That's extreme, no? Who here has said anything like that? You're creating an argument that doesn't exist.

Of course the arguement exists! One question can lead to another, no? This question is central to the issue of addiction, and you see it all the time on shows such as Ruby, or The Biggest Loser, or Intervention -- what is the balance between addiction and its corresponding behaviors and personal responsibility? Which is the point of the initial question -- is there such a thing as food addiction?
Kira

It doesn't matter - because we don't tell addicts "just give up and surrender to your addiction."

Personal responsibility is a component of the issue, and there are other components as well.

We don't understand human behavior enough to give a prediction on who can and cannot succeed. We do know something about the tools that can help a person overcome, and it's a matter of a person learning and using those tools, not deciding whether to use them, based on whether they have or do not have an addiction.

You talk in extremes, then throw in "balance" when the extreme is rejected.

I agree. You want a simple, single answer to a question that doesn't have one. This isn't a simple or single solution problem, it's multifaceted. And when the problem is multifaceted, so does the treatment need to be.

It's an addiction like no other.....the problem is, you HAVE to eat to live. With any other addiction (booze, drugs, gambling, sex, whatever), you can stop cold turkey.

And yet there are cases in which a person does have to learn to control their addiction while continuing to use their addiction substance. Some pain medication addicts do have conditions that require continued pain management, sometimes even narcotic pain meds (like our friend). A married sex addict having to learn to use sex appropriately. A shopping addict (if she doesn't have a family member she can hand the task over to) still has to buy things.

Yes, it is not like food, where you will die if you stop using your substance, but there are addictions in which abstainance is impractical.

But for as many disadvantages, there are advantages (you're not going to go to jail or catch a sexually transmitted disease from potato chips).

It is also true, that a person can avoid all of their trigger foods, if they can detect the pattern (most food addictions are to fat and/or simple carbohydrates - those can be eliminated from the diet).

It can be useful to compare addiction-like behaviors, but to call one "worse" or "more difficult" than the other, goes down a path, that probably shouldn't be traveled.

Colleen, I hadn't thought about those other types of addictions....nothing is ever as black and white as it appears, is it?

IMO, anyone can become addicted to anything, whether it be drugs, cigarettes, food, video games, whatever. However, I think alot more people use "addiction" as a loose term to cover up their own lack of self-control, rather than genuinely have it. Food addiction exists; I have no doubt of that. I just think that it's alot rarer than what most people would be willing to admit to.

For example, I could say that I'm addicted to books, because if I don't get to read on any given day, I get somewhat depressed about it and irritable. It's my relaxation, my zen, my stress-relief; however, I don't really consider myself addicted to books, because it doesn't psychologically break me if I don't read. I really want to read, but because I enjoy it for what it is, not just because I HAVE to read each day.