Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > Low-Carb War Zone
User Name
Password
FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #16   ^
Old Tue, Dec-05-17, 06:18
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,498
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

Just thought of something else.

The nature of addiction is not merely a function of the thing consumed, but also of the consumer. More specifically, a thing cannot be described as addictive if there is no ability to become addicted to it, i.e. if there is no mechanism by which we are driven to consume it. Since we have this ability, we can assume that any and all things have the potential to be addictive.

However, the drive to consume is derived from the effect of consumption, if not from genetic programming. So, when a thing has never been consumed before, if we're not programmed genetically to consume it in the first place, the thing could not be described as addictive, until it has been consumed, and the effect of this consumption lead to a subsequent drive to consume it again.

However again, the mechanism by which consumption leads to the drive to consume it again is also programmed genetically. If it was not, this effect would never occur, we would only consume things which we were already driven to consume by genetic programming.

Also, addiction seems to imply something detrimental to our health, something that makes us sick especially when we consume too much of it.

Accordingly, if we compare food and sugar, where we accept that we are addicted to food and to sugar (by virtue of the same innate mechanism), where we accept that eating food maintains good health and eating sugar makes us sick, we can describe sugar as addictive, but not food.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #17   ^
Old Tue, Dec-05-17, 08:21
dcc0455 dcc0455 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 167
 
Plan: Low Carb
Stats: 230/165/160 Male 67
BF:
Progress: 93%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M Levac
Also, addiction seems to imply something detrimental to our health, something that makes us sick especially when we consume too much of it.

Accordingly, if we compare food and sugar, where we accept that we are addicted to food and to sugar (by virtue of the same innate mechanism), where we accept that eating food maintains good health and eating sugar makes us sick, we can describe sugar as addictive, but not food.


I agree with all the comments here about effects of sugar, but not with the definition of addictive. If we define addictive as what makes us sick, then radiation or arsenic is addictive. I think what makes something addictive is not the effect of having it but the effect of taking it away. Interesting discussion and I think we all agree that avoiding sugar is a good idea.
Reply With Quote
  #18   ^
Old Tue, Dec-05-17, 09:07
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 15,075
 
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
Default

I don't quite agree with how Martin phrased that first line, but if he meant to say, "something that we do or take compulsively, against our own interest," that's a more commonly agreed-on trait of addiction. And I think that's the problem here, and a general problem with abstract concepts. Addiction is a list of traits, do they all have to be present for something to be addiction? There's a difference between "addiction" to cocaine and "addiction" to sugar, obviously. Scientists are busy working out the differences, and the overlaps. Hard definitions work when we have certainty. Bats used to be classified with birds. This was wrong in the sense of lineage. But it was right in the sense that the adaptations necessary to flight seem to have made bats similar to birds in other ways--in longevity vs body size for instance, birds and bats are longer-lived than their body size predicts. Putting bats and birds in the same group isn't a wrong classification unless you mean by the classification that they're closer cousins than they actually are.

We take it though it causes harm. We are driven to consume it, we have difficulty stopping consuming it--is just feeling uncomfortable, because you haven't taken something, counting as a withdrawal symptom? How about, if we have symptoms of withdrawal--but are not driven to consume the thing that would eliminate withdrawal symptoms? Would that be addiction? We wouldn't say that we're addicted to oxygen, but we're certainly dependent on it, and withdrawal symptoms are pretty obvious.

A pancake is flat, an affect can be flat. No misuse of the language there. As long as you're not equating the two in inappropriate ways, this is just common, appropriate use of the language. We will not take the allegory out of speech.
Reply With Quote
  #19   ^
Old Tue, Dec-05-17, 09:22
dcc0455 dcc0455 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 167
 
Plan: Low Carb
Stats: 230/165/160 Male 67
BF:
Progress: 93%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by teaser
We wouldn't say that we're addicted to oxygen, but we're certainly dependent on it, and withdrawal symptoms are pretty obvious.


You make a good argument. I guess my position would be that we have to remove necessities of life from the discussion. My mother used to tell me that if she said the sky was blue, I would argue it was green. In the end, I don't really care if we call sugar addictive, but I do enjoy the discussion.
Reply With Quote
  #20   ^
Old Tue, Dec-05-17, 11:50
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 4,036
 
Plan: Very LC, Higher Protein
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
Default

I stated earlier that I didn't plan on debating the definition of addiction, but I'll frame it by saying that some people call addictions diseases, some argue that by saying that a disease is something that happens to one involuntarily. Alcoholism is an example, some can drink in moderation, some drink to excess, but all have the capability of managing or quitting according to some people; therefore, it is not a disease in the classic sense. Some call it a disease due to a genetic predilection to the addictive substance. When the term "disease" is used, it's usually used to mean that a person has little control due to genetic makeup. As for sugar, and I'm including high glycemic carbs here too because they all become glucose and spike BG, one may have a genetic predilection to over consumption of sugars/carbs. Is it an addiction? It's certainly chemical based on metabolic responses to the substances and cravings as well. Interesting discussion, but for me, I don't care. I know I don't respond well to high and processed carb foods including sugar. My health and well being are impacted negatively when I consume these. When I first went strict low carb, I had what could be called withdrawal, and every drug has different withdrawal characteristics. Over-consumption can be due to addiction. I also like the moderator/abstainer labels as well, as it really requires knowing one's tendencies to deal with the issue at hand. I choose to treat carbs as an addictive substance for me. That's how I react.
Reply With Quote
  #21   ^
Old Tue, Dec-05-17, 11:55
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,498
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

Well yes, that's the argument in the article, that sugar is not addictive in the context of withdrawal. Otherwise, the article argues that sugar is addictive on every other front, including the detrimental aspect that comes from its consumption.

It's pretty much impossible to remove the necessities of life from this discussion since the mechanism we argue whether sugar is addictive or not is the same that ensures we consume those necessities. The comparison derives naturally from that aspect. We could instead compare sugar to non-essential substances like cocaine for example, but we'd be missing the whole point about our innate ability to get addicted to those same substances. The comparison would lose context, where for example we couldn't argue the aspect of being genetically programmed to seek out sweet stuff as in the article. If we did argue that while omitting necessities, we'd be arguing that we are equally genetically programmed to seek out cocaine and its ilk, therefore must have consumed lots of that too. So, by including necessities, therefore by accepting our innate ability in this regard, we can distinguish between necessities and frivolous (sometimes detrimental) things based on their capacity to take advantage of or to disrupt this innate ability, rather than just on whether we have this innate ability or not, or even that since we do have this ability, it is to blame for our addiction to non-essential things, i.e. it's our own damned fault. In this line of reasoning, we can only argue that this ability is essential to our survival, therefore cannot be blamed for our addiction to non-essential detrimental things.

So, the question "is sugar addictive". Yes, it is. It acts on the same mechanism that ensures our survival. We can't blame this mechanism, it's not our own damned fault, therefore it can only be sugar's own damned fault. From this point on, we have more control over whether we consume sugar or not - we know what to expect. We could even displace the craving by consuming something that also acts on our innate ability, but without all the nasty stuff from sugar. The alternative is that we ignore or simply believe that our innate ability does not exist, then devise all kinds of irrelevant ways - i.e. that do not take into account this innate ability - to control our sugar intake.

With low-carb, we learned that it's not psychology, it's physiology. The same goes for sugar. Though there is a psychological aspect, for example a long standing fear of fat.
Reply With Quote
  #22   ^
Old Tue, Dec-05-17, 12:22
dcc0455 dcc0455 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 167
 
Plan: Low Carb
Stats: 230/165/160 Male 67
BF:
Progress: 93%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GRB5111
I Alcoholism is an example, some can drink in moderation, some drink to excess, but all have the capability of managing or quitting according to some people; therefore, it is not a disease in the classic sense. .


It is true that most people can drink alcohol in moderation and go without if needed, but what makes it it addictive because most, if not all who drink a bottle of whiskey everyday will find it very difficult to give it up.
Reply With Quote
  #23   ^
Old Tue, Dec-05-17, 12:50
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 4,036
 
Plan: Very LC, Higher Protein
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
Default

I was stating that Alcoholism is not a disease in the classic sense as some would argue. Over and continual consumption of alcohol can certainly lead to disease, however.
Reply With Quote
  #24   ^
Old Tue, Dec-05-17, 13:05
cotonpal's Avatar
cotonpal cotonpal is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 5,283
 
Plan: very low carb real food
Stats: 245/125/135 Female 62
BF:
Progress: 109%
Location: Vermont
Default

Rob - A few years back I did some research on the concept of "disease". I wondered just how it was defined. You would think that the term referred to something well-defined, parameters spelled out, attributes listed but that isn't the case at all. It's a loosy goosy concept with no unitary criteria to distinguish diseases from non-diseases. The best I could do was something Jacalyn Duffin, a doctor and medical historian, who says in her book, "History of Medicine: A Scandalously Short Introduction" that diseases are ideas, sometimes good ideas and sometimes bad ideas. There's at least as much politics as medicine and science that goes into the naming of many so-called diseases.

Jean
Reply With Quote
  #25   ^
Old Tue, Dec-05-17, 17:27
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 4,036
 
Plan: Very LC, Higher Protein
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
Default

Jean - that's exactly the confusion I was trying to express. Thanks for the clarifying words. Disease is a very difficult term to define. So is addiction. Labels are imperfect many times, and the only thing to focus on is whether a behavior is positive or negative, mentally or physically or both. If the behavior involves a substance like food or a drug, it can also be identified as a positive or negative behavior. Once we are able to make this distinction, then we can continue the behavior or cease the behavior to achieve the desired result. To me, that's all that really matters. Sounds like an interesting book by the way.
Reply With Quote
  #26   ^
Old Wed, Dec-06-17, 07:53
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 15,075
 
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
Default

There's another loaded term, behaviour. Brings us into free will. About as loaded as it gets.

One person might think free will means "I can stop anytime." Or suggest moderation. The only people who need alcohol are people who have developed a dependency--in other words, the ones who most need to stop. Although on a practical level, if somebody can actually control their intake to non-harmful levels, that's obviously better than overconsumption.

Our decisions depend on the information at hand. I've had times when the information at hand was that demons were in my head. Or that I could hear people's thoughts, or that God was talking to me through the radio. This can interfere with the decision making process.

Our decisions are also affected by our moods. During a manic episode, stupid optimism results in me making worse decisions. Depression is just as bad, although the decisions are liable to be in slow-motion vs. a manic episode.

Some go so far as to define schizophrenia, manic depression etc. as crises of personality. I challenge anybody to not have a crisis of personality during a psychotic episode.

Of course our behaviour matters, but the problem is how to go about making our behaviour effective. For the individual, no alcohol is a limitation of free-will. But it leaves their ability to make other decisions less impaired. I want to choose low carb, ketogenic foods more often. Not buying chips when I grocery shop helps, it makes it harder to make a bad decision between shops. There's oh, I can't help myself around chips, and then there's oh, it's easier to just not have them around. It's not that I'm not responsible when I fall, it's that I'm responsible for doing what I can to make it less likely that I'll fall. Realizing that my ability to make good decisions is limited allows me to leverage what self control I do have.
Reply With Quote
  #27   ^
Old Wed, Dec-06-17, 08:43
dcc0455 dcc0455 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 167
 
Plan: Low Carb
Stats: 230/165/160 Male 67
BF:
Progress: 93%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by teaser
It's not that I'm not responsible when I fall, it's that I'm responsible for doing what I can to make it less likely that I'll fall.


Perceptive.
Reply With Quote
  #28   ^
Old Wed, Dec-06-17, 11:07
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 4,036
 
Plan: Very LC, Higher Protein
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by teaser
There's another loaded term, behaviour. Brings us into free will. About as loaded as it gets.

One person might think free will means "I can stop anytime." Or suggest moderation. The only people who need alcohol are people who have developed a dependency--in other words, the ones who most need to stop. Although on a practical level, if somebody can actually control their intake to non-harmful levels, that's obviously better than overconsumption.

Our decisions depend on the information at hand. I've had times when the information at hand was that demons were in my head. Or that I could hear people's thoughts, or that God was talking to me through the radio. This can interfere with the decision making process.

Our decisions are also affected by our moods. During a manic episode, stupid optimism results in me making worse decisions. Depression is just as bad, although the decisions are liable to be in slow-motion vs. a manic episode.

Some go so far as to define schizophrenia, manic depression etc. as crises of personality. I challenge anybody to not have a crisis of personality during a psychotic episode.

Of course our behaviour matters, but the problem is how to go about making our behaviour effective. For the individual, no alcohol is a limitation of free-will. But it leaves their ability to make other decisions less impaired. I want to choose low carb, ketogenic foods more often. Not buying chips when I grocery shop helps, it makes it harder to make a bad decision between shops. There's oh, I can't help myself around chips, and then there's oh, it's easier to just not have them around. It's not that I'm not responsible when I fall, it's that I'm responsible for doing what I can to make it less likely that I'll fall. Realizing that my ability to make good decisions is limited allows me to leverage what self control I do have.

I like this. We're getting into the semantic gray area where words are now imperfect to describe how we feel, but we do this all the time in pursuit of attempting communication perfection. I'm not sure free will is "limited." It's only "limiting" if the decision made relates to something someone really wants but for self preservation or other reasons, the decision to not choose the substance or act out the behavior can be interpreted as "limiting." Since free will enables everyone to make decisions and choices, it is only limited when one isn't able to consume or act. One is always free to make bad decisions. It's how we learn.
Reply With Quote
  #29   ^
Old Thu, Dec-07-17, 03:02
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,498
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

About behavior. Disease can and will affect behavior. I often cite scurvy, where it causes a sort of cynical view of the world, a don'tgivearatsass state of mind. In turn, behavior is modified by this state of mind. Fix the disease, behavior returns to normal. I could also cite several normal mechanisms that directly alter our behavior. For example, we're hungry, our behavior is then to seek out food, once eaten, our behavior changes to something else, maybe to whatever else we need to consume or do, i.e. sex, sleep, drink, whatever.

Heard the phrase mind over matter? Well, this phrase is an acknowledgement of the fact that normally we are driven to act according to basic needs. Typically, when we say that, we mean to defeat these needs purely by thought. For example, we're hungry, we gotta eat something, but through the powah of thought, somehow we believe we can defeat hunger. Absurd, we're hungry cuz food keeps us alive. Let's see you try that with breathing. The powah of thought can no more defeat hunger than the fact that we are suffocating. Indeed, the Minnesota semi-starvation experiment illustrates well that fact - neurosis from deep constant hunger.

The point I'm making here is that behavior is driven by physiology - it's innate. When a disease alters our behavior it proves that a mechanism exists to do that for normal things like hunger and thirst. When a substance drives us to consume it again or more of it, it proves that a mechanism exists to do that for normal things, again like hunger and thirst.

So what about that guy, he's totally an alcoholic. But then this other guy, he can drink as much or as little as he wants, then quit just as easily. What's the difference? Both have the same mechanism, but one of them is obviously affected differently. So, the alcoholic, he's got weak will, right? Certainly, but since behavior is driven by physiology, we can immediately conclude that his physiology is affected by something, which the other guy's is not. But I thought alcoholism was just a matter of the alcohol. No, the whole point I'm making here is that if one thing can mess around with our innate mechanism, any other thing can do the same, either specifically for itself, or to amplify some other thing. In this case, the alcoholic guy most certainly has some other thing acting on this mechanism to drive him to drink more and more often and again and again. To illustrate again, one guy drinks alcohol, another guy with hepatitis drinks alcohol - different effects.

This whole thing reminds me of what Taubes often says. Carbs is not the only cause, it's the primary cause. To paraphrase another thing Taubes often says about sugar - whether carbs is the primary thing or not, we act as if it was the only thing. In doing so, we often do not understand why it doesn't work as it should. It's the same with addiction and addictive substances. Even though we fully acknowledge that a mechanism exists to allow an addictive substance to be addictive, we fail to realize that any other substance or agent can do the same, thereby making the substance act differently, or appear to work differently, in different individuals. We fail because we act as if there was only one thing, when in fact there's more than just the one.

Leptin deficiency. Results in weak will, i.e. I can't stop eating. Fix the deficiency, a strong will returns - a meal is finally satiating. Mind tricks don't work. Ghrelin overproduction, same problem, weak will, always hungry. Fix it, behavior follows. Carbs make us hungry. Just because it's carbs, it's sugar, it's sweet sweet bliss? BS, it acts on those same mechanisms that regulate food intake. Remove the carbs, if it's the only thing, all is good, hunger returns to normal. But mess around just a little with those mechanisms through some other means like disease or infection or some other substance, carbs look like they work differently, or not at all.

Two guys drink alcohol, one is an alcoholic and he can't stop drinking. What's the cause? It's obviously not the alcohol. It's certainly not the fact that he can't stop drinking - that's the effect. I mean, he can't stop drinking because he can't stop drinking? No, he can't stop drinking because he's driven to drink by some other thing we haven't figured out yet.

Hm, two guys eat a sugar pie, one can't stop eating and orders more til he's totally stuffed can't walk must sit a while brain fog bliss yada yada. Remind you of anybody? Yeah, what's the cause? Not the sugar, or at least not just the sugar. Remove the crust, it's made of wheat, we know all about wheat. That's one other thing that isn't sugar, but acts in tandem to make sugar appear more addictive, or addictive at all. OK, but that other guy who ate just one slice, he ate just one slice. It's the same pie, the same sugar, the same crust. Something else is going on here. Maybe he's just got a much stronger will, he can stop anytime he wants. He certainly has a much stronger will, but that's an effect. The mechanisms that drive the other guy to eat every pie in sight, it must be working differently for this guy. There's something making him eat all those pies, it primes him for it before he even sees the pies, and keeps him primed as he eats them one by one.
Reply With Quote
  #30   ^
Old Thu, Dec-07-17, 05:46
Kristine's Avatar
Kristine Kristine is offline
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25,582
 
Plan: Primal/P:E
Stats: 171/146/150 Female 5'7"
BF:
Progress: 119%
Location: Southern Ontario, Canada
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GRB5111
This appears to be the very philosophy that underlies those who are into fat shaming, the inspirational message for "The Biggest Loser," and the general naivete of those who think that everyone (or even "most") are in control of their diets. Who can argue without a shadow of a doubt that consuming carbs/sugar is not chemical? I can remember as a kid eating way too much cake frosting, and I'd get what felt like chills or rushes once the sugar started into my digestive system. Isn't that chemical? And is the low carb flu not withdrawal?

Headlines are written to attract attention, and today, many media sources follow conflict-based marketing. Controversy attracts readers and viewers. Looking at this publication, TNation, it's clear that this is their M.O.

The other implied definition here is that if one is addicted to what is identified here as a "truly addictive" substance (heroin as an example in this case), then one has an excuse for not being able to kick the addiction and that it is a disease. I could argue that one, but I won't take the space here. Provocative headlines designed as click bait seem to be the case here.


Amen to all of this. And why is he defining "truly addictive" as "devastating"? I am - and so are a lot of you, I bet - addicted to caffeine. If I go 24-36 hrs without caffeine, I get a splitting headache. I'd give it up completely if my favorite caffeinated beverages were more readily available in the caffeine-free version, but it's too inconvenient. Caffeine addiction is arguably socially-sanctioned, yet hardly devastating.

I see the biggest problem with sugar addiction is how insidious it is. It's (not so arguably) socially sanctioned... AND devastating in the long run. If you're capable of having half a chocolate bar or just one slice of pie (like Martin said) and leave the rest, good for you. But if you have no idea what it's like to be crying and feeling sick after yet another sugar binge, maybe just shut your trap instead of telling us that our addiction isn't real.

(ETA) - I didn't read the article; I refuse to give click bait money to testosterone d*cks.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 22:57.


Copyright © 2000-2024 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.