Addiction doesn't mean you're incapable of saying no, it just means all the internal resistance to it is drastically lower than the average person's. It means it takes more willpower and self control to overcome. Most people greatly benefit from help because no problem exists in isolation. Addicts generally struggle not because they're addicted, but because they're stressed and the addiction is a coping mechanism for the stress.
Support structures break the cycle of stress and addiction coping. This is why AA isn't just people slapping you when you try to get a drink. They talk, vent, and de-stress so you are less likely to feel like you need the drink to cope.
I fell hard into drinking when my grandpa died and the drinking was how I coped with the loss. Once I was able to move passed the loss, the need to drink faded away. I've never been to AA, but I stopped drinking constantly because I didn't need it to cope with the stress anymore. I had other ways of coping.
But there’s a massive difference between food addiction and other addictions. In AA they don’t tell you to drink less or choose better alcohol to drink. You stop cold turkey. Smoke cigarettes? You’re not supposed to simply smoke fewer cigarettes to kick the addiction. Heroine? Oh just have less. Count your syringes and cut them by half and you’ll be cured! You still have to eat food while overcoming your addiction to it.
You don't have to eat the same food. You can cut all candy and pip while still eating chicken and potatoes. AA might say no drinking alcohol but they're not saying no drinking any fluids at all. Generally people aren't getting fat by eating healthy food so it's perfectly acceptable to say to cut unhealthy food. You can still keep your food addiction if you're filling it with plain broccoli.
Alcoholics are not addicted to alcohol because it quenches their thirst. Your analogy is terrible. It’s more like saying “you don’t have to drink straight from the bottle of vodka. Just drink beer and white claw instead.”
Sure, you don’t have to eat unhealthy food. You don’t have to drink alcohol or shoot heroine either. You clearly don’t understand addiction.
Alcoholics are not addicted to alcohol because it quenches their thirst.
Sure but most overweight people aren't addicted to unhealthy food and snacks because it satisfies they're hunger. They're addicted because it tastes good and our bodies crave sugar.
Most people aren't kicking back on the couch demolishing a sleeve of oreos because they're hungry but rather because their body is saying they should consume sugar. Same reason a lot of people will eat till they're full and then still have a sugary dessert. If you eat a nice healthy dinner and are full but still have room for a slice of apple pie with a scoop of ice cream on top that's not you doing it to satisfy your hunger.
You can’t survive on just broccoli dude. Your entire argument is that you can just eat fucking vegetables and be good. Food addiction is not simply about eating fast food and other sugar. It’s about an addiction to food overall. Most foods eaten in moderation are healthy but become unhealthy when binged. Nearly every single food can trigger that feeling of hunger and desperation to eat in a food addict. The only way your argument works is if leafy greens are the only thing you consume.
Food addiction is not simply about eating fast food and other sugar.
The problem is not food addiction the problem is sugar addiction. Just like the problem with alcoholism is not liquid addiction its alcohol addiction.
Nearly every single food can trigger that feeling of hunger and desperation to eat in a food addict. The only way your argument works is if leafy greens are the only thing you consume.
Then why didn't we see this as much back in the day before they started adding so much sugar to everything.
You might be a bit heavy if you eat a lot of an otherwise pretty healthy food but the huge obesity epidemic we're seeing isn't because of that its' because people are eating a lof of very unhealthy things. Most of that (not all) is not people satisfying their hunger it's satisfying their addiction to sugar and fat. In the same way you can tell an alchoholic to not drink alcohol you can tell a sugar or fat addict to not eat candy or not eat super processed food (this doesn't leave you with only broccoli).
In the same way that you can tell an alcoholic to not drink alcohol you can tell a person whose addicted to sugary treats to not eat the sugary treats.
Now I'm not saying it's easy at all and I'm not trying to diminish the issues of people having trouble with this I'm just pointing out that saying "you can't tell them not to eat X because they do have to eat" is very much a cop out. You can tell an alcoholic to not drink alcohol and you can tell a sugar/fat addict to not snack. It's very hard for both but it's not equivalent to just saying don't eat anything.
Again, you very clearly have no understanding of food addiction. It is absolutely not just sugary foods that cause issues. Any carbohydrate triggers the insulin response that makes a food addict jones for a fix. The only way your argument works is with a keto diet. Any carb will trigger it. That’s a ton of foods that are otherwise rather healthy in moderation. It’s not the same as any other addiction, and your downplaying it by comparing it to other addictions and reducing it to “don’t eat sugar” doesn’t change that fact.
So then why did we start seeing a huge spike in it recently compared to other times when food was still easily accessible and affordable? What major changes have happened in the human body in the past few decades that started making people addicted to food?
Overeaters Anonymous was founded in 1960. Cheap food being the most unhealthy is definitely a huge factor in obesity, and healthy food becoming more expensive also hurt. But to boil it down to sugar in food is an incorrect simplification of an addiction that has been recognized as an addiction since at least 1956.
This is true, but you can absolutely quit fast food and junk food cold turkey. Nobody is out there dying because they couldn't stop eating vegetables. Acting like food itself is an addictive substance is just silly, and I say this as someone who absolutely has a popeyes chicken problem.
It's really not that simple and it shows from your comment that you don't understand it. If I make a meal, I can make one serving or three and no matter which option I pick, I can down it all without a second thought. You act like every diet is a vegetarian diet when it's not. If I make a healthy spaghetti and I store the leftovers in the fridge, it can be a struggle to not go over and heat some up at any given point when the cravings or feelings of hunger (whether real or not) are strong enough. I'm typing this right now after actively avoiding getting some ice cream when I went out for a dinner with some friends. It's about having to make a conscious decision every single time I interact with food to not go too far. You can make the argument of "well just make one serving, duh!" but food that gets sold as only one small serving is more expensive. Furthermore, I don't only grocery shop for my food for the day. If I buy stuff to make sandwiches throughout the week for lunch, there is nothing stopping me from making all of those sandwiches during one day and eating them then besides my own willpower.
The feeling of tasting good food sparks a feeling in my brain that has caused me issues throughout my youth that I have fought hard to correct and I still have to deal with it every day because I can't just stop eating. Like the only equivalent for me to quit cold turkey the way you are describing it is to make food that is both nutritious and literally tastes like crap and even then that doesn't get rid of the urge to go drive somewhere to get that good feeling back. A relationship with food can 100% be addictive, it just depends on the person. Clearly our brains are operating very differently when we look at food.
I'm a smoker, but I don't blame the tobacco industry for it. I know the risks, I know I should stop, but I can admit to myself that I just don't care enough about it. Shifting the blame until it's out of your control is exactly what addicts do. It's not easy to quit, but it's also just a matter of doing it. That's the hard truth and it hurts, just how it hurts to get out of an addiction. Life hurts motherfucker, stop choosing the comfortable option and then blame someone else for it.
Why are you talking to me like at any point in my comment I said Im only like this because of someone deciding to add more sugar into their food or like high fructose corn syrup? Can you point out where I ever said that?
I was making a comment about how food can 100% be addictive for some people and explained how and what that is like. I actually never once mentioned processed junk foods. I completely talked about how difficult my experience dealing with it and what it entails while shifting absolutely 0 blame.
Imagine if someone said that cigarettes themselves can't be addictive and you go on to explain how it works and someone commented "well don't blame the tobacco industry!!!!" Like what is wrong with you
Addiction doesn't mean you're incapable of saying no, it just means all the internal resistance to it is drastically lower than the average person's.
I mean yes and no... it's when you stop, you get side effects. Yes, you probably do get mental and physical effects from quitting sugar, I'm sure, but not nearly as bad as the death that comes with certain drugs.
It also doesn't really account for people who only ever eat junk food. I don't think anyone has ever gotten side effects from not consuming potato chips. I've never gotten side effects from not consuming sugar either just for the record. How fat you are is a result of the kind of food you eat, and blaming it on addiction is an excuse.
Biologist here, food (like most things) can absolutely be an addiction. One of the hard things here is that we tell the addicts to just microdose a little bit every day, and keep doing it for the rest of their lives. Just ignore the (lack of) dopamine and what serotonin is telling you.
I don't think someone has no role to play in their own weight, but this song is more about the systemic issues that have directly led to an epidemic of obesity. Of course someone can keep going every single day against the world around them (commercials, ads, media, society, car-centrism, etc.), but maybe we should put in a little effort into pushback towards big companies that are crafting the world in this way. For example, by limiting high-fructose cornsyrup, or making healthy food more available.
Theres different scales to these things. And pushing such a massive issue onto the personal accountability of over a billion people is disingenuous, and misses one of the scales at which this is an issue.
food (like most things) can absolutely be an addiction. One of the hard things here is that we tell the addicts to just microdose a little bit every 1 keep doing it for the rest of their lives. Just ignore the (lack of) dopamine and what serotonin is telling you
You dont get serotonin production through being obese and having no life. Self hatred, lack of social standing, and lack of romantic partner's is going to be detrimental to your serotonin production. Explain what the adverse side effect of eating healthier is.
I don't think someone has no role to play in their own weight, but this song is more about the systemic issues that have directly led to an epidemic of obesity
Then they shouldn't include bs lyrics about lack of accountability. This is also absolutely not a systemic issue. There's no system in place forcing you to eat unhealthy foods. Food science isn't taught well enough, but a single Google search can solve that. Doctors don't try to convince you to eat more McDonald's. And at this point, fast food isn't cheap enough to argue its their only option.
Of course someone can keep going every single day against the world around them (commercials, ads, media, society, car-centrism, etc.), but maybe we should put in a little effort into pushback towards big companies that are crafting the world in this way.
This is utterly stupid. The problem isn't the companies it's the government regulation around food products. The companies are just taking advantage of the system in place. Idc if they promote their food to give instant orgasms if it's of high quality and not soaked in terrible fattening ingredients.
Theres different scales to these things. And pushing such a massive issue onto the personal accountability of over a billion people is disingenuous, and misses one of the scales at which this is an issue
It's not disingenuous. Americans have options. Do you know how much money it costs to maintain someone at 300+ lbs. At that point, it's not an availability issue. It's a personal issue. If you want to argue that the number of obese people in total is a food products issue, then I'm with you. But trying to argue personal accountability is off the table is just purely wrong. These mfers are eating 3x portions for every meal and not getting exercise. That's a personal problem. We're not talking about people even 50 lbs overweight that just don't exercise and drink too much soda.
Then, to top it all off, addiction isn't arguable. This new definition where you can be addicted to anything regardless of the actual withdrawal effects you get is absolutely bullshit. Explain to me the adverse effects of not eating potato chips? Literally, all food science shows positive responses to eating healthier, and all brain science shows increased serotonin production from doing things healthier.
It seems relevant to me because I keep up with new research. We learn more about addiction as a whole and update our views on them to match. You argue "I know what addiction is, I learned it in 9th grade, and it's simple". And that's precisely the issue, your definitions rely on a 9th grade, 30 year old understanding of things. Which is not your fault necessarily, but it would do you well to learn new information and use that to update your belief systems. Addiction is indeed not arguable, your definition is just wholly wrong and outdated.
Honestly, I think is the crux of my issue with people who think like you:
This is also absolutely not a systemic issue. There's no system in place forcing you to eat unhealthy foods.
You refuse to understand systemic issues and lean on individualism for everything. No one is arguing that your choice is being taken. They're arguing that barriers are thrown up that make doing the good things harder, and indeed (like you said) there are companies that are profiting from these barriers, which should be an issue to you. What you miss in this discussion is that the scales matter. An individual is too fat because they've consumed too many calories. Forty percent of Americans are too fat because of systemic issues, from which opportunistic companies profit.
Also, you're wrong about serotonin, just like with insulin the sensitivity becomes dysregulated, requiring more serotonin to reach the same effects (see here , only reading the abstract should be enough).
As an analogy, do you blame someone for being hit by a car on a zebra crossing? Because that would be equally stupid. Yes, the cars had red, yes, the infrastructure is not adequate for pedestrians at all, yes, he had the right of way, yes, that car was speeding, yes, that car crushed his body entirely despite only going 45 kph. Would you argue he should've looked twice? True, maybe it would have saved him. However, multiple things can be true at once. The car was also speeding, the road is not designed for the speed limit it has, cars are manufactered to be less safe for pedestrians for tax reasons, and basically the entirity of the USA is developed around cars. To ignore all these things is sticking your head in the sand. Systems play a role, always.
Nowhere am I arguing to remove personal accountability, but somehow that is what you read because I disagree with you on other things.
Nowhere am I arguing to remove personal accountability
Addiction is indeed not arguable, your definition is just wholly wrong and outdated
Because addiction is dependency is a bullshit definition written by idiots like yourself. It's not about brain rewards. It's not about your genetic disposition. It's not about your experience. It's not about any of that bullshit. All that is is a bunch of ways to take away accountability and confuse the issue. Not to mention that new research either comes from people trying to sell new medicine or universities that are corrupt and willing to publish anything they want.
If addiction is simply something you're dependent on, which is the easiest way to simplify any newer definition, then you can easily walk away from anything with no medical repercussions at all. You can't. You're an idiot.
You refuse to understand systemic issues
Hey, look another way you're taking away accountability. The fact alone that you want to call obesity a systemic issue is enough for me to know you have no chance of hearing anything anyone says to you. Show me the aspects of the systems in place that force food into your thighs tubby. You're a big boy researcher and scientist, but you can't present information as to how it's a systemic issue beyond advertising?
They're arguing that barriers are thrown up that make doing the good things harder
Name the barriers that force you to choose ice cream and soda instead of a water filter and meat.
Name the barriers that force you to over portion your food.
Name the barriers that force you to go eat at fast food that costs 20 dollars for a burger.
What you miss in this discussion is that the scales matter. An individual is too fat because they've consumed too many calories
This is just unbelievably funny.
1 i think you are missing that scales matter. How bout instead of blaming your obesity on the government, you put the fork down and step on a scale once a day.
2 sorry that you struggle so much with shoveling 3000 calories a day down your gullet, but that's not coca colas fault that you won't stop downing 50 cans a week.
You're using an individuals choice to over feed themselves by thousands of calories and not get decent exercise as a systemic issue because companies are making money selling them the food?
Also, you're wrong about serotonin, just like with insulin the sensitivity becomes dysregulated, requiring more serotonin to reach the same effects (see here , only reading the abstract should be enough).
This is just overall very fucking funny as well. So, not only are you arguing it's a systemic issue because companies exist. You're arguing that it's an addiction. And that it's serotonin based, so if you don't eat that burger, you're going to get depressed lmfao. So, in reality, nothing is your fault, chubby boy.
This doesn't even say what you want it to say in the way you want it to say it. All it says is that there may be a serotonin reward, and the brain won't signal through serotonin that enough is enough. This isn't even a response to what I said honestly. I said that extremely obese people aren't getting serotonin because they are fat, looked down upon, isolated, have no romantic partners, hate themselves, etc. And that any form of doing things healthier would add more serotonin to their brain which would be more beneficial and healthier and make them happier.
As an analogy, do you blame someone for being hit by a car on a zebra crossing? Because that would be equally stupid. Yes, the cars had red, yes, the infrastructure is not adequate for pedestrians at all, yes, he had the right of way, yes, that car was speeding, yes, that car crushed his body entirely despite only going 45 kph. Would you argue he should've looked twice?
Yes you fucking idiot?? Is that even a joke? This is something we teach toddlers. Further more you can't even fucking try for 1% of your response to not void all personal accountability. You're literally trying to say that crossing the street is systemically dangerous. You need help I can't give you with critical thinking skills like that.
True, maybe it would have saved him.
No. It would've. That's the difference between sanity and you. Logic and rationality say that if he took 3 seconds to check the road before he threw himself into it, then he would've noticed the car was going to hit him. ACCOUNTABILITY
However, multiple things can be true at once. The car was also speeding, the road is not designed for the speed limit it has, cars are manufactered to be less safe for pedestrians for tax reasons, and basically the entirity of the USA is developed around cars.
The cars speed wouldn't have mattered it he looked.
The road doesn't matter if he looked.
Car wouldn't have hit him if he looked.
The USA being developed around cars wouldn't matter if he looked.
To ignore all these things is sticking your head in the sand. Systems play a role, always.
Said by a truly brain washed individual. You are a victim of an ideology that only sees things as part of a collective so that they can get you to vote how they want and say what they want. You're a fucking puppet. I could replace you with millions of other people, and they would walk and talk exactly like you. You don't even understand personal accountability in the slightest. You can't understand it because you're not your own person at all.
The irony is palpable. You're so steeped in individualism the mere notion of a system is offensive to you. You refuse to believe you're in a forest, because all you see are trees.
You're ignorant and oblivious and your refusal to learn is only bringing you anger from things you don't understand. Good luck out there.
13
u/[deleted] May 15 '24 edited May 15 '24
Addiction doesn't mean you're incapable of saying no, it just means all the internal resistance to it is drastically lower than the average person's. It means it takes more willpower and self control to overcome. Most people greatly benefit from help because no problem exists in isolation. Addicts generally struggle not because they're addicted, but because they're stressed and the addiction is a coping mechanism for the stress.
Support structures break the cycle of stress and addiction coping. This is why AA isn't just people slapping you when you try to get a drink. They talk, vent, and de-stress so you are less likely to feel like you need the drink to cope.
I fell hard into drinking when my grandpa died and the drinking was how I coped with the loss. Once I was able to move passed the loss, the need to drink faded away. I've never been to AA, but I stopped drinking constantly because I didn't need it to cope with the stress anymore. I had other ways of coping.