Citruskiss, in truth a rather strong case could be made for sugar (not food in general) as an addictive substance using the criteria that I posted above:
Tolerance, withdrawal and loss of control. I'll also add in that sugar (and high levels of carbs which become sugar) produces certain changes in brain neurotransmitters (increased seratonin production) and the changes produced are similar to those produced by other addictive drugs. Sugar does produce a calming/mood elevating effect temporarily, but it's a two-edged sword. While sugar increases seratonin production, at the same time it reduces the body's ability to produce the building blocks of seratonin so over a period of time, seratonin production actually drops off.
Even more interesting is the fact that the high blood sugar/low blood sugar cycle produced by a high carb/sugar diet can be a trigger for cravings in someone addicted to a chemical substance (alcohol, for one) and at least one person (I can't remember his name off hand...he's from Alaska) has had remarkable success with alcohol addiction recovery by combining a low carb regimen with addiction recovery. Since my DH works in the addiction recovery field, he's very interested in this connection and we've discussed this several times.
So....food in general as an addictive substance, not likely; most foods simply don't fit the criteria for an addictive substance. Sugar (and high glycemic carbs) as an addictive substance; possibly.
That being said, there are other aspects to addiction besides the substance itself because not everyone who consumes some addictive substances becomes addicted. Alcohol is one example; not everyone who consumes alcohol becomes addicted to it. I believe sugar is similar in that respect.

Personally, I feel we are all "overeaters" by nature. In other words, I don't think having a "heavy" appetite is abnormal.

We're supposed to constantly seek out food, because in the grand scheme of things, over 2.5 million years of evolution, food has been hard to get, and hard for our bodies to process as compared to the ultra-refined foods of today.

I think where it becomes an eating disorder is when we follow our natural biological urge to find/consumer food but unfortunately we do it with the types of foods that are available today, so as we grow into adulthood we start looking "heavy". We go on our first diet, denying ourselves what our bodies want, and it's all downhill from there. Food becomes a primary focus because we're never sure when we will get more of it.

Therefore, I wouldn't classify it as an addiction per se. Especially once we've dieted--even one time--our bodies ultra-crave very refined foods because our bodies wonder when the next food will come from...so they demand foods that can be stored right away, "just in case".

And round and round it goes...and gets worse and worse year-on-year. It's pretty unfair, really. But anyone who thinks he/she is an "addict" or "lazy" or a "glutton" or a "heavy eater" should realize that she is none of those things. Rather, she's a homo sapiens sapiens. Period.

Overeating is a habit, not an addiction. I was addicted to some of the asthma meds my doctor was over medicating me with. I went cold turkey on them and thought I was going to die! It was the absolute worst thing I had ever gone through! Another result of those meds was the weight I had gained while taking those meds for two years! They gave me a horrendous appetite! Once my system got through the withdrawal process I still ate the same. Why? I firmly believe it was because I had formed the HABIT of overeating and didn't address that habit at that time. I also had withdrawal symptons from giving up sugars and flours. Can those symptoms be compared to the ones I had when I went off all those prescription drugs? Absolutely not even close folks! It was a walk in the park compared to prescription drug addiction and going off the stuff! They just cannot be compared and to be honest, it is an insult to folks that have gone through addictions to drugs, whether legal ones or not, as well as alcohol. Of course there is the factor of emotional eating, but I strongly feel we are heading back into the realm of habit there as well! When I would get upset it was my habit to go to Taco Bell then stop off and buy a huge candy bar! Then, if I was still upset I would reach for my all time favorite comfort foods...poptarts and cornbeef hash! Then lets not talk about spam! Would you believe I have a can in my cupboards...been there since August and I have no desire to eat it! Why??? Because I feel I have changed my attitude as well as my habits regarding food. Now I could be wrong, but this is my opinion and I am sticking by it! (I had to state that because lately I have ruffled feathers with my opinions).

This is very interesting, I had no idea that sugar could effect serotonin production in that way. Furthermore, I must admit that I'm not surprised that eating a high-carb/high sugar diet and the resulting sugar highs and lows would have an effect on someone struggling with an addiction issue. I mean, I've noticed that I'm much more comfortable eating low-carb food than I was back in the days of high carb.

I'm not addicted to anything (well...I lied, because I love coffee and I smoke cigarettes), and yet, I notice a distinct change in my overall comfort. And it took trying a low carb diet (eating plan or whatever you want to call it) to discover this. When I ate a high carb/high sugar diet, I wasn't all that aware of the effects on my body. It's only since I've been low-carbing that I'm seeing a difference in the way I feel. I feel much, much better overall. More energy, less frazzled and so on. I'm not drinking as much coffee and I find that I smoke fewer cigarettes. Interesting eh?

Funny thing is - my Dad is in AA, and has been for years. He stopped drinking more than 30 years ago. This being said, he's "addicted" ...or should I say.."rather attached" to his Vick's cough drops and his sugary iced tea. Is this a common phenomenon among alchoholics who stop drinking? I mean, is this something that you and your husband have noticed in your work/research into food and addictions in general? Just curious. I could just ask my Dad if any of his fellow "program people" eat cough drops or drink a lot of soda or what have you.

Anyway, thanks for the response - I find your insight and experience quite intriguing.

I agree that the level of severity of withdrawal symptoms from hard drugs is quite different and more severe than the symptoms of withdrawal from sugar and/or caffeine, which is why hardcore substance abusers need to detox in a medically supervised facility, but that doesn't mean that someone can't be addicted to sugar or caffeine. The severity of withdrawal is more of an indication of the level of addictiveness (and the physiological effects of a specific drug on the body) of the substance than it is of the level of addiction.
Nobody is trying to minimize the seriousness of drug/alcohol addiction or the experiences that those addicted endure to get off those substances, but rather to make a case that sugar fits the critera as an addictive substance as well, even if the severity of withdrawal is less. Why get into a comparison of "my withdrawal was worse than your withdrawal"? Withdrawal symptoms are withdrawal symptoms and indicate an addiction was/is present.
But for comparisons sake, I've gone through both nicotene withdrawal and carb withdrawal and the symptoms were fairly similar in both cases (headache, anxiety, nausea, extreme cravings) and yet the Surgeon General has compared nicotene addiction to heroin addiction as far as the level of addictiveness of both drugs. I wonder if the Surgeon General was trying to insult recovering heroin addicts with that statement?

Don't kid yourselves. Most of us have chosen this way of eating because it eliminates foods with phsychologically and physiologically addictive properties. The amount of people who cannot touch 1 of the forbidden foods with out going on a binge lasting hours or days *raises hand*. Heavily obese people claiming their "large appetites" are responsible while they compusively and morbidly stuff mouthful after mouthful of starch and sugar into their mouths (guilty). Eating high-carb "comfort foods" to relieve depression and comfort phsycological unrest (guilty). The thumping headaches that are most common in the 1st couple of days of lo-carbing (I get them). I am no scientist, but these things indicate there's more to grandma's apple pie than meets the eye.

The 30 pounds is only part of the reason I hopping back on the lo-carb bandwagon. I want the positivity, cheerful disposition and energy back. I'm sick of the high and lows, the feeling of being drugged, the anxiety and the inability to sleep properly because of the so-called "food" I am eating now. I'll go out and drink much beer and eat much starch tonight, wake up tomorrow feeling almost suicidal and then cook myself some bacon and eggs and start my long road to recovery.

Absolutely, Citruskiss! What they're doing is essentially scratching the same itch, but with a different (more acceptable) substance. Part of the recovery program that my DH works in focuses on nutrition and healthy eating since many addicts are chronically malnourished. Since he's responsible for meal planning and grocery purchases for the home, he's made a concerted effort to cut back on the amount of 'junk food' purchased (they don't buy pop, period, minimal chips, etc..). If they want sweet treats, they have to make them themselves (and frequently do). As a means of pointing out the connection between sugar and cravings, he had several of the more skeptical clients perform a little experiment after his group discussion on the connection between blood sugar and cravings. One day, they ate a high glycemic breakfast and recorded their responses (emotions, level of hunger, level of cravings, etc...). The next day, they tried a low glycemic breakfast and made the same observations. What do you know? Every one of them noticed a distinct difference between the two (with the low glycemic breakfast distinctly better in all respects). That being said, it doesn't stop them from complaining that he refuses to buy Captain Crunch (or any cereal for that matter but CC seems to be the one requested most often) and Pop Tarts.

This sounds like denial to me. You don't have to be house bound, or unable to get out of bed to be a food addict. I do not think that the word addiction is overused. I think people hear that word and think, "Not me, I'm not an ADDICT!"

An alcoholic is someone who cannot keep themselves from drinking to access. A food addict is someone who cannot keep themselves from eating to access, and therefor can become overweight or obese. I am a food addict, and I’ve never weighed over 150, except when I was pregnant. You don't have to be fat to be a food addict. Anorexics are food addicts - bulimics are food addicts.

I think that people overreact to the word addict or addiction, and then deny that this could ever be them. If you make poor choices when eating, and have eaten to access for the most part, (not to mention eating out of boredom, eating alone, eating when depressed, etc) then you probably have a food addiction.

An alcoholic could use the same excuse, "I'm not addicted, I just like to drink a lot." I think people who are in the 200 lb. category, who do not have a medical condition that caused then to unnecessarily gain, such as thyroid or other, are in denial about what addiction really is, and how it most definitely relates to them.

Sugar actually affects the same part of the brain as heroin or morphine, so we use it to feel better and have withdrawal when we don't get our “drug.” We only notice that we feel really good when we have sweet stuff, but don't make the connection to when we feel bad as withdrawal. Sugar evokes beta endorphin which absolutely makes you feel better - until it wears off and then you feel depressed, but you don't make the connection of the down being an aftereffect of the sugar. The problem comes in needing more and more and more often, or in thinking that the down feelings are signs of clinical depression rather than the sugar low. Sometimes people get them mixed up and think they are not getting better, when it is the food making them feel so bad. This is how people become overweight, and obese.

Articles on the topic:

http://www.mercola.com/2002/jul/10/sugar_addiction.htm

http://web.sfn.org/content/Publicat...ings/sugar.html

http://www.sugar-addiction.com/tabl...dd_series_3.htm

http://www.medical-library.net/site..._addiction.html

I really don't feel I'm in denial.

I used to drink a LOT, to the point I was even considering getting "outside help" on my own. I kicked the habit on my own, and have healed to the point that I can have ONE drink and leave it be. The last drink I had was one glass of wine on New Year's Eve. One could argue endlessly that I could or could NOT have been an alcoholic, but the only thing that matters is that I was able to heal and change my behavior.

I did the same with cigarettes, and now with food... whatever it was that drove me to comfort myself with a chemical instead of facing life head-on, I'm working on changing from the inside.

IMO anorexics/bulimics aren't food addicts, they're CONTROL addicts... feeling helpless and trying to eke out some area that they CAN control and fixating on it.

So thank you for your insight and insistance that I'm just "in denial" or afraid of the term addict, but I think I know myself pretty well at this point in my life, and I'm choosing not to use a passive label as a crutch, when I have finally found a way to live WITH food instead of living FOR food.

Sure, you can kick addiction. I'm not going by the AA definition; "Once an addict, always an addict..." I've quit, cigarettes, alcohol, heroin, (yes heroin) anorexia, bulimia, and sugar addiction. If you think that anorexia and bulimia are just about control, then you're wrong. There is definitely a cycle of food addiction there.



I didn't "insist" anything about you. I said, it sounds like denial. I don't understand why you feel the need to use that passive aggressive, sarcastic tone in your closing sentence with me either. However, defensiveness is a sign of denial. I was offering my insight and opinion. We can agree to disagree without becoming rude.

Have a nice day!

I'm sorry, but I get a bit offended when people assert that everyone who says they aren't an addict is just in denial.

I'm healthier emotionally that I have ever been, so my "defensiveness" is an expression of frustration that people feel so compelled to diagnose addiction in others when they can only truthfully speak for themselves.

I hear you, Misscruff. Comforting yourself with food, IMO, has some physiological components, but is largely a learned behavior that can be UNlearned.

Yes, there are physical effects from certain foods that calm us, but (again, IMO) we've learned to comfort ourselves with food, much like a little kid uses a "blankie" as a comforting device.

Low carb, by eliminating the foods that cause the strongest physical response, helps us UNlearn the habit and frees us to find healthier ways to soothe ourselves.

OI! 200 pounds is around my ideal weight. I'm over 6'3" and have a large frame and despite it being politically incorrect - I'm male.

Are you sure you aren't just in denial about being female?

Seriously, not all heavy drinkers are alcoholics, at least not the ones I know. The way they describe their relationship with alcohol seems totally foreign to me, as foreign as the fact I can have ONE drink and not have it fill me with overwhelming desire for another..and another...and another....despite severe physical, emotional, and social consequences.

I don't feel that way about FOOD either, although I know some people DO.

You don't have to be fat to be an addict, as sugarjunky pointed out, but just BEING fat doesn't necessarily make you one by default, either.

It's not one size fits all.

Exactly!

Being overweight doesn't automatically mean a person is a food junky, food addict, sugar addict, compulsive overeater or anything else. Those are all possible explanations/reasons, but each individual needs to discover whether those apply to them or not. To assume that because an individual is overweight because of one of the above reasons is just that...assumption.
No one reason applies universally.