Obese Man to Sue NHS for letting him get fat.

[charlou]

[JimC]

Sure - there are gradations of addiction. One may have a mild addiction to opiates, or a severe addiction to opiates. In that sense, one may be slightly addicted.

Gliadorphin from the gluten in wheat and from similar grains, and casomorphin from the casein in milk both react with opiate receptors. Is that sufficient?

It might be. Many people have used opiates themselves and not become addicted. The mere fact that a substance reacts with opiate receptors does not mean that one is addicted to that substance. Some folks can drink alcohol and not be alcoholics, for example.

Once again I haven't denied that behavioral addictions to food exist. My position is and was that just because someone is overweight does not mean that they are, in fact, addicted.[/quote]

Basically, I agree with you; I don't think the positions of you and mistermack are that far away from each other...

It implies that you do recognise the reality of addiction in general, which I gather Cunt does not...

The interesting point is the shades of grey that occur with a developing addiction. I would say that a full-blown addiction occurs when someone reaches a point where they want to quit the activity or substance, but cannot muster the motivation to do so without outside help... Obviously, there must be intervening stages where people have a reasonable chance of quitting using their own will-power, and even earlier when quitting is slightly hard, but can be easily managed by most people if they want to. Perhaps it could be measured by the severity of the withdrawal symptoms...

[mistermack]

That about says it all Jim. I was beginning to think that parts of what I wrote were invisible.

The reason why I'm particularly interested in the addiction aspect of eating, is that I suspect that ALL addictions are indirectly linked to eating.
In that the reward mechanisms in our brains were built up because they ensured that our ancestors ate enough, not just for day-to-day needs, but to have some sort of energy store when food became scarce.

It's hard for us today to imagine what it was like, to not have access to some kind of food store. To have to go out every day and find enough to eat by gathering it or catching it.
Especially when our ancestors left the lush rain forests and ventured into less predictable areas.

What today is a tendency towards overeating was a life-preserver. And the setup of our brains was locked in towards craving that reward of dopamine etc.
The substances and behaviours that now become addictive, I believe are stimulating the same reward mechaisms in our brains that originally came about because they greatly helped survival.
So I do think, in that way, that food addiction is the original and fundamental one, and that all of the others just accidentally mimic the effect.
.

[Cunt]

The reason why I'm particularly interested in the addiction aspect of eating, is that I suspect that ALL addictions are indirectly linked to eating.
In that the reward mechanisms in our brains were built up because they ensured that our ancestors ate enough, not just for day-to-day needs, but to have some sort of energy store when food became scarce.

mistermack, I understand what you are suggesting here, but I would ask you to do me a favour with this paragraph. Could you write it without using the word 'addiction' (or 'addict' or it's other forms)? The issue I have with your posts is the vague meaning you have of that word, so if you can skip it I can be surer of understanding you.

How about a game? You pretend I am an asshole admin who changed the wank fnoglet to make 'addict' come up with 'mistermack's mother was a hamster and her father smells of elderberries'. Since no-one in the world remembers M. P., you strongly desire to avoid that kind of embarrassing verbal thrashing.

[mistermack]

The reason why I'm particularly interested in the addiction aspect of eating, is that I suspect that ALL addictions are indirectly linked to eating.
In that the reward mechanisms in our brains were built up because they ensured that our ancestors ate enough, not just for day-to-day needs, but to have some sort of energy store when food became scarce.

mistermack, I understand what you are suggesting here, but I would ask you to do me a favour with this paragraph. Could you write it without using the word 'addiction' (or 'addict' or it's other forms)? The issue I have with your posts is the vague meaning you have of that word, so if you can skip it I can be surer of understanding you.

How about a game? You pretend I am an asshole admin who changed the wank fnoglet to make 'addict' come up with 'mistermack's mother was a hamster and her father smells of elderberries'. Since no-one in the world remembers M. P., you strongly desire to avoid that kind of embarrassing verbal thrashing.

We've already established that you don't believe addiction exists, whereas I do.
I have made absolutely clear what I mean by the word addiction. It's clearly not the same as what you mean.

But my meaning has been repeated over and over, so you shouldn't have an problem actually understanding what I'm really saying, even if you don't like my use of the word.
I have to write it as I see it, and I can see clearly what you are saying, even though I don't agree with all of it.
I don't much care about the words, as much as the arguments put forward, but I simply don't see a better word.
Most people DO acknowledge that food addiction DOES exist in extreme cases.
I simply argue that lesser overeating problems are THE SAME PROBLEM, but lesser in degree, so I think it's logical to use the same word, but qualify it with the word "slight".
We'll just have to disagree about the word. But I don't follow your argument that using the word addiction is "harmful".
Quite the contrary, I think it's a useful step in acknowledging that a problem is serious, not trivial, and needs adressing.
.

[Pappa]

The reason why I'm particularly interested in the addiction aspect of eating, is that I suspect that ALL addictions are indirectly linked to eating.
In that the reward mechanisms in our brains were built up because they ensured that our ancestors ate enough, not just for day-to-day needs, but to have some sort of energy store when food became scarce.

Addictions are related to the brain's reward centre, which food plays an important part in but food is only one of many things our brain rewards us with the appropriate neurotransmitters for. I think you're looking at it the wrong way round.

[JimC]

The reason why I'm particularly interested in the addiction aspect of eating, is that I suspect that ALL addictions are indirectly linked to eating.
In that the reward mechanisms in our brains were built up because they ensured that our ancestors ate enough, not just for day-to-day needs, but to have some sort of energy store when food became scarce.

Addictions are related to the brain's reward centre, which food plays an important part in but food is only one of many things our brain rewards us with the appropriate neurotransmitters for. I think you're looking at it the wrong way round.

In a broad sense, though, mm is correct. The reward centre of the brain is an ancient mechanism, used along with pain centres as part of the motivational forces to aid survival-oriented decisions. Food is one of the critical areas it evolved to deal with, along with sex and no doubt others such as the release of endorphins. Addictions to a variety of relatively new chemicals co-opt these ancient brain functions.

[mistermack]

Addictions are related to the brain's reward centre, which food plays an important part in but food is only one of many things our brain rewards us with the appropriate neurotransmitters for. I think you're looking at it the wrong way round.

I'm making the argument that the reason that our brains HAVE these reward mechanisms, is that they originally rewarded various eating activities.
Like our liking for alcohol may have originally been linked to eating large quantities of fermenting fruit. Or our tendency to gambling addiction may have originally been a competitive kick we got, when we got the food, which our rivals also wanted. You get that little mental reward, by "winning", which get's out of control, when confronted with endless opportunities to win again and again, with little physical effort.
I think evolution put all these reward mechanisms into our brains to encourage us to eat plenty, and they just go wrong when you get the same reward from a chemical or activity, over and over again, without the effort of having to hunt and gather.

[Pappa]

Addictions are related to the brain's reward centre, which food plays an important part in but food is only one of many things our brain rewards us with the appropriate neurotransmitters for. I think you're looking at it the wrong way round.

I'm making the argument that the reason that our brains HAVE these reward mechanisms, is that they originally rewarded various eating activities.

I understand that, but we have lots of other things that are as important as food to our longterm individual survival. Food and sex are the two obvious ones, but our brains also reward us for less obvious things such as friendship (etc.), or conversely punish us with guilt. These things help us maintain relations with our group, enhancing our survival as much as food or sex. The brain rewards us for behaving in a way that is beneficial and punishes us for behaving in a way that is detrimental... focussing on food is too specific.

[mistermack]

.
I understand that, but we have lots of other things that are as important as food to our longterm individual survival. Food and sex are the two obvious ones, but our brains also reward us for less obvious things such as friendship (etc.), or conversely punish us with guilt. These things help us maintain relations with our group, enhancing our survival as much as food or sex. The brain rewards us for behaving in a way that is beneficial and punishes us for behaving in a way that is detrimental... focussing on food is too specific.

Possibly. I'm not saying it excludes any other activity. Just that food was probably the originator or most important rewarded activity. It probably started when the most primitive brains evolved.
Things like making freinds don't usually become addictive, whereas many foods do.

I'd be interested to learn why we get addicted to tobacco, what it actually does in the brain, and whether it's cutting in on a food reward system.
.

[Blondie]

I believe we develop a chemical dependence on any substance which alters our body chemistry in a non-deleterious (at least immediately so) way that is injected into our system with any regularity. Nicotine in tobacco is one example, benzodiazepines are another, alcohol is a third (though less addictive that the previous two, and perhaps the withdrawal effects are more psychosomatic than anything).

The body also develops a level of stasis with any such substance, that is a new chemical equilibrium is developed which accomodates this regularly injected chemical substance which is why you often see smokers slowly increasing their intake of nicotine over time to achieve the same high and why certain drug dosages are increased overtime - for the smoker it is to continue to feel that nicotine high, for the drug user (pharmaceutically speaking) it is to maintain the base efficacy of the drug. In both cases, withdrawal symptoms occur if the injection of the chemical substance is suddenly ceased - these can be especially harsh and difficult to live with. This is why your doctor may have you switch to a similar drug with a longer half-life but lower potency - to slowly 'wean' you off the drug and allow your natural chemical equilibrium to return to what it was prior to taking said drug.

Similar strategies are employed with smokers and nicotine - hence nicotine gum/patches.


... Now the real reason I came in this thread was to brag that I've lost 12 pounds over the past 3 months. I'm 178 now, just 3lbs overweight according to my BMI.

[Pappa]

I'd be interested to learn why we get addicted to tobacco, what it actually does in the brain, and whether it's cutting in on a food reward system.
.

Almost all psychoactive alkaloids just tap directly into our reward system by either boosting the release of, or inhibiting the reuptake of various neurotransmitters. Notably dopamine, serotonin and acetylcholine.

[mistermack]

... Now the real reason I came in this thread was to brag that I've lost 12 pounds over the past 3 months. I'm 178 now, just 3lbs overweight according to my BMI.

That's very good. I'll be happy if I just live to 178. I won't be too worried about my weight.

I don't think the BMI is much of a guide. If you have long legs, you should really be under what the BMI says, and if you're short in the leg, a bit over is ideal. Because your trunk is much heavier than your legs. I just go on what I weighed, when I really was very fit. Anywhere near that can't be too bad.

The BMI should really have a correction factor, based on your leg/body ratio.
.

[mistermack]

Almost all psychoactive alkaloids just tap directly into our reward system by either boosting the release of, or inhibiting the reuptake of various neurotransmitters. Notably dopamine, serotonin and acetylcholine.

I have a feeling there is a connection to the food system in some drugs, on top of the reward system.
People who quit smoking very often put on weight, perhaps the cigarettes were deadening hunger pangs in some way.
The coca leaf definitely does. The south american miners chew it to keep hunger pangs at bay on a long shift. So there seems to be more than just reward going on.
.

[Svartalf]

Cunt, if you have any experience of addiction, you obviously didn't learn anything from it.

What is it that you are so convinced that I don't know?

Are you suggesting that self-identifying as addicted at some point in your life, gives you a magical kind of learning which can't be learned otherwise?

So here is my question. Is it possible to be slightly addicted or not?

It's easy for me to answer since I don't believe in addiction (or sin). No, one cannot be slightly addicted any more than they can be slightly sinful.

So what is it you think I don't know?

OK bubs.

a) Cunt, Is that weird link between addction and sin just a weird ejaculation of yours, or did I miss this much of the thread (which I indeed read, as we say in French, diagonally)... because that statement strikes me a a baseless, false, and purposeless analogy. Addiction is a psychological and physiological process (the amount of either component verying with the particular case) where a given behavior, most usually the intake of a given psychoactive substance, becomes necessary for the subject to feel well, or at least not too bad. In cases like opiates, when the withdrawal symptoms are excruciatingly unpleasant, the psychological element may be all but absent since the discomfort at your body expressin its need for a fix are apt to overcome even the strongest desire to wean oneself from the substance. Denying the existence of addiction is a fact is trying to deny the law of gravitation or the wetness of water under ordinary conditions of temperature and pressur.

b) mack. Yes, it is possible to be slightly addicted. I am an alcoholic. I have to drink a daily dose of booze to feel decent, either to loosen in social situations, or just to unwind some (ethanol being one of the few anxiolytics that work reliably on me), so I can ready up for bed. Does that mean I'll rush for booze at the drop of a hat? No (though I may be grateful for a glass in some situations, or try and get one without making the occasion awkward). Does it mean that I am going to down ever increasing doses of poison to slake my urge? No, the worst of it was some years ago, my consumption has dropped considerably since. For all practical purposes, I am indeed addicted, though only to a slight degree.