This is bunk. An actual chemical addiction is not the same as feeling an urge to drink 8 cans of coke a day, or being unable to not buy a bag of chips at the gas station.
Your entire body and brain is a complex and messy chemical reaction.
The opening sentence of the wikipedia article on addiction currently reads: "Addiction is a neuropsychological disorder characterized by a persistent and intense urge to use a drug or engage in a behavior that produces natural reward, despite substantial harm and other negative consequences."
The page then lists "eating or food addiction" as examples, with food addiction being its own entire page.
> That is just not the reality though. You make a choice.
Brains are fascinating. There is a choice being made every time someone with gambling addiction goes to gamble or someone with a smoking addiction goes to smoke, but that doesn't mean they're not experiencing addiction/withdrawal distorting the ability to make that choice in a healthy fashion. Some people do manage to quit smoking by just making a decision one day to stop and sticking with it, with no assistance whatsoever; that doesn't mean they weren't experiencing addiction/withdrawal. There are, in fact, mechanisms that encourage addictive behavior, ranging from social media use to alcohol to food to MMORPGs. Not everyone who uses those things, even to excess, has an addiction. But some do. And breaking that addiction is laudable, whether with or without assistance.
> I realize people are trying to make over opiod abuse into some sort of addiction. It makes it easier to not blame the person and absolves them of all personal responsibility for their condition - they just can't help themselves, don't ya know!
I change one addiction to another addiction. If people find the above distasteful, I agree, but my question is why do you believe one thing for food addiction and another thing for other addictions?
It's well established science that chemical reactions, hormones, etc. in the body 100% influence your hunger and cravings.
That doesn't mean that it's not within the means of human willpower to overcome it - everyone has the power to not be obese. But that doesn't mean that it isn't significantly harder for some people based on their genetics, biochemistry, the feedback loop of being obese, etc.
Some people get out of opioid addictions cold turkey, by just not consuming more opioids, enduring the withdrawal symptoms, and then getting rid of the chemical dependency.
Since we know this phenomenon is real, this means that, even with a chemical dependency, people choose whether to take the drug or not. So, by your logic, they are not really addicted, they can just choose to stop at any time, they're just silly and weak people, right?
Of course this is reductive and simplistic. Ultimately your choices are a computation that your entire nervous system makes, and urges and cravings are a component of that, just like rational processes are. Different people's nervous systems weigh these factors differently, and have more or less powerful cravings and urges to begin with. It's absurd to think that your rational thinking can overwrite anything in any condition, and it's absurd to think that all people experience these thinks to the same extent.
If they started using them without informed consent, was it a choice?
And even then, you do have a chemical dependancy on enough calories, that dependency led to an evolved response mechanism, that mechanism is exploited by junk food manufacturers. That the substances your body and brain produce in response to food stimuli are endogenous (made in your own body) rather than exogenous (made outside) doesn't make them magically less potent — some of us can get past this with our willpower*, but observationally it's obvious that most of us can't.
* I seem to have a lot of willpower, but I suspect that's mainly that my conscious self is fairly oblivious to my body's needs, as my willpower also leads to me pushing myself too hard in various different ways.
> chemical dependency from eating two cheeseburgers for dinner
Wouldn't the initial dependency be almost purely psychological for opioids as well? Most people certainly wouldn't develop a chemical dependency after just two doses as well.
> developed a chemical dependency which is no longer a choice.
Why? They still have a choice. Of course it might be much harder for them to stick with that choice than for someone suffering from a mainly psychological addiction.
Can you acknowledge your own bias in condemning people who don't achieve the same thing you have achieved? Can you acknowledge any advantages you may have had that made it easier for you to succeed in this particular endeavor?
This is not about that.
This is about why you consider some bad habits are addictions and some others are not.
I don't know, maybe you are right, but you haven't provided any beginning of an answer yet.
Rather, you sound like you would be saying that "quitting alcohol is merely a question of personal choice" if you had struggled with alcohol rather than weight.
Why do you think people persistently, for years, keep choosing something that harmed their bodies?
Just because you can do something, doesn't make it a "just" for everyone:
• Without any training, one day I decided to put one foot in front of the other and keep going, and managed 42 km, a literal marathon in distance — but it's obvious that, even though I was walking, most people can't do that.
• When I was at university, I gamified my diet to be the lowest cost without feeling hungry, and in retrospect that was probably 1100 kcal/day and only even safe because it was limited to term time, and it's really obvious that most people can't do that.
• Concersely, when I was on antidepressants and did graze myself into obesity, there simply wasn't a part of my mind aware of what I was doing to myself. I've lost that weight, but the strech marks are still there a decade later.
Right, or you can just own up to the fact that you do not have discipline and are indeed making detrimental choices for yourself. That alone is transformative, accepting responsibility.
These are all things that we acknowledge are possible to be addicted to to that are not substances. Not to mention that coke has caffeine which is a chemical substance just as much as anything.
You can pin addiction to anything as a personal weakness, including drugs. Why are some people able to smoke a few cigarettes or do a little bit of cocaine without ever getting addicted, when others are hooked on day one?
If there's one thing that's been fun to see as the outcome of GLP-1 drugs, it's that a lot of people seem to have a real problem seeing people better themselves the "easy way".
A good way to frame addiction is via perceived rewards. You can be addicted to many things if you look at it as “the person expects a reward for an activity, often errantly”. The worse addictions get into “the reward isn’t even expected with a moment’s clarity, but you do it anyway” territory.
It doesn’t matter what the actual addiction is, the reward circuitry in the brain is pretty much similar.
Addiction is basically highjacking our brain wiring that’s meant to help us expend energy chasing things that we need for survival (food, reproduction), and using it to chase other things
I find this attitude strange. I am a very physically fit man, I do not know what it is like to walk in the shoes of someone who has an addiction to food, but I do know people eat themselves to death. People deal with debilitating diseases that are directly linked to the amount they are eating. People literally destroy their body and live in the wreckage, and you think that it's not an addiction? If not an addiction what exactly is going on?
Addiction is this really scary thing I saw on tv about downtown Philadelphia and fentanyl killing people buy that's far away and couldn't happen here. Sure, I have friends who are fat and are unable to stop themselves from drinking 8 cans of coke a day but they're not shooting up with needles and I know them so they can't be this scary kind of person called an addict. Also I know this one girl who's glued to her phone all day and can't do anything else and she's also definitely not an addict.
Addiction hits the same part of the brain, no matter if it's chemical, physical, or digital. Just because our culture sees them differently doesn't make it the same underlying problem.
Seed oils (used in almost everything these days) contain a lot of linoleic acid, which is a precursor to endocannabinoids, potentially giving you the munchies. If eating gives you the munchies, making you want to eat more, I'd call that a chemical addiction.
I think avoiding bad foods is a better solution than reaching for drugs, but if the drugs help break the cycle, it could be beneficial.
>Seed oils (used in almost everything these days) contain a lot of linoleic acid, which is a precursor to endocannabinoids, potentially giving you the munchies. If eating gives you the munchies, making you want to eat more, I'd call that a chemical addiction.
If you listen to nutrition gurus, you'll hear claims like "food X contains chemical Y and chemical Y is either itself toxic or metabolizes to something toxic, therefore you shouldn't eat X". I promise you I can find videos where somebody has found something bad about spinach and will try to convince you not to eat it. It's a bad way to reason.
Identifying individual biological pathways isn't enough to make (dietary) prescriptions. Often, the metabolites of the food aren't produced in high enough quantities to make a measurable effect (on health, or this case behavior). This kind of thing has to be studied at the level of behavior.
As much as we pretend otherwise and rationalize stuff because the greatest sin for our generation is being judgemental, I am pretty sure this is the case in a lot of instances.
Shaming people is fantastic at making me feel self-righteous, though, which is the best metric by which I can evaluate treatments and interventions for other people.
(When I feel charitable, I can instead wring my hands and hemm and haww about the unknown consequences of people using medication to solve their health problems. I can't outline what exactly those consequences are, but I can certainly hemm and haww.)
This is the example I'm shocked more people don't invoke in these discussions. Gambling addiction is indisputably real, and slot machines (or craps tables or the ponies down at the track) don't even have stick a needle in you to get you hooked. Actions and reactions are more than enough.
Compulsive overeating relies on the same behavioral/reward mechanisms, with the added bonus of food being something you do physically ingest in the process.
Gambling addiction also has the highest suicide rate among addictions, so definitely serious.
The Atlantic had an article recently arguing that allowing sport gambling in the USA was a mistake, imposing huge costs on the most vulnerable.
It’s also popular in other forms these days. Wallstreetbets options gambling, most of crypto, the way many people are “trading” these is purely gambling with some bro-astrology.
When I was a poor teenager I was gambling online and it is an incredible way to lose money unlike anything. With the click of a button you can throw $100 or $1000 into the void- and you often follow it up until your account is empty. Hard to do with many other substances.
It’s the same thing. Obviously withdrawals and such are different but the core mechanism of disregulated reward processing leading to compulsive behavior engagement is exactly the same.
