|
Talmonis posted:Being hungry and exhausted all the time is not a good time, or easy. This is what it takes to lose weight in the manner of an entire lifestyle change. You will be miserable for a long, long time. There's a reason it's worthy of praise when someone manages to lose a lot of weight. The easiest way to deal with addictions is to consider the current generation a lost cause and focus on preventing the next generation from becoming addicts. The easiest way to stop smoking is to never start!
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 23:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 08:12 |
|
|
Talmonis posted:Being hungry and exhausted all the time is not a good time, or easy. This is what it takes to lose weight in the manner of an entire lifestyle change. You will be miserable for a long, long time. There's a reason it's worthy of praise when someone manages to lose a lot of weight. You really don't need to be hungry and exhausted all the time to lose weight. All it takes is making smarter choices with food. It does take a large lifestyle commitment though. I mean, I had to relearn how I relate to food, but I've never had to deal with hunger or exhaustion while losing weight, or even any misery. The hardest part is when it's been a long day and I drive past 3 mcdonald's a wendys and a burger king and i remind yself that i'll feel worse after eating crap, even if it's easier than cooking. I think the idea that weight loss is supposed to be miserable is part of the problem. You don't have to deny yourself anything, you don't have to be hungry or exhausted or anything like that -- its all a atter of moderation. I still have fast food every now and then, i still have a soft spot for soft serve, i still demolish a bag of gumi bears at least once a week, but I've still managed to lose almost a hundred pounds because its a matter of deciding if i'm going to grab fast food for lunch to pig out on the salad before dinner since salad is hella filling and healthy. This idea that you have to suffer to look good, or you have to be miserable to lose weight does more harm than good, since it discourages people from starting to change their eating habits.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 02:50
|
|
|
AA is for Quitters posted:You really don't need to be hungry and exhausted all the time to lose weight. Well, early on it will hurt. I know whenever I try to get in shape the first week or so hurts like hell and then it gets better. Now, usually I'm trying to gain muscle mass so for most people trying to lose weight it's easier, but that initial shift is still going to be really hard.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 02:56
|
|
|
Regardless, we've been pushing the personal responsibility angle on weight loss for at least 30 years and society has only gotten fatter. It clearly isn't working. I hope it doesn't take us another 30 to think up a different approach
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 02:58
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I get a bit paranoid about the use of the word "addictive" around food because there's a set of well-placed authors trying to promote the bogus idea that sugar, salt or fat are addictive (intentionally confusing the "psychological" and the neuro/scientific/controlled substances sense). That set of claims come out of a messy corporate, political battle that would be a derail to fully discuss, but the short version is that consuming sugar, fat or salt isn't addictive to any greater degree than any other pleasure-causing activity would be. Be especially suspicious of Robert Lustig- the man is basically laughed out of conferences, but he still has academic credentials and financial backing, so he keeps popping up in the press. What 'controlled substances' are you talking about and how are the inherently different to substances like sugar and salt?
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 04:15
|
|
|
KingEup posted:What 'controlled substances' are you talking about and how are the inherently different to substances like sugar and salt? As in things like nicotine which actually damage part of your body's chemistry, if you don't keep taking it, you experience chemical withdrawal. Whereas sugar isn't chemically addictive, neither is salt.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 05:16
|
|
|
Torka posted:Regardless, we've been pushing the personal responsibility angle on weight loss for at least 30 years and society has only gotten fatter. It clearly isn't working. I hope it doesn't take us another 30 to think up a different approach
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 10:40
|
|
|
GhostofJohnMuir posted:I don't know Discendo, if I don't get myself some food for a day or two I begin to feel headachy and aggravated. Longer than that brings on feelings of weakness and mental delusions. I end up holed up in bed for days trying to beat the food monkey on my back, but the physical withdrawal gets so bad I always have to break down and eat something, anything, at that point it's so bad that it doesn't matter what. I think food is more addictive than heroin by far. Oh my God, I thought I was the only one. I've been too afraid to even tell people how bad my withdrawal gets every time I try to quit. How long does it last before I'm finally free? Last time I tried I felt I was almost literally wasting away.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 12:45
|
|
|
^Give it time, maybe a few weeks, and eventually you will feel the blissful relief of freedom from food addiction-- and with it, all worldly cares. KingEup posted:What 'controlled substances' are you talking about and how are the inherently different to substances like sugar and salt? In '012 I visited a local Occupy protest and was told that cheese contains morphine, added by Big Dairy to keep the sheeple addicted. (Apparently there is morphine in cheese, but only trace amounts, and it occurs as a side effect of fermentation.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 04:50
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:As in things like nicotine which actually damage part of your body's chemistry, if you don't keep taking it, you experience chemical withdrawal. Sounds like you are mistaking physical dependence for addiction. quote:Adaptations associated with drug withdrawal are distinct from the adaptations that result in addiction, which refers to the loss of control over the intense urges to take the drug even at the expense of adverse consequences. For example, research has shown that when opiates are administered to a naive animal, adaptation begins to occur after the first dose so that the second dose has a discernibly decreased effect from the first. After several days of taking the medication, abrupt cessation produces a withdrawal syndrome varying with the duration of treatment and the dose level. This is an expected pharmacological response, and although it may occur among addicts, it is quite distinct from compulsive drug-seeking behaviour. http://psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/ajp.2006.163.5.764 People can become addicted to salt and sugar in exactly the same way they can become addicted to amphetamines and smoking tobacco. Just because someone is physically dependent on [say] morphine, it does not always mean they are addicted to it. Signs that your body has adapted to the presence of nicotine or any other drug of dependence is an example of your body operating exactly as it should. It can hardly said to be 'damaging your body's chemistry'. KingEup fucked around with this message at 22:50 on Dec 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 22:33
|
|
|
being addicted to eating broccoli and grilled chicken is a slightly different prospect from being addicted to twinkies and haagen daz
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 22:44
|
|
|
KingEup posted:People can become addicted to salt and sugar in exactly the same way they can become addicted to amphetamines and smoking tobacco. Just because someone is physically dependent on [say] morphine, it does not always mean they are addicted to it. Signs that your body has adapted to the presence of nicotine or any other drug of dependence is an example of your body operating exactly as it should. It can hardly said to be 'damaging your body's chemistry'. Your custom title tells me to steer clear of engaging with you on your incorrect understanding of addiction science. For the benefit of others, this viewpoint confuses sign for cause; the neuro compensation and behavioral patterns being discussed are considered symptoms of addiction, and characterize it, but are not exclusive to it. The core mechanism of addiction is not well understood, particularly because it likely operates differently for different substances, but is considered distinct from basic responses to substances like sugar and salt. One motivator for this theoretical and empirical distinction is the of extent of behavioral change. One metric of this is the degree of adverse compensation- what someone is willing to put up with or risk to rationalize access, or access, the substance. Very few people (and not a consistently predictable percentage of people) will prostitute themselves or risk going to jail for a dose of fat. "dependence" and "addiction" are both contested terms from a theoretical perspective in the scientific community, but the top addiction scientists (meaning the people getting or approving grants at NIAAA and NIDA) don't take the idea of addiction, or dependence as expressed in the DSM, as existing in conventional food products other than maybe caffeine (and if you ask them about caffeine at NIDA they'll probably dodge the question or try to get you alone and away from any recording devices first). P.S. not a big surprise, but he's mischaracterizing the editorial he's citing, which is actually arguing for a change in the current DSM nomenclature. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 23:45 on Dec 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 23:16
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:the top addiction scientists (meaning the people getting or approving grants at NIAAA and NIDA) don't take the idea of addiction, or dependence as expressed in the DSM, as existing in conventional food products other than maybe caffeine (and if you ask them about caffeine at NIDA they'll probably dodge the question or try to get you alone and away from any recording devices first). lol NIDA are the ones arguing that substances considered 'foods' are addictive in the same way as cocaine: quote:Many experts dismiss food as an addictive substance because it doesn’t lead to most people behaving like addicts — compulsively seeking food despite negative consequences. So, the reasoning goes, food can’t be as addictive as a drug like crack cocaine. quote:"Drug addiction and obesity are two of the most challenging health problems in the United States," said Dr. Nora D. Volkow, director of NIDA. "This research opens the door for us to apply some of the knowledge we have gathered about drug addiction to the study of overeating and obesity." Discendo Vox posted:I get a bit paranoid about the use of the word "addictive" around food because there's a set of well-placed authors trying to promote the bogus idea that sugar, salt or fat are addictive (intentionally confusing the "psychological" and the neuro/scientific/controlled substances sense). For what it's worth Discendo Vox, I agree with your scepticism about sugar, salt and fat being addictive. I just also happen to be be sceptical about the claim that 'controlled substances' are addictive too. I am of the view that addictive is not a label to be applied to specific substances, but an involvement a person creates in time and space. Have you ever read the 'myth of drug induced addiction'? http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/sen/committee/371/ille/presentation/alexender-e.htm KingEup fucked around with this message at 00:33 on Dec 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 00:15
|
|
|
"Applying knowledge" between subjects doesn't mean it's the same thing. The distinction between the framing presented in the lovely time article and the nih presser are precisely that distinction. I'll not engage further on this, you're making my point. The Alexander article is poo poo. It's very popular in "I don't have a problem" circles. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 00:43 on Dec 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 00:36
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The Alexander article is poo poo. It's very popular in I don't have a problem" circles. It's also popular with acclaimed nueroscientist Dr Carl Hart. Is he poo poo too? https://books.google.com.au/books?i...%20hart&f=false Discendo Vox posted:Very few people (and not a consistently predictable percentage of people) will prostitute themselves... for a dose of fat. How is propensity to engage in sex work a clinically validated measure of anything? KingEup fucked around with this message at 01:08 on Dec 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 00:43
|
|
|
KingEup posted:For what it's worth Discendo Vox, I agree with your scepticism about sugar, salt and fat being addictive. I just also happen to be be sceptical about the claim that 'controlled substances' are addictive too. You can be addicted to anything, psychological addiction is an understood phenomenon, however it is not the same as chemical dependence, which is usually attached to controlled substances, and is a very significant factor in their addictiveness. That you would prefer a more airy fairy definition of addiction does not alter the fact that food does not cause chemical dependence, and is not in the same league as things that do.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 05:26
|
|
|
tsa posted:It's addictive probably, but by far one of the easiest addictions to fix. There's definitely some changes that need to be made on a macro scale, as the rise in obesity is a national/ worldwide problem, but on the individual level it is not hard at all to manage a healthy weight. One thing that does hold them back are people going on about how difficult or impossible such a feat is due to "addictive chemicals" and so on- the last thing a person who wants to change needs is someone telling them they are going to fail. Not to mention the amount of times they will fail because they followed advice from a seemingly "trusted source" and it turned out that the information was terrible to begin with. There is simply an insane amount of contradictory and awful "medical" advice out there, and we live in a nation where shitheads like Dr. Oz aren't locked up for gross malpractice and anti-vaxxers are treated as one side of the argument rather than child abusers. And it doesn't really help when someone says, "well dummy I did x, y and z and everything turned out fine" because guess what? Everyone and their mother says that, and they have a book to sell you. I mean gently caress, even my local PBS station airs some of this bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 07:12
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:You can be addicted to anything, psychological addiction is an understood phenomenon, however it is not the same as chemical dependence, which is usually attached to controlled substances, and is a very significant factor in their addictiveness. I reject pharmacological determinism. The most significant determinant of addiction is social and environmental. KingEup fucked around with this message at 08:09 on Dec 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 08:03
|
|
|
KingEup posted:I reject the idea of pharmacological determinism. Also possibly the bit where chemical withdrawl can actually kill you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 08:07
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Also possibly the bit where chemical withdrawl can actually kill you. You are confused. I am talking about addiction. You are talking about physical dependence. Physical dependence is not the defining characteristic of addiction. Lots of drug addicted individuals become physically dependent as a result of regular use of substances like alcohol, opioids and benzodiazapines. What drives them to regular use in the first place? You seem to think it's got something to do with drug molecules taking over the brain (pharmcological determinism). I think it's got more to do with poor psychosocial integration. The majority of pain patients who are physically dependent on an opioid based medication are not drug addicted i.e. they do not engage in aberrant drug seeking behaviour despite clear evidence of adverse effects once their pain subsides. KingEup fucked around with this message at 08:24 on Dec 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 08:13
|
|
|
I would dispute the utility of discussing addiction without discussing chemical dependence, considering it is an integral component in the formation of addictive behavior. If not taking a thing causes you extreme physical pain and even death, you are going to keep taking it. That the thing may have a pleasant effect when taken is a contributing factor as well, but not dying from withdrawal perhaps might have something to do with why the habit is formed?
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 08:23
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I would dispute the utility of discussing addiction without discussing chemical dependence, considering it is an integral component in the formation of addictive behavior. If not taking a thing causes you extreme physical pain and even death, you are going to keep taking it. That the thing may have a pleasant effect when taken is a contributing factor as well, but not dying from withdrawal perhaps might have something to do with why the habit is formed? Opioid dependent pain patients still experience withdrawal once they discontinue opioid therapy and the vast majority have no ongoing desire to keep using. Iatrogenic opioid addiction is rare: quote:the rate of observed signs of opioid addiction was extremely low in the body of evidence considered in this review (0.27%, conservatively). This rate would be 0.14% if no addictive behaviors occurred among the studies that did not mention addiction rates at all. Only three participants were reported as having potential abuse problems. These numbers do not support the contention that potential iatrogenic opioid addiction should limit therapy for well-selected and well-supervised patients. Because most studies screened out potential participants with histories of substance abuse or addiction, the rates of addiction reported in these studies are only generalizable to patients without a history of addictive/abusive behaviors. KingEup fucked around with this message at 08:54 on Dec 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 08:50
|
|
|
That report outright states that a lot of the patients didn't want to be taking the drug in the first place because it didn't produce beneficial effects, and that there was no investigation as to whether taking them did anything to improve the patient's quality of life. Astonishing that something with little beneficial effect in patients already suffering chronic pain would not produce addictive effects, especially when the study also screened out anyone with a history of addictive behavior. The withdrawal would probably not be greatly distinguishable from the myriad of medication side effects and pre-existing pain and there is no beneficial aspect to taking it. It should also be noted that, to my knowledge, medically applied addictive substances are not brought from a high dose to zero precisely to mitigate withdrawal symptoms, and patients are also monitored for signs of addiction and would be referred to support for that if they were found to be exhibiting it. That isn't a very good study, or example in general.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 09:11
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:That isn't a very good study, or example in general. That's a Cochrane review - internationally recognised as the highest standard of evidence available. KingEup fucked around with this message at 09:16 on Dec 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 09:14
|
|
|
Did you read the conclusion? "Many patients discontinue long-term opioid therapy (especially oral opioids) due to adverse events or insufficient pain relief; however, weak evidence suggests that patients who are able to continue opioids long-term experience clinically significant pain relief. Whether quality of life or functioning improves is inconclusive. Many minor adverse events (like nausea and headache) occurred, but serious adverse events, including iatrogenic opioid addiction, were rare." It says 'A lot of people didn't complete the course, there is a small suggestion that if they did it would produce a measurable reduction in pain, but we have no idea if it would actually improve their quality of life. It produces lots of non-life-threatening side effects, but is unlikely to produce long term addiction. Also we screened out anyone we thought was likely to form an addiction to it to begin with.' I guess it's internally consistent but the one piece of useable information it presents is that if you can get people with chronic pain to keep taking painkillers they will be in slightly less pain. The report isn't designed to test if withdrawal symptoms are a significant factor in addiction in general, because it tests only people in pre-exisiting chronic pain, only on opiod painkillers, and by pre-screening out anyone with a measurable addictive tendency. To clarify, the report is useless for your purposes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 09:17
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I guess it's internally consistent but the one piece of useable information it presents is that if you can get people with chronic pain to keep taking painkillers they will be in slightly less pain. You were originally arguing that substances which can lead to physical dependence have unique addictive or enslaving qualities. Here we have an example of a large cohort of people who take opioids (a drug of dependence by any measure) for long periods of time and don't become drug addicted. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KREufd4t0vo OwlFancier posted:The report isn't designed to test if withdrawal symptoms are a significant factor in addiction in general, because it tests only people in pre-exisiting chronic pain, only on opiod painkillers, and by pre-screening out anyone with a measurable addictive tendency. Now you admit that drugs don't have the power to cause addiction and are instead blaming people with 'addictive tendencies'. KingEup fucked around with this message at 11:07 on Dec 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 11:02
|
|
|
KingEup posted:You were originally arguing that substances which can lead to physical dependence have unique addictive or enslaving qualities. Here we have an example of a large cohort of people who take opioids (a drug of dependence by any measure) for long periods of time and don't become drug addicted. You don't see any distinction between general illicit use of chemically addictive substances, and the use of a specific addictive substance under medical guidance on a very specific section of the population? The report proves that people in chronic pain who have been screened to ensure they have no known addictive tendencies, do not often become addicted to opioids when used under strict medical supervision. It says absolutely nothing about the general impact of chemical dependency on substance addiction.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 11:12
|
|
|
I see attempts to distinguish 'chemically addictive drugs' from 'additive foods' as problematic because neither is an objective category. No clear boundary exists between a 'food' and 'drug'[1]. They are labels. No single uniform feature is found in all the substances called drugs that differentiates them from all the substances called nondrugs, except that all drugs have been called drugs by somebody. Attempts to label some substances 'hyperpalatable' addictive foods is attractive because the dominant paradigm of addiction legitimises the idea that some substances have unique addictive of enslaving qualities. 1. Behold the FDA argue that walnuts are 'drugs': http://www.fda.gov/iceci/enforcementactions/warningletters/ucm202825.htm KingEup fucked around with this message at 11:58 on Dec 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 11:55
|
|
|
KingEup posted:I see attempts to distinguish 'chemically addictive drugs' from 'additive foods' as problematic because neither is an objective category. No clear boundary exists between a 'food' and 'drug'[1]. They are labels. No single uniform feature is found in all the substances called drugs that differentiates them from all the substances called nondrugs, except that all drugs have been called drugs by somebody. Ok, great? But what does that have to do with chemical addiction? It is understood that some substances cause withdrawal symptoms when you stop ingesting them, independent of psychological effects. In most cases the biochemical basis for this response is understood, for example in the case of nicotine's interaction with, and eventual obstruction of, specific chemical receptors in the body. Such substances are describable as chemically addictive, and tend to be habit forming as a result.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 12:41
|
|
|
Stop responding to him, he's not interested in the thread topic, he's just on a crusade and looking for converts.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 17:47
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Ok, great? But what does that have to do with chemical addiction? That's ridiculous, would insulin be considered addictive? What about anti-seizure medications or anti-depressants? What exactly is the difference between physical dependence and 'chemical addiction'? There are very many substances that cultivate physical dependence that aren't habit forming. Without providing evidence, your last sentence is just conjecture. e; Discendo Vox posted:Stop responding to him, he's not interested in the thread topic, he's just on a crusade and looking for converts. That's rich considering you haven't even cited the 'top addiction scientists' you supposedly base your opinion on. Sinding Johansson fucked around with this message at 18:55 on Dec 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 18:46
|
|
|
Sinding Johansson posted:That's ridiculous, would insulin be considered addictive? What about anti-seizure medications or anti-depressants? What exactly is the difference between physical dependence and 'chemical addiction'? There are very many substances that cultivate physical dependence that aren't habit forming. Without providing evidence, your last sentence is just conjecture. Addiction is not purely chemical dependency, but to address your examples, insulin is not generally described as addictive because it is taken to address a deficiency in one's body chemistry. It is treatment for a disease, and it doesn't do that better if you take more of it, nor does it do any good if you aren't diabetic. It is not a substance with any recreational utility. Depending on the specific type of anticonvulsive you're talking about, some of them are addictive, such as diazepam, because they have the potential to produce chemical dependence in people who use them, as well as having recreational appeal. Antidepressants tend not to produce withdrawal symptoms in the same manner as alcohol or nicotine, but can produce a similar withdrawal-like effect upon rapid discontinuation of the drug. I don't know much about their addictiveness or lack thereof. I would imagine they carry some risk of psychological additction depending on whether they have recreational appeal. Generally, substances liable to cause addiction have some positive benefit to taking them outside of their medical application. Usually in the form of recreational appeal. This can cause psychological addiction. When a substance exhibits both recreational appeal as well as a propensity to induce chemical dependency, this exacerabtes the problem because it provides further reinforcement to the pattern of using the substance, both to experience the benefit, as well as to escape the withdrawal. Chemical dependency is a significant factor in the addictiveness of a substance, because it contributes significantly to the psychological reinforcement of the behavior, as well as, in some cases, such as severe delirium tremens, leaving the sufferer with little choice other than to continue to use the substance in order to avoid severe medical complications, or death. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 19:27 on Dec 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
Adding to what owl fancier said, it's the combination of psychological and neurological mechanisms that make addiction such a big deal- addicted individuals will go to incredible lengths to rationalize access to the substance- like someone with a binging problem, but much worse. This sort of behavior is usually the first thing you can observe in someone in an addiction spiral, long before they resemble "faces of meth." More generally, notice how the topic has moved from the idea of food addiction to "no, addiction isn't real". That's what I we referring to. As far as sources, the others being discussed actually make my argument. Although I don't work for NIDA, several people there are family friends, and they're the main people I've discussed this with. My own time at NIDA has so far been limited to a couple interviews with policy flacks in Bethesda and attending a caffeine conference there a few years back.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 19:38
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:My own time at NIDA has so far been limited to a couple interviews with policy flacks in Bethesda and attending a caffeine conference there a few years back. Aha! And what did they serve to make sure you lot could stay up and focused? Coffee! 
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 19:47
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Addiction is not purely chemical dependency, but to address your examples, insulin is not generally described as addictive because it is taken to address a deficiency in one's body chemistry. It is treatment for a disease, and it doesn't do that better if you take more of it, nor does it do any good if you aren't diabetic. It is not a substance with any recreational utility. Ok, I'm going to try to restate your argument so you can tell me if I'm understanding it before I try and rebut any of it. So, there are two types of addiction, psychological and chemical. Psychological addiction is reinforced by chemical addiction. For a substance to be described as addictive, it must have at least one of the following properties: -have recreational appeal -cause symptoms of withdrawal upon cessation -some additional properties that you have alluded to but not described yet Some things I'm not clear on: -Can chemical addiction exist separately from psychological addiction? -If so, how would chemical addiction present differently from physical dependence? -What exactly is psychological addiction? -Can the addictiveness of a substance be measured? -How do we determine if someone is an addict?
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 20:39
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Aha! And what did they serve to make sure you lot could stay up and focused? Coffee! There were like 12 variants of that joke during the first part of the meeting, before things got tense. It got old really fast, but it also made everyone involved even more nervous because if caffeine were in fact addictive, it could distort those involved's ability to parse or conduct their own research in an unbiased manner. This was directly brought up by the one researcher who unambiguously believed caffeine is addictive, which was a part of the later tension. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 21:22 on Dec 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 21:01
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:notice how the topic has moved from the idea of food addiction to "no, addiction isn't real". No, I don't notice how the topic has moved from the idea of food addiction to "no, addiction isn't real". Who is arguing that addiction isn't real?
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 23:09
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:It is understood that some substances cause withdrawal symptoms when you stop ingesting them, independent of psychological effects. If you are going to argue that somatic discomfort caused by physical withdrawal is a predictor of ongoing substance addiction you should post some supporting literature. KingEup fucked around with this message at 02:09 on Dec 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 23:24
|
|
|
I think you all missed the important point, which is that cheese is a drug:  Or should this go in the crazy email thread? Just let me know.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2014 00:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 08:12 |
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:I think you all missed the important point, which is that cheese is a drug: It can go in crazy emails too, I think. A quick trip to google and wikipedia suggests that casein has no harmful health effects aside from a brief mention of a possible allergy. A google of "casein addictive" leads to Dr. Oz and a similar cohort of nuts. That said, when you see addiction claims about specific food components, that's usually the audience that's targeted.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2014 04:30
|
|