is a funny thing. Eating to not starve to death is also dramatically different from compulsively eating yourself sick by continuing to consume far beyond the point of satiation. That's really where food addiction and compulsive eating lies. Eating a big dinner because you're hungry for a big dinner is quite different from doing that and then eating an entire cake. The other key word is "compulsion." Addicts by definition can't control themselves. Your bog standard human can look at their eating habits and go "well I'm a freaking pig, time to eat less/eat healthier." A food addict may very well realize that eating an entire pie every day is a terrible idea but they do it anyway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 01:37
|
|
|
Trent posted:I don't disagree with any of this but yes, food addiction can very much be a real, legitimate addiction. Yeah, I believe compulsive eating can absolutely be an addiction, in the same way that gambling is, even without an addictive chemical like nicotine being involved. The difference is that with nicotine addiction or any other chemical dependency, you also get to experience withdrawal along with the general shittiness of quitting a bad but enjoyable habit (if it were nicotine alone that kept people addicted to cigarettes, nicotine replacement methods would be 100% effective).
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 01:43
|
|
|
Speaking from a psychological perspective, the answer to your question strongly rests on your definition of a "legitimate" addiction. I agree strongly with the second poster who said that classifying something as an addiction doesn't absolve someone of the personal responsibility, it merely represents a shorthand to describe a cluster of symptoms and allows a professional (or a member of the lay public) to make assumptions about the sorts of difficulties a person will face, what sort of drives they may have, and what sort of treatments may be helpful. Within the psychological literature, classifying anything as an addiction is a great way to communicate what sort of treatment and intervention is appropriate and, to that end, a "food" addition is a versatile term to describe people who have, for a variety of reasons, a disproportionate weakness to controlling their own food intake. It's also helpful to a professional who seeks to bill medicare, an insurance company, or even just to prepare a report to have a term like food addition to refer to rather than having to describe the various psychological underpinnings, drives, and motivations that has resulted in the presenting concern. You could call that compulsive disorder NOS but that doesn't communicate to other professionals what the compulsions are centred around so the term has less versatility. But I'm answering purely from a professional point of view and "legitimate" could have a variety of definitions depending on how you used it. To answer your second question about how to address it, it depends on the person with the presenting concern and their unique set of circumstances that has elicited the behaviour in question. I've met psychological clients who overeat due to failures of other coping mechanisms (for example, victims of ongoing abuse who find that some foods are the only things in their life that they find pleasurable) and clients who overeat some particular foods due to bizarre beliefs about other foods (e.g., schizophrenia), extreme food specificity (e.g., OCD or autism spectrum disorder), or overeat due to the side effect of a medication or medical condition. Addition, in practice, is diagnosed behaviourally; if someone acts consistent with someone with an addition, they can be diagnosed with an addition even though the driving force for that addition can vary wildly (the same can be said for all psychological disorders, really). I can start talking here about recent evidence concerning how the structure of the brain and sensory organs can change in response to some diets creating a greater craving for some foods(which could be a pathway to addition) but I don't want to start speaking too far outside of my expertise... Anyway, the short answer to your question is that the treatment for a food addition starts with a functional assessment of that addition and a treatment plan that targets the specific individual pathways to a person's addition.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 01:51
|
|
|
I really like the Serrath post above mine because it's rational. I also agree with the failure of willpower post by PT6A. Actually every post has been pretty good. I have experience with having to change my whole outlook on food. I had always been a lousy eater but was still super skinny when I graduated high school. Then I went to college, and I put on 80 pounds. I went on a strict diet when I was 29 and lost about 60 pounds in 6 months, but it was really hard. No drinking, no sugar, limited carbohydrates, no caffeine. The first 30 days were the hardest, because not having caffeine made me miserable enough just by itself, but having to completely change my entire diet was very confusing and painful. It's not just about giving up pizza...it's like you can't even go to a loving restaurant with your friends because they will be eating things you can't eat, and there's not even anything on the menu that you can eat. It's a total lifestyle change that you have to go through. Well, that's if you're actually "fat." But then I lost 60 pounds, and I started working out and lost another 20 and was eating like a "healthy" person would eat. Now I don't work out and I've gained back those 20 pounds...so guess where I'm going on January 1? Well, I've been paying for my gym membership for over two years; I've got some making up to do. All in all, 14 years after making the commitment to not be fat, I've done alright by only putting back on 20 pounds out of the 80 I lost. But, sure as poo poo, you fall right back into your old eating habits if you aren't vigilant. But the holidays when I was dieting were absolutely miserable. At work there were always people bringing in cookies or whatever, there were mandatory social events or lunch being brought in; you know, all of these things that normally you would appreciate. Now, you can only be miserable and people just do not respect the fact that you've made a commitment - seriously; people will always say things like "oh one slice won't hurt you." But, who the gently caress only eats one slice of pizza? And besides, it will hurt. Eating a stupid Oreo cookie when you are on a diet can make you put on 4 pounds overnight because of the way your metabolism works with sugar, but yet people will get insulted when you won't eat their stupid crappy sugar cookies with sprinkles cut into Christmas tree shapes. If you're lucky, your family will understand and you'll at least be able to enjoy family meals and events with food that you can eat. I still dread the holidays because of this, and being formerly fat has left me with a tremendous amount of food guilt. I can't even tell you why I eat the ridiculous food that I eat now and can still look at myself in the mirror. All I can say is that losing more than like 15 pounds or so is a serious commitment, and if you have changed your diet from an unhealthy one to a healthy one, the holidays are very dangerous. Now I don't know about people who are just predisposed to be fat (they have a glandular problem or whatever; I don't even know), but outside of that, whatever you put in your body is your choice. Losing weight by making lifestyle changes is a lot like quitting smoking (which I also did), in that you have to actually want to do it or it isn't going to work. So in short screw the holidays. Edit: I forgot to add in the reaction that people give you when you tell them you're trying to lose weight. Without a loving fail they will give the response of either "but you're not fat" or "but you carry it well." What a load of crap. KaiserSchnitzel fucked around with this message at 19:36 on Dec 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
buzzsaw.gif posted:Eating a stupid Oreo cookie when you are on a diet can make you put on 4 pounds overnight because of the way your metabolism works with sugar I... don't think that's consistent with the laws of conservation of mass. I'm going to need to see some evidence of that, and an explanation of where those 4 pounds come from, because the cookie itself would be 0.4 ounces, or 0.024 pounds.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 19:37
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:I... don't think that's consistent with the laws of conservation of mass. I'm going to need to see some evidence of that, and an explanation of where those 4 pounds come from, because the cookie itself would be 0.4 ounces, or 0.024 pounds. If you're low on glycogen and then eat some carbs, you will get thirsty and drink and maintain that fluid. They say the first weight you lose is water weight and it comes off easy, the reverse is true but happens even quicker. Although I do doubt a single oreo is enough to do that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 19:42
|
|
|
buzzsaw.gif posted:But the holidays when I was dieting were absolutely miserable. At work there were always people bringing in cookies or whatever, there were mandatory social events or lunch being brought in; you know, all of these things that normally you would appreciate. Now, you can only be miserable and people just do not respect the fact that you've made a commitment - seriously; people will always say things like "oh one slice won't hurt you." But, who the gently caress only eats one slice of pizza? And besides, it will hurt. Eating a stupid Oreo cookie when you are on a diet can make you put on 4 pounds overnight because of the way your metabolism works with sugar, but yet people will get insulted when you won't eat their stupid crappy sugar cookies with sprinkles cut into Christmas tree shapes. If you're lucky, your family will understand and you'll at least be able to enjoy family meals and events with food that you can eat. I still dread the holidays because of this, and being formerly fat has left me with a tremendous amount of food guilt. I can't even tell you why I eat the ridiculous food that I eat now and can still look at myself in the mirror. This is the kind of thing I struggle with. At least if you were addicted to heroin, there wouldn't be a social stigma against turning it down. People bring treat food everywhere, and you get these people with self control who bake and bring baked goods to parties and it's like someone cooking meth but not using it and bringing it to a party. I've taken sleeping tablets before to force myself to sleep so I wouldn't be awake to be tempted by food, and skipped taking my kids to birthday parties because I get so out of control with regards to eating the food there that total abstinance from the event is the ONLY way to not give in. Well I could find some meth but I think overally it'd be a worse path to go down. My original question was more along the lines of, is food addiction taken seriously? If I was an ex-alcoholic (you know what I mean) and people knew, at parties it would be considered rude or wrong to offer me a drink. But food? People are always tempting you with dessert, or more cookies, or whatever. At work, social events, xmas parties etc.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:If you're low on glycogen and then eat some carbs, you will get thirsty and drink and maintain that fluid. They say the first weight you lose is water weight and it comes off easy, the reverse is true but happens even quicker. An extra half gallon of water is kind of a stretch though...
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 19:48
|
|
|
mugrim posted:An extra half gallon of water is kind of a stretch though... Yeah, drink and retain 1.8 liters of water because of one oreo?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 19:50
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:I... don't think that's consistent with the laws of conservation of mass. I'm going to need to see some evidence of that, and an explanation of where those 4 pounds come from, because the cookie itself would be 0.4 ounces, or 0.024 pounds. Maybe the more realistic explanation would be that "eating a single cookie" turns into "eating a box of cookies", or perhaps more accurately, "ate a box of cookies" turns into "ate a cookie" so people feel less bad about breaking their diet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
As someone with extensive experience with chemical dependency, I see certain peoples' relationships to food/diet as being perfectly described by the addiction model. Right now, with just a few months off my favorite drug, I find myself seeking to flood that dopamine system with foods. But beyond that, I find myself becoming part of a food-enthusiast culture...having regular lunch dates, dinner partners, etc. It's a lot like being a junky. You have your little social circle talking about where to go to find the best deals/products. You pore over forums and wikis, trying to digest everything related to your obsession. And, for me, I will eat myself to sickness. And I have friends who delight in the same. I'm currently at a rather healthy weight, but soon enough, I'll look like the rest of my family. And I'll have switched one addiction for another. As I've done more than once before.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 21:31
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Just because something is addictive doesn't mean you are absolved from any responsibility for failing to quit it. Smoking is very addictive, and it's still a failure of willpower if someone gives up after making the decision to quit. Addicts are moral failures and deserve the suffering and punitive shaming society lumps on them for it. Got it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 22:41
|
|
|
Willpower is a force that somehow exists outside of your brain and those who choose not to tap it are lazy failures, right.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 22:44
|
|
|
Hey there, is this the new FIB thread? I've got a starting kit of obese women ready to go.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 22:47
|
|
|
Berk Berkly posted:Addicts are moral failures and deserve the suffering and punitive shaming society lumps on them for it. Got it. Where did I say that? I quit smoking cigarettes on December 5th. If I decide to go to the store, buy a pack of cigarettes, open the pack, put one in my mouth, and light the end of it, it's because I've allowed my desire to smoke overcome my willpower. That doesn't make me a moral failure or a bad person, obviously. Lacking willpower, or not exercising willpower, is not a moral failing, and it does not make you lazy. Still, the fact remains that addiction does not rob a person of agency entirely, it simply shapes their behaviour and impulses. Treating an addict as a powerless victim does not aid in recovery, because the fact remains the the addict is the only one with the power to break their addiction. That doesn't mean that someone who cannot break their addiction at a given time is a bad person because of it. That's a non-sequitur.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 22:51
|
|
|
PT6A posted:.... If I decide to go to the store, buy a pack of cigarettes, open the pack, put one in my mouth, and light the end of it, it's because I've allowed my desire to smoke overcome my willpower The bold part doesn't make sense. You didn't 'allow' it to overcome your willpower, it just overcame your willpower, period. Willpower is not a magical, infinite source of determinism you can just tap whenever. It takes actual mental energy and focus, which is exactly what addictions subvert, both psychologically and chemically. You admit shapes their behaviors and impulses and then say you are the one responsible for when willpower fails despite being intellectually aware of the problem? You can't have it both ways. quote:Treating an addict as a powerless victim does not aid in recovery, because the fact remains the the addict is the only one with the power to break their addiction. I'm not sure how treating an addict as the source of their suffering and continued addiction aids in their recovery at all. All these sanctimonious intervention and group therapy rehabs are failures for that reason. You don't break addictions, you can only manage them, with help.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 23:14
|
|
|
The other snag with addictions is that they're often used to cope with something that murders your willpower. It's why people with PTSD develop addictions pretty commonly. That's one of the seeds of addictions in general and food addiction is not an exception. Sometimes people overeat because it's comforting which then develops into a full blown food addiction where the comfort has largely gone. I never had a food addiction but I have a history of alcohol abuse that stems from PTSD. Sometimes the only thing you want in the world is to forget, if only briefly, and the only place you'll find that is at the bottom of a bottle or the end of a cake.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 23:39
|
|
|
Berk Berkly posted:Addicts are moral failures and deserve the suffering and punitive shaming society lumps on them for it. Got it. I don't agree with the quoted post but in a rush to be indignant you hilariously misread it. One can ascribe a moral failing to a person without saying they deserve all the punishments we currently have for that failing; perhaps he also thinks we should redo how rehab/etc. works. Hell, you can advocate education and the like for moral failings and completely denounce any punishment if that's your thing. Similarly, you can ascribe a moral failing to a person without that person themself BEING a moral failure. Nobody's perfect after all, having a moral failing is not an automatic bad person. Dog Fat Man Chaser fucked around with this message at 23:49 on Dec 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 23:41
|
|
|
Berk Berkly posted:The bold part doesn't make sense. I'm not trying to have it both ways. I'm just saying that the only way anyone will ever recover from any addiction ever is through willpower. It's so self-evident as to be a tautology in many ways. No one can stop your addiction for you, no matter what the addiction is. quote:I'm not sure how treating an addict as the source of their suffering and continued addiction aids in their recovery at all. The addiction is the source of the suffering, but the addict is the only one with the power to do anything about it. Whether you want to call "stopping doing a thing you're addicted to" breaking it or managing it, I don't really give a gently caress, but in any case the addict is the only one that can do it, with or without help and support. You can have all the support in the world, but it doesn't mean a goddamn thing if you just say "gently caress it" and relapse. God knows I've done it a few loving times with cigarettes, so I know what a bitch it can be to have an addiction and try to quit. I'm not minimizing that at all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 00:20
|
|
|
Pretty good article I remember reading. It exists and food corporations and agribusiness are evil.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 00:29
|
|
|
PT6A posted:I'm not trying to have it both ways. I'm just saying that the only way anyone will ever recover from any addiction ever is through willpower. It's so self-evident as to be a tautology in many ways. No one can stop your addiction for you, no matter what the addiction is. And I keep trying to hammer the point home you don't "recover" from or cure addictions. The whole point in calling something an addiction is to realize that you aren't making decisions but struggling against something that can control your behavior. Willpower doesn't cure addiction, it just sandbags it at the cost of mental stress and energy. If they are mild enough you can subsume them, but only until stress and other factors crush deprive you of your self-control. This is why it is so silly to keep trying to pin responsibility on the addict. The addiction is to blame for their behavior and that is caused by the interplay of the addictive substance and their brain and body, not the failure of their mental or intellectual decision making process. No one decides to not have enough willpower to fight off a craving. Telling someone to admit that "I am responsible for my addictions" is just shaming them to make everyone else feel better. Everyone else is on higher moral ground because they aren't currently dealing with it. It stinks of the same mentality that pops up in Just World bullshit. Berk Berkly fucked around with this message at 00:34 on Dec 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 00:30
|
|
|
People literally do think that addiction is a sign of personal character defect and an indication of lower value as a human being, though. Like managing social effects is a major component of designing treatment pathways for addicts to have long term chances of remission. Go type "social stigma addiction" into google scholar. It's a huge problem and the language used around it is almost without fail to do with lack of willpower or not wanting to get better. The massive comorbidity with mental health concerns makes it even worse. It may be conceptually correct to say that a person can be considered to have had a moral failing without being an immoral person, but the reams of research into socioperceptual effects on addiction treatment would indicate that this level of sophistication in moral calculus is vanishingly uncommon in the real world. The reason people involved in treating addiction don't use that sort of language is nothing to do with some pc gone mad lack of personal responsibility thing, or because they don't think addicts are ultimately the ones who are going to have to alter their behaviour to recover or whatever, it's literally because that sort of narrative around addiction makes it measurably harder for addicts to get well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 00:35
|
|
|
PT6A posted:The addiction is the source of the suffering, but the addict is the only one with the power to do anything about it. Whether you want to call "stopping doing a thing you're addicted to" breaking it or managing it, I don't really give a gently caress, but in any case the addict is the only one that can do it, with or without help and support. You can have all the support in the world, but it doesn't mean a goddamn thing if you just say "gently caress it" and relapse. God knows I've done it a few loving times with cigarettes, so I know what a bitch it can be to have an addiction and try to quit. I'm not minimizing that at all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 00:37
|
|
|
Berk Berkly posted:And I keep trying to hammer the point home you don't "recover" from or cure addictions. The whole point in calling something an addiction is to realize that you aren't making decisions but struggling against something that can control your behavior. Willpower doesn't cure addiction, it just sandbags it at the cost of mental stress and energy. If they are mild enough you can subsume them, but only until stress and other factors crush deprive you of your self-control. If the addict is not responsible for quitting their addiction (or "managing" it as I guess you would call it), then how the gently caress does anyone quit any kind of addiction ever? Do we all just stay awake nights hoping for the addiction fairy to come and keep us from going back to it? The addict is the only one with the power to stop engaging in negative, addictive behaviours. It's literally completely loving impossible for anyone else to do a goddamn thing until the addict decides they need help. Again, this doesn't mean that addicts who cannot or choose not to manage their addiction successfully are bad people, immoral people, or lazy people. You're the only one making the connection between my position that addiction doesn't rob a person of agency, and the conclusion that therefore people who continue to harm themselves through addiction are bad people because of it. I don't know where you're getting that idea, but it sure as gently caress shouldn't be from my posts.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 00:38
|
|
|
Palace of Hate posted:I'm pretty sure people who have no other problems don't fall into addictions randomly friend The very idea of a person with no other problems is so ludicrous that it doesn't really matter what they would or wouldn't do. Everyone is flawed, and everyone has problems.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 00:40
|
|
|
PT6A posted:If the addict is not responsible for quitting their addiction (or "managing" it as I guess you would call it), then how the gently caress does anyone quit any kind of addiction ever? Do we all just stay awake nights hoping for the addiction fairy to come and keep us from going back to it? The addict is the only one with the power to stop engaging in negative, addictive behaviours. It's literally completely loving impossible for anyone else to do a goddamn thing until the addict decides they need help. No one really quits an addiction. And yes, people have to be forced to keep themselves from hurting themselves and others in the woes of the worst of them. That means saying no when your friend asks you to go to the store to get them beer, among other harsher measures for people on opiates and whatnot. Those people need straight up medical care. And it doesn't matter if the addict 'decides' they need help or not, or that they want to quit or need to change. The DECISION doesn't matter, only the craving. And the craving undermines everything. It ROBS you of agency. Whether you want to admit it or be in denial all you want. And my point about moral failings and punitive social stigmas are what happens when society decides that addiction issues are personal failings and flaws of that individual since blame has been assigned to them and their decisions. Alcoholics, junkies, people with various psychological/physical addictions that manifest in a variety of bodily-self harm or indulgences, they are all treated as immoral, disguising 'others' and not empathetic human beings with problems they obviously can't control on their own. Berk Berkly fucked around with this message at 00:54 on Dec 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 00:51
|
|
|
I think using the word addiction makes it needlessly controversial, even if there are neurological similarities to substance addiction. If you just talk about people who have a problem with eating for emotional comfort everybody's going to understand because everyone knows at least one person like that, probably more than one. Most non-assholes will even empathize because we've all done it (eaten to feel good rather than because we were hungry) at some point.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 00:57
|
|
|
Torka posted:I think using the word addiction makes it needlessly controversial, even if there are neurological similarities to substance addiction. If you just talk about people who have a problem with eating for emotional comfort everybody's going to understand because everyone knows at least one person like that, probably more than one. Most non-assholes will even empathize because we've all done it (eaten to feel good rather than because we were hungry) at some point. Yeah but the only moral addiction is my addiction. Yeah I overeat all the time but trust me, I can quit any time I want, I just choose not to. All those other food addicts? Well, they're just weak-willed simps.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 01:17
|
|
|
Torka posted:I think using the word addiction makes it needlessly controversial, even if there are neurological similarities to substance addiction. If you just talk about people who have a problem with eating for emotional comfort everybody's going to understand because everyone knows at least one person like that, probably more than one. Most non-assholes will even empathize because we've all done it (eaten to feel good rather than because we were hungry) at some point. I don't think it's controversial, and being addicted to eating is different than eating for comfort, much like playing poker with friends is different than a gambling addiction.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 01:42
|
|
|
Torka posted:I think using the word addiction makes it needlessly controversial, even if there are neurological similarities to substance addiction. If you just talk about people who have a problem with eating for emotional comfort everybody's going to understand because everyone knows at least one person like that, probably more than one. Most non-assholes will even empathize because we've all done it (eaten to feel good rather than because we were hungry) at some point. I disagree, this is why I made the thread, I'm not talking about a bit of overeating but uncontrollable compulsion to consume food to the point of excess. Chronic binge eating. And it's the lack of empathy which drives everyone to constantly offer treat food to everyone assuming that if a person doesn't want it they'll just say no...
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 01:49
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:I don't think it's controversial You honestly think the bulk of our society accepts food addiction as a valid concept? I have to say that hasn't been my experience at all. Did you mean to say you don't think it should be controversial? If so I agree.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 01:54
|
|
|
Torka posted:You honestly think the bulk of our society accepts food addiction as a valid concept? I have to say that hasn't been my experience at all. Did you mean to say you don't think it should be controversial? If so I agree. I was only talking about people in the field (binge eating disorder is in the DSM), not random people because if one were counting them you'd have to conclude that evolution is controversial. DSM-V posted:Some individuals with disorders described in this chapter report eating-related symptoms resembling those typically endorsed by individuals with substance-use disorders, such as strong craving and patterns of compulsive use. The resemblance may reflect the involvement of the same neural systems, including those implicated in regulatory self-control and reward in both groups of disorders.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 02:05
|
|
|
Haha, fair point.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 02:09
|
|
|
I think the debate about whether addiction is something that can be overcome with willpower is part of a greater question of whether biological impulses drive human behavior or conscious mental decisions do. One can say that, to be able to have the willpower to overcome an addiction in the first place, the addict must value something over their addiction, such as living or having a healthy social and work life. One could further propose then that this "willpower" is an illusion that masks some greater biological impulse, such as self-preservation or a sense of belonging (I understand that this probably sounds like splitting hairs to some people). Just to provide some more concrete basis to my claims, studies have shown that your actions can be predicted before you are conscious that you made them. E: Actually, being able to predict the actions of an addict before they are conscious of them seems to reinforce the idea that addiction is not a matter of willpower or choice, so it is relevant. America Inc. fucked around with this message at 02:49 on Dec 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 02:39
|
|
|
So if food addiction is a thing, and we apparently don't have free will, how do people beat these things? Because obviously people DO manage to control addictions and lose weight, so we can't just be completely helpless before our base urges and instincts.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 02:46
|
|
|
Blue Star posted:So if food addiction is a thing, and we apparently don't have free will, how do people beat these things? Because obviously people DO manage to control addictions and lose weight, so we can't just be completely helpless before our base urges and instincts.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 02:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 22:51 |
|
|
Blue Star posted:So if food addiction is a thing, and we apparently don't have free will, how do people beat these things? Because obviously people DO manage to control addictions and lose weight, so we can't just be completely helpless before our base urges and instincts. Although it is possible to defeat addiction without help, many people need treatment that runs the gamut of therapy to develop simple mental rituals to increase mindfulness, all the way to drugs. Addiction is a highly personal thing and there is no one size fits all solution short of being able to reprogram people's brains. Additionally environment and circle of support are huge factors.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 02:59
|
|
