The chronically obese person who claims that food is a harder addiction to beat than nicotine or alcohol uses the excuse “We can survive without nicotine or alcohol, but we still have to eat to survive.” Which doesn’t hold up to scrutiny if you compare it to other substances we must have to survive. Like water. We can’t live without it, and few people if any abuse the hell out of water.
A type 1 diabetic can suffer immediate, unpleasant consequences from eating the wrong foods (diabetic keroacidosis can land one in the ICU for several days, and hypoglycemia can cause one to black out and collapse). Food allergies also cause immediate, unpleasant consequences if the allergen is consumed (hives, wheezing, digestive upsets, even anaphylaxis). It’s easier to teach someone to avoid X if doing X results in immediate negative feedback.
Now what immediate and negative feedback does someone with a drive to overeat suffer from eating a bag of Doritos and drinking a large Mountain Dew every day? None. The bad consequences lie months and years down the road, while the pleasure is immediate. That’s why teaching someone to avoid bad foods in order to avoid obesity is more difficult than teaching someone with food allergies to avoid the food allergen, or someone with type 1 diabetes to monitor their blood sugar and watch their diet.
I’d be interested to scrutinize such a study – 15 to 20% is a very large amount. Besides, I’m not sure how you would compare a formerly obese person to a hypothetical same person who was never obese to begin with. Probably the obese person was always different from someone who stayed thin. Even before the obese person got fat.
Which parameters would those be?
I’m afraid you once again fail to make your point. It is true that there are few people who find water-ingestion habit-forming. However, nicotine, alcohol and food all fall into the category of-yes!-*potentially habit-forming substances. * And of those three substances, food is indeed the only habit it is never possible to quit entirely.
According to the posters here, the negative consequences are the ostracization, judgement, and lack of empathy from people of a normal weight as well as a total lack of drive to exercise. So I would say the effects of a crappy diet are immediate, and the side effects of carrying around more than 75 extra pounds are also constant and apparent.
Oh. Well I don’t think water is analogous because it doesn’t produce the same kind of pleasure reaction which is produced by nicotine, alcohol, or certain foods. If you have sufficient water in your system, it’s not particularly pleasurable to drink more and more and more. The same is not true of food, nicotine, or alcohol.
And many smokers and drinkers cut back rather than quit altogether and live a healthier, more productive lifestyle. What’s your point?
Here you go. Happy reading.
They don’t have to be the same person. You just have to get as many subjects as possible in each group and voila! Numbers and arbitrary sample selection will confer statistical validity upon your results.
When I get the time to do a PubMed search, I’ll see what I can pull up. You may be right that the formerly-obese person always needed less food for his/her size than a person who stays thin throughout life.
Mostly blood serum levels of various hormones involved in regulating hunger and satiety (like leptin, ghrelin, PPY, etc.). Studies have been done comparing those hormone levels in obese persons before and after completion of a reducing diet that bring them down to what should be a “healthy” weight for their height and build, and comparing them to the levels found in normal-weight people who are maintaining their weight versus normal-weight people who are deliberately being starved.
You are aware that it takes months to years to gain enough weight to become morbidly obese, not hours to days? When I said “immediate” I meant IMMEDIATE. As in “occurs within minutes to hours of ingesting the substance.”
Although this is certainly something that problem smokers and drinkers desperately want to think they can do, you’ll find that the vast majority of successful ex-smokers and alcoholics have found that total abstinence is the only way they are able to stay clean.
I am sorry if this is bad news for someone you know.
I agree. On the other hand, not all foods are equally addictive so an important strategy for effective weight loss is, I strongly suspect, to identify which foods one has a problem with and try to quit them, just like cigarettes.
Yeah, and it adds nothing to the conversation except for sniping. Compare the nutritional data for Outback’s Bloomin’ Onion to the average USDA recommended daily allowance for protein, fats, and carbs. A body functions best on a diet of about 30 to 35 percent fat, 15 to 12 percent protein, and 40 to 65 percent carbs.
A Bloomin’ onion without the mayo-based dipping sauce from Outback has 1959 calories, 161 fat grams, and 18 grams of protein, and 117 grams of carbs.
The caloric equivalent in bacon is 53 cooked slices with 159 grams of fat, 156 grams of protein, and 0 carbs.
I’ve seen quite a few people polish off a Bloomin’ Onion before their meal hit the table. But I’ve never seen anyone consume 53 slices of bacon in one sitting, have you? Why is that? Do you suppose that’s because some types of food are more filling and satisfying than others? Do you deny that the higher protein bacon, even if only 25 slices are consumed (blurgh) would be a better overall nutritional choice than a single Bloomin’ onion?
Do you deny that scarfing down a Bloomin’ Onion blows that optimum range of nutrients to bits? Not to mention the lack of fiber and excess salt? Better choices of even fatty, hyper-palatable (artemis’ favorite term for this discussion) are possible to produce healthier results.
I would agree, with the caveat that the foods necessary to eliminate are unlikely to all fall into the Mountain Dew and doughnut sandwiches category.
Who introduced the parameter of “clean”? I certainly haven’t. Or are you just riffing off Stoid’s theme of picking extreme terms to advance your argument? Smoking, drinking, and eating less and making better choices will result in a healthier lifestyle. Doctors recommend moderation, remember? It’s entirely possible for a former addict to nicotine, alcohol, and food to practice moderation while still indulging in the habit he loves. As posters keep reminding you: people successfully do it every single day.
No one expects either the healthy person or the morbidly obese person to go “clean” and practice complete abstinence to food. We’re speaking in terms of less, not none.
Troppus, the definition of an addict is someone who CANNOT successfully moderate his/her use of the addictive substance. If the person can moderate his/her use so that the problematic substance is no longer causing the person issues, by definition that person is not an addict, just a user.
And addicts generally are unsuccessful in breaking their addition. The minority who do, generally do so by stopping the offending substance cold-turkey and NEVER consuming it again. That’s possible to do with nicotine, opiates, cocaine, alcohol, and other such substances. It is not possible to do with food in general (although certainly specific categories of food may be successfully avoided).
Quite the contrary. In a conversation about nutrition and weight loss, it is hardly “sniping” to point out that one of the most vocal participants appears to not know the difference between nutrients and “energy”. That is kind of important! What you are doing is the diatetic equivalent of going into a debate about Middle Eastern geopolitics thinking this Lebanon place everyone is talking about is the one in New Hampshire.
Although your bacon advice will surely be priceless to the many millions of people who have been thus far unsuccessful in their search for a marginally healthier alternative to their customary potato sack full of onion fries, I don’t understand what you think it has to do with our discussion. Maybe you should start a new thread?
Take that up with former binge drinkers, former two pack a day smokers, and formerly morbidly obese persons who have successfully reduced their intake of the offending substances. The very presence of formerly obese people who maintain a healthier weight discounts your claims that it’s impossible to use less of the addictive substance of one’s choice. Take it up with all the new mothers who lost the baby weight, even those who went crazy with the calories and gained double the recommended 30 or so pounds. Take it up with the addict who, as a condition of his or her job and random drug tests, manages to forgo eating pills or smoking week during the work week but still indulges on the week-end. Addictive substances are not a life sentence, unless you choose to be helpless and believe you are powerless to change your habits.
Your claim that:
isn’t true. Even chronic overeaters have a volume limit and substances which sate or saturate their individual palate. It is absolutely possible to substitute foods with higher bulk or better nutritive content for sugar water and greasy fries. There is plenty of high protein crap, like excessive piles of bacon, that are better choices than supersized fries and a Big Gulp.
Again, although there may be a few people for whom this strategy is viable, the vast majority of addicts end up finding that this is not possible for them to do. If you’d like to contest this, then I guess I can add “addict” to the list of words that you apparently do not know what they mean.