I know I'm giving far more than two cents here, but the science is amazing, and fascinating. Some foods are far more like drugs than we've given them credit for. We acknowledge that most people can use many drugs in moderation, but some people cannot, but somehow saying the same about food is seen as conroversial.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trazey34
hmm that's interesting... I guess I've dealt with too many patients in my clinic who claim a food addiction, only to break that addiction (usually to a sweet) by abstaining from it and succeeding up to a point. What invariably happens is that that addictive behaviour is transferred to something else, which more or less negates the thought that that one specific item was an addiction in the first place, if you get my meaning. The 'behaviour' of eating that item was the lure, the thrill, the satisfaction, not the actual piece of food in and of itself.
This doesn't at all contraindicate addiction, in fact quite the reverse. Most of my education and career (B.A. and M.A. in behavioral psych and developmental psych respectively) I've worked in fields associated with substance abuse treatment, law enforcement, and mental health and social services, and in my education and experience, crossaddiction is extremely common, especially during the transition from use to abstinence. When an alcoholic gives up alcohol, their risk for addiction transference to another substance or behavior is greatly increased, but no one says that an alcoholic who takes up eating, smoking, gambling or risk-taking behavior when they begin alcohol abstinence, must not have actually had a problem with alcohol. Rather the propensity for addiction, increased the potential for multiple-addiction. And withdrawal from one substance puts a person at far greater risk for seeking out behaviors that will illicit similar effects in the body and brain.
Often now, treatment actually encourages people to find healthier and and more socially acceptable ways to trigger the same brain chemistry. When I was a probation officer, I had a probation client who took up sky-diving, and because it is a legal activity, everyone was all for it. Still an "addiction" but a healthier one.
It's why probation and substance abouse treatment now encourages people to meet their needs for novelty, excitement and other stimulation - "the lure, the thrill, the satisfaction" as you put it, by other more socially acceptable, healthier means. They're encouraged to seek it out through participation in religion, hobbies, activity, social support... because the same brain chemicals are produced by all of these (good advice for obese people as well, though obese and overweight people avoid these for the same reasons other addicts do - shame).
The food addiction research suggests that the "pay off" for food addiction is the same for other addictions - the brain and body chemistry effects. Primarily dopamine and serotonin, but also, adrenaline, cannabinoids and other body/brain chemicals...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trazey34
obviously I can only speak with any degree of certainty about my OWN experiences.
I also can mostly only speak from my own experiences, but "abstinence" isn't even seen as an alternative for food, where it is seen as a legitimate choice for other behaviors. I tried for decades to learn moderation, but I never considered even attempting to avoid certain foods entirely, mostly because it just never dawned on me that it was possible (virtually everyone told me it was not).
When I avoid high carb foods, my hunger is a fraction of what it is when I eat very high carb foods. There are also other negative consequences to eating a very high-carb diet for me. I see autoimmune disease symptoms return, and I start experiencing more pain flares. I feel healthiest on a relatively low-carb diet, but somehow people argue that sugar is somehow something I "must" learn to eat. That's ridiculous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trazey34
I think it's really dangerous to go into a new life with a mantra of "Chocolate bars are forbidden to me for the rest of my life" because that opens up an entirely different can of worms. Yes we can live without them, but few of us do.
It's also dangerous for an alcoholic to go into a new life with a mantra of "beer is forbidden me for the rest of my life" because that also opens up an entirely different can of worms.
Few of us can live without unhealthy foods, because we're taught that we can't live without them - or at least we can't live enjoyably without them. With that assumption, we make it a self-fulfilling prophecy.
There is a distinction between food and heroine. A "slip" with abstinence has less severe consequences. I can and do slip frequently with foods I intend to abstain from. I've found that wheat causes tremendous health problems for me (if I have a large serving, my face will be fuchsia, almost like a sunburn in a few hours and will flake like a sunburn the next day. If I eat more, my skin will actually become swollen and will break out in an impetigo like rash - yellow fluid will ooze from the pores, which will become crusty and will caue intense, maddening pain and itch. The itch is almost worse than the pain, because it's so hard to avoid scratching - I'll wake in the morning with deep scratches from clawing it in my sleep).
With such an intense reaction, no sane person would suggest I not abstain from wheat, and yet it's still difficult, because wheat is everywhere (often hidden), and it's tied to such wonderful sensory and social memories.
If I were to think "good bread, cake and pasta are forbidden me for the rest of my life," it makes a day or two of icky skin and some joint pain seem like a small price to pay for a wonderful piece of crusty italian bread.
Abstinence makes a better choice for me, but I don't plan it forever. I plan it for today, and only today (just like everyone else on any abstinence plan - it's not forever, it's just for today, and I'll deal with tomorrow when it gets here).
Abstincence is always short-term. You never look ten years down the line, you take it one day at a time, and if you slip, you continue to take it one day at a time.
I've only been able to lose weight and keep it off, by intending abstincence from foods that I have difficulty eating in moderation. When it comes to carbs, and even wheat, I slip sometimes, but I don't beat myself up, I just get back to avoiding them.
For me, it's far easier to intend to eat "none today" than to intentionally eat some, but not more.
I'm just saying that one choice should be considered as legitimate as another. I've known problem drinkers who were able to learn moderation. More power to them, but abstinence is ok too. Whichever works best.
But often, we're not even encouraged to try abstinence with food (except for the duration of a quick diet or Lent).
There's nothing wrong with giving it a shot.