Active Low-Carber Forums - Is being overweight a sign of an addiction like any other?

Active Low-Carber Forums (http://forum.lowcarber.org/index.php)

- General Low-Carb (http://forum.lowcarber.org/forumdisplay.php?f=1)

- - Is being overweight a sign of an addiction like any other? (http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?t=235708)

In short, carb addicts can't not be emotional eaters. They are inseparable. Says who? Says your brain. Doing a little research on this subject really helps! :thup:

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarjunky

I’ve read this at least 5 times and it still makes no sense to me.

Okay, it doesn't read well. I thought that as I was typing it but was in too much of a hurry to get out the door to re-write it.

What I was saying was:

An addiction is an addiction. An addiction isn't going to wait an entire generation, or two or three or dozens, to "suddenly" begin affecting people. If it is an addiction now, why wasn't it then? (That's not "ignoring" scientific research, it's just a fact.) What I meant by "addictions don't wait" etc., was a facetious statement something on the order of the following: Addictions don't politely sit in a corner, waiting until they become economically and geographically obtainable before deciding to jump in and seize people both physically and psychologically. So, all your scientific research notwithstanding, it's rather puzzling that this particular "addiction" hung out in the background waiting until the 1930's when white flour and sugar began appearing in mass quantities to rear its ugly head.

All this aside, you're getting incredibly defensive so I'm going to drop this and allow you to live in your own reality, too...you know, the one where everyone's body responds like yours, and anyone who disagrees with your point of view is "in denial".

Tootles...

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarjunky

In short, carb addicts can't not be emotional eaters. They are inseparable. Says who? Says your brain. Doing a little research on this subject really helps! :thup:

Helps what? Helps you to gather up enough keyboard courage to claim everyone here is a junky who is in denial AND is unread, to boot?

I don't need that kind of help, hon.

I find the people on this board very well-read. It might help YOU to broaden your horizons and use a little common sense to balance scientific studies that may have their own agenda.

Sugarjunky: scientific research is sometimes unreliable. Scientists can skew things just as easily as anyone else. That way they continue to get their grant money. Serotonin deficiency is usually why people over eat. Dopamine is the excitement, feel-good, taking care of business neurotransmitter. Serotonin is the calming, neurotransmitter. That is why PMS'ers crave carbs and sugar. Serotonin lacking is what makes people irritable, teary, and have sleep problems. Quite frankly, if eating carbs did make me produce dopamine, I would probably never have gone on a LC diet 'cause I would have been on a constant high. :p

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glendora

That's your opinion; mine is different; who knows which of us is right but it's an interesting question. In reference to the above, I don't think it confirms addiction; instead it confirms that we're eating the wrong *kinds* of foods. It doesn't make sense that people in other generations would not have been "addicted" to foods, while we are. Rather, people in other generations did not have processed products from which to choose on shelves.

If it were a simple matter of addiction to foods, then the 20th century would not have been the first century that showed incredible rates of obesity. And yes, prior generations did have white sugar (but more often coarse sugar) and they did have white flour (but again, not as easily accessible and certainly not as easy to make as coarse brown flours). However, they didn't have them as easily, as conveniently and just around the corner at the store. "Refined" items were harder to get and much more expensive by comparison. If anything, it's industry that caused our "addiction"--not our "demand" for sugarey foods. Demand would cause prices to go up--not down. (Supply/demand.) Instead, we are able now to mass-produce these items more cheaply than their unrefined counterparts.

The way it happened was that manufacturers made refined foods cheaper and easier to get *first*. *Then* we had the obesity problem. True addictions don't evolve that way. You don't see the price of cocaine plummeting because people demand more of it. You sure as heck don't see the price of cigarettes plummeting. In a true addiction, you'll walk two miles to the store if your car has broken down and you are out of cigarettes. You'll sell all your personal belongings in order to get your heroin. With sugar so-called "addiction", this has not been the pattern. It was the opposite. Sugar was around for quite some time before it became so cheap but you didn't hear about Jesse James holding up a train in order to get at the sugar.

Addictions, when they're real, don't wait for humans to make them easily available. How easily available is crack? Is it at the grocery store? No, it's bought in secret with furtive glances and it's bought instead of feeding the children. If processed foods were an addiction, you would have heard of sugar "deals", but you don't. You would have read about families gorging on sugar until it was gone, then doing whatever they could to go into the nearest town and get more.

When tobacco was introduced to Europe in the 17th century, it was IMMEDIATELY apparent how incredibly addictive it was. People didn't have it once in a blue moon while it was available and then forget about it the rest of the time. However, with refined sugar, people DID eat it when it was available, then forget about it the rest of the time.

Addictions don't work in reverse. They don't wait until availability to take hold of the human physiology and psyche.

As to the study on the rats above, are those symptoms of withdrawal, or are they symptoms of insulin flooding followed by a downward plummet? Isn't that physical? Isn't that what causes overweight...our bodies needing to be rebalanced after insulin has been rocketed up and then down? Feeling our levels go down again, we rush for more food, and instinct tells us to make that the most easily processed food available. It's an imbalance--a very very real one--but I'm not sure it's an addiction.

Now, when you stop sugar, you do crave. OH BOY do you crave. But is that due to addiction? Just because the symptoms are like withdrawal, doesn't mean it actually is withdrawal. It's my belief that the symptoms come because we suddenly don't have the source of fuel our bodies are used to getting, and the body takes a few days to accept this fact and switch over to burning fat instead of glucose. In the few days before this happens, we're shaky, irritable and headache-ey...which makes sense since we're not burning glucose but we're not burning fat yet either; we're in effect "starving" for those few days. And what do we crave? What ANY body would crave during times of starvation--the food that will go IMMEDIATELY to our bloodstream. That only makes sense. I don't think that's psychological at all. It's very real, very physical and the very normal response of a healthy body looking to save itself.

I think this argument is a fallacy. I have read, researched and been a member of many diet groups. Your point that it is processed food that is the problem is true. It is the availability of processed foods that allowed the addiction to occur. Delivery of a pure product right to the bloodstream. No bothersome whole grains or unrefined product to interfere with that sugar rush and hookup for addiction. Sort of like refined drugs. Some drugs in their natural or unrefined state can be considered food or at least fiber. It takes processing and refining to bring out their addictive qualities.

The fact that sugar is cheap has nothing to do with it. In fact, real sugar is not cheap anymore, that's why producers switched to corn syrup which is cheaper. And their goal is to keep their product cheap. Cheap products keep people buying and buying a lot. Volume of sales is the point in mass production. That's what drives the bottom line. Their prices can't rise too much because there are too many producers with replacement products. That's basic economics. We've seen the disappearance of some good lc products/producers because the volume was not there. Cheap prices keep parents buying the junk as constant "treats". If it were more expensive, parents wouldn't treat as often. Like herion and other illegal drugs, the object is to get people hooked by exposure to the product. The sugar taste needs to develop at a young age. If you keep children away from sugar until age 4-5, they don't develop their taste for sugar. They aren't set up for the addiction unless another chemical changing life event occurs like pregnancy, stress or illness. And then this addiction is also brought about by a class of food, i.e. simple carbs which include sugars and starches. And the delivery system usually includes fats, too.

The fact that drugs are expensive are due to the economics of prohibition, not supply. If drugs were legal, the price would be much cheaper and more readily available. The producer/grower of the drugs/crops make very little. It's distribution that reaps the profit. And don't think that people don't get all the drugs they want. I work for the DEA and the flood of illegal supply is huge and it does keep drugs readily available and cheap. They could be cheaper, given the supply but the dealers refuse to lower the price. They say it wouldn't be worth their while to sell them. So for drugs, you have an artificially high price. You can do that in an illegal market.

OK, back to addiction. Go talk to some 24 hour store clerks or the Krispy Kreme/Dunkin Donuts shops. Hear their stories of people coming in a 11-12 at night to buy dozens of donuts, $20-30 worth of junk. Midnight runs for ice cream, candy, sugary and or fried foods at late night eaterys and supermarkets. A party at that time of night? I don't think so. A party of one maybe. Go to some OA meetings or read cases in diet books. Stories about midnight raids, searching the house for "drugs", looking under couch cushions and eating the findings, hiding stashes, eating alone or in hiding, hiding the evidence of eating, sneaking the trash out, going so far as to putting in in their neighbors trash or in street bins on their way to work. Not signs of addiction? Come on, classic addiction signs. There are people who know the location of every donut shop and fast food joint on their way to/from work or anywhere else they regularly drive too.

The fact that the drugs are cheap and readily available does not negate the fact that people can be and are addicted.

True not everyone is, but that doesn't mean no one is.

Okay, so the majority of us are addicts...

So what now? What was the point of the thread in that case? Would anything change for me, my physiology and my psyche if I were to say "Yes! I am an addict"?

I'm just curious.

By the way, I've never know anyone who went searching through couch cusions for a Snickers. :lol: But I'm sure they're out there. I don't mean to poke fun. Having any addiction that badly would be hell...but...I just couldn't help it...it gave me a real mental image.

Your argument was interesting but I still don't see how this "highly addictive" substance that pushes people to search through the garbage can to lick off a Hershey wrapper, DIDN'T have that effect when sugar was available but *not as commercially*. I just don't buy (no pun intended) that there is a base limit of quantity of an addictive substance that one must ingest in order for an addiction to kick in (your reference to marketers making these items commercially available in order to "cause" an addiction). Does that mean that sugar only once a week is not addictive? How about once a day? (People in the 19th century were managing to bake cookies on the frontier. If they could get sugar, God knows people a little more local to civilization could.) You're basically saying that people were able to "control" an addiction until the substance was more readily available. That flies in the face of the definition of addiction. And I reiterate my "drug" example: People who truly are addicted to something don't wait until it's available in order to get that substance. Therefore, how could something that IS legal (and not so very hard to get, even generations ago) be that addictive...yet people weren't rushing to get it? I'm not sure I understand.

During Prohibition, people who were truly addicted to alcohol ran to the Speakeasies, under potential penalty of doing jail time. People who were not addicted and who didn't want to take a walk on the wild side just didn't drink...period. Alcohol is a highly addictive substance. No one can argue that. If those same scientists cited in some of these posts were to get rats drunk every day, a lot of them would experience withdrawal, just as they appeared to do with the sugar. BUT not all of them would...just as not everyone who consumes alcohol becomes an alcoholic. Nowhere *near* everyone. Many, many people have a drink a week or a drink a month and think nothing of it. Therefore, I'm pretty shocked at the assertion that sugar will, the majority of the time, cause addictions and that the majority of overweight people must have an addiction. Not all people who are exposed to an "addictive" substance become addicted.

Honestly, my arguments may have holes in them (and probably do), and with further honesty I will say that the reason I wanted to argue was the general tone of "This is who I am...I'm an addict...therefore all of you here are, too." I think that's silly...and I rather resent being lumped into that category. And I know the phrase "I never said all" is being used a lot on this thread...but since the very first person to say she wasn't an addict was basically told she was, in fact, an addict and in denial, that rather conflicts.

Oh shoot, I don't feel like making enemies or p*ssing people off, I was stating things as I saw them and was insulted a few times over for it...next time I'll just not respond because honestly, it doesn't matter (to me) whether sugar is addictive or not, I just know it's not good for you, and that's working for me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glendora

Okay, so the majority of us are addicts...
By the way, I've never know anyone who went searching through couch cusions for a Snickers. :lol: But I'm sure they're out there. I don't mean to poke fun. Having any addiction that badly would be hell...but...I just couldn't help it...it gave me a real mental image.

Your argument was interesting but I still don't see how this "highly addictive" substance that pushes people to search through the garbage can to lick off a Hershey wrapper, DIDN'T have that effect when sugar was available but *not as commercially*. I just don't buy (no pun intended) that there is a base limit of quantity of an addictive substance that one must ingest in order for an addiction to kick in (your reference to marketers making these items commercially available in order to "cause" an addiction). Does that mean that sugar only once a week is not addictive? How about once a day? (People in the 19th century were managing to bake cookies on the frontier. If they could get sugar, God knows people a little more local to civilization could.)

Honestly, my arguments may have holes in them (and probably do), and with further honesty I will say that the reason I wanted to argue was the general tone of "This is who I am...I'm an addict...therefore all of you here are, too." I think that's silly...and I rather resent being lumped into that category.

Well, except for crack, I can't think of any drug that hooks on first use. That's why drug pushers give "freebies". So yes, it would take more than once a day or once a week to cause the addiction. People did bake cookies on the frontier. That wasn't an everyday event. The closest you could get to having sweets every day and not getting addicted would be the Amish who eat a lot of sweets. But they also eat a lot of vegetables and eat sweets, generally, with meals. Like I said, that slows the process of digestion down so there's no sugar rush and no addiction. They are also very physically active which also drops glucose levels and prevents sugar spikes.

So I think the addiction happening after the 20s depended on a confluence of factors:

Mass production, refined sugar, refrigeration, preservatives and cheap products/labor.

Coming out of the depression--If you speak to many of that time. They fed their children lots of "occassional/treat" foods daily because they were deprived of them during this time and they could afford them now. Richer diets became everyday as a sign you could provide for your family.

Higher disposable income--Leads to more food, more treating, more celebration foods on an everday basis. There's been a study of weight gain among natives when income rises, feast day or occassional foods become part of their everyday diets with expected consequences. These foods are more refined, calorie dense, fattier and sweeter. There've been studies that the percentage of income spent on food, given no poverty factors and inflation taken in to account, has actually held constant though incomes have risen. Dessert used to be a Sunday or special occassion event. From the late 30's it's become an accepted daily necessity.

Rise of industrialization--Production has become much cheaper since the 20s, in fact since the 40s. And now 90 percent of people are non farm labor..a great change from the 20s. Also, I think the limited exposure to the sun, vitamin D wich helps regulate insulin,since people are now overwhelmingly working in buildings or children are at home watching TV and gaming on computers.

TV--TV dinners and snacking. TV came about in the 30s and TV watching has grown 5 fold during those years.

Rise of the snack industry--refined product, promptly delivered to the bloodstream and a culture that accepts snacking as the norm. Snacking also takes away the amelioration of having the simple carbs with meals which slows down the metabolization of "sugars" which is what sugar and carbs break down to.

Sendentary lifestyles/rise of the automobile--Activity helps regulate blood glucose.

Rise of hospital deliveries and feeding of glucose water to infants upon birth and the encouragement of putting sugar in infant's water. Also development of infant formulas, plenty of sugar in those. Grow your customer base from birth. :rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glendora

Okay, so the majority of us are addicts...

So what now? What was the point of the thread in that case? Would anything change for me, my physiology and my psyche if I were to say "Yes! I am an addict"?

I'm just curious.

Honestly, my arguments may have holes in them (and probably do), and with further honesty I will say that the reason I wanted to argue was the general tone of "This is who I am...I'm an addict...therefore all of you here are, too." I think that's silly...and I rather resent being lumped into that category.

Knowledge is power and addiction comes at many levels. It can even be not addiction but, just developed over the years, insulin resistance. So now you know, you tailor your diet to cut out/control delivery of addictive substances. You don't have them alone and only imbibe with or after meals. You learn the foods/levels of carbs that set you off or bring the condition back. This knowledge is a tool, not a crutch or an excuse. Excuses aren't allowed now that you know your condition and have the power/knowledge to treat it successfully. Knowledge is understanding too.

Still many people aren't addicts and this doesn't apply to them, or you if you're not. Like you said, not all people who drink become alcoholics. Many people exist on a high carb diet and are perfectly fine and even healthy. Some of the factors I cited would put excess weight on anyone. And just because you're overweight doesn't mean you're an addict. There are myriad reasons why a person could be overweight.

I, too, don't like blanket statements. This is not a one of anything fits all world.

I just read through this thread, and it raised some questions....maybe those of you who are experienced in this area can help me....

Someone near to me is an addict (heroin, alcohol, cigarettes, prescription drugs) -- he's been in jail, has broken both his first and second marriages -- just had several back surgeries and was actually taken off ALL pain medication because of his immediate abuse of it (despite his wife's attempts to control the doses). His brother recently OD'd (heroin), and I fear that this could well be his eventual fate too.

This young man also happens to be one of the kindest, most-honest (except when trying to get his drugs, etc.), helpful person I've ever known.

I've watched him "replace" his addictions -- with AA meetings (did you know that you can go to several EVERY DAY?), hobbies, sugar... And I thought that these were relatively innocent replacements, but I think what is being said is that the sugar could also be harmful for him? His health is pretty bad, and I'm sure the sugar isn't good for him, but it just seemed so innocuous compared with heroin....

Although I am not in a position to monitor what he does, he does discuss things with me -- and I try to offer advice. So would a moderate low-carb WOE help him with controlling his addictive nature?

Thanks....

I gave a criterion, and made specific statements on the subject of sugar addiction, and how that relates to eating disorders, obesity, and neurological synapses involving the neurotransmitter dopamine. I did not make a “blanket” statement or “lump” anyone into a category. I made one statement to potatoefree regarding the way one of her posts sounded. I think that there were a few too many emotions involved in some of the replies to me that clouded the points I was trying to make. However, I do understand that this is a sensitive subject. ;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by BKM

It has to be his decision to quit, no matter what it is. You can't will him to make healthy choices for himself. The best you can do is be a support system, the rest is up to him.

I think he wants to quit -- it's been several years since the last heroin spree -- but I also think he has cravings more powerful than what I can understand.

But he's financially destroyed himself, his health is very poor, and now with his back problems he's facing permanent disability.

He tries, but then fails -- sometimes I want to tell him "just do it" -- but then I realize that I've never been tempted to overdrink, I have never smoked, never taken a recreational drug -- I simply don't understand the draw of these substances..... He's had professional help (but there is a definite limit to it when your money is non-existent, free help is seldom proferred to the individual who is somehow skating on the edge but not over the brink).....

Heroin cravings take about three years to subside. That's the amount of time it takes for your brain to reproduce it's natural opiates again, when before it was relying on the heroin for that. That’s why dopamine levels are low in heroin addicts. Heroin replaces our brains natural supply, and we quit making it! (Sucks, huh?) That being said, the psychological part of heroin addiction lasts a lot longer, and as a result can cause excess anxiety and stress. This can oftentimes lead to drinking alcohol.

Not surprisingly, in laboratory tests, heroin addicted lab rats turned to pure grain alcohol over water when the heroin was taken away. Customarily you’ll find an ex-heroin addict turns to alcohol. Now you have a new addiction, and kicking any addiction requires therapy, support, and healing. Nevertheless, getting to that point frequently means hitting another bottom with the alcoholism. When the alcohol is a kicked habit, sugar (carbs) and caffeine will become the addictions. Then you have another bottom to hit, unless you’re content with being overweight.

Everyone has to get to that point with things that they’ve had enough before they can truly commit to quitting anything for good. You can be there with loving suggestions and support, but they may go in one ear and out the other until he’s ready to hear it. It never hurts to try, just don’t use force. ;)

I think supplementing can help, especially with vitamin D. They've found that alcoholics have low levels of vitamin D and that supplementing with D seems to alleviate the cravings for alcohol and sugar. Too, the body wants to get healthy and the only way it can seek to get the nutrients it needs is through cravings. And cravings are kind of screwed up. All we know is we're hungry or want sugar. We don't know we that our body really wants potassium, or A, B, C and D, etc. It's probably worth a shot. The sugar cravings will still come though. CAD or IR might be better lc programs for him. That way he can still get his dose.

sugarjunky
I wasn't refering to your statements specifically. I was addressing more the "tone" some people seem to have re ED or a specific eating plan, behavior, etc.

The point of sugar being an addictive substance means I have to look also at myself with new eyes in relation to the low glycemic foods.

While starting with nothing the obviouse denial in some others, I may well have to include my own craving for some sugary goods sometimes. I am able to control this to now and then every week, but nonetheless it can be playing with fire...

Quote:

What I meant by "addictions don't wait" etc., was a facetious statement something on the order of the following: Addictions don't politely sit in a corner, waiting until they become economically and geographically obtainable before deciding to jump in and seize people both physically and psychologically. So, all your scientific research notwithstanding, it's rather puzzling that this particular "addiction" hung out in the background waiting until the 1930's when white flour and sugar began appearing in mass quantities to rear its ugly head.

According to this link, sugar addiction was observed far earlier than 1930: http://tuberose.com/Sugar.html

Sugar consumption (not just table sugar, but all sugars combined, especially high fructose corn syrup) has increased dramatically in the past 100 years. This link details the increase in sugar consumption since the early 1800's: http://hdlighthouse.org/see/diet/tr.../erasmusrec.htm

Quote:

In 1815, sugar consumption was 15 pounds per person per year. In 1865, human beings consumed about 40 pounds of sugar per year. By 1900, sugar consumption had risen to 85 pounds per person per year. In 1970, sugar consumption was about 120 pounds per person per year, and today it stands at 135 pounds per person per year.

BTW...a good book to check out from the library regarding foods and their effects on mood and brain chemistry would be "Potatoes, Not Prozac" by Kathleen DesMaisons. :idea: