![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 4 to 28 of 29. Go back in thread:
Posted by galkeepinon on September 5, 2003, at 14:04:57
In reply to how about the abuse of food as a substance ?, posted by habbyshabit on September 5, 2003, at 6:00:30
Hi Hab~Great idea!!!! I've gone the OA route.............about a million times! seriously. I tried for so long to start my 'Monday diet', or the 'first of the month diet' but to no avail. Only to come to learn and understand it's not about diets! It's about emotional needs and feelings, self-esteem, and self-image. Do you agree? It's like I know what to do but haven't made an effort~like a little kid~I still want 'my cake and eat it too' ya know? LOL~but, it's no laughing matter all the same.
I think your idea is great:-)
Look forward to starting some discussion.
Take care!
> I've gone the OA route, been abstinent over 6 months and then relapsed. sooo very hard to get abstinent again. without this becomming a diet thread, can we talk about food as an addictive substance and coping stratagies?
>
> hope so,
> Hab
Posted by galkeepinon on September 5, 2003, at 14:13:11
In reply to Re: how about the abuse of food as a substance ? » habbyshabit, posted by daizy on September 5, 2003, at 7:20:48
Hi daizy, OA stands for Overeaters Anonymous and is a 12-step program that goes by the 12-steps of AA but replaces the word 'food' for alcohol. It basically goes by the exact same principles that AA does, AA (Alcoholics Anonymous) is where all the other groups originated from. In my opinion, I have seen great successs for a lot of people who work these programs. In OA, basically you 'abstain' from white sugar and flour, and of course overeating, and get support while doing so by working with a sponsor, attending meetings, etc. OA is a non-profit organization, they depend upon their own contributions (donations at meetings) it's great support for some. I stopped going a few years ago, but I did succeed when I did go and went on a camping trip too LOL much fun! Great fellowship.
Anyway............ hope that answered your question.> I certainly see food as an addictive substance, and sometimes wonder if that the root of the problem. if I didnt see it as a bad thing, it wouldnt bother me as much, therefore I wouldnt eat as much?!! I do have a very addictive personality! OA route? what's that?
Posted by daizy on September 5, 2003, at 15:32:11
In reply to Re: how about the abuse of food as a substance ? » daizy, posted by galkeepinon on September 5, 2003, at 14:13:11
Hi, yes thanx thats answered it! It must take a lot of guts to go to OA, I know I couldnt do it, or stick to it! food is too much of a comfort to me!
> Hi daizy, OA stands for Overeaters Anonymous and is a 12-step program that goes by the 12-steps of AA but replaces the word 'food' for alcohol. It basically goes by the exact same principles that AA does, AA (Alcoholics Anonymous) is where all the other groups originated from. In my opinion, I have seen great successs for a lot of people who work these programs. In OA, basically you 'abstain' from white sugar and flour, and of course overeating, and get support while doing so by working with a sponsor, attending meetings, etc. OA is a non-profit organization, they depend upon their own contributions (donations at meetings) it's great support for some. I stopped going a few years ago, but I did succeed when I did go and went on a camping trip too LOL much fun! Great fellowship.
> Anyway............ hope that answered your question.
>
> > I certainly see food as an addictive substance, and sometimes wonder if that the root of the problem. if I didnt see it as a bad thing, it wouldnt bother me as much, therefore I wouldnt eat as much?!! I do have a very addictive personality! OA route? what's that?
>
Posted by Sebastian on September 5, 2003, at 22:30:21
In reply to how about the abuse of food as a substance ?, posted by habbyshabit on September 5, 2003, at 6:00:30
Pure will power. Stick it in your head, you only can eat this small amount of food every day every meal!. Exercise helps too but then you have to be aware of mass hunger, and keep in under control. Lots of vegis, fill half you stomak with veggis each meal. If you are realy hungy have a single fruit. You will eventualy force yourself to like the stuff, then the diet is over your stomak has srunk and you can have few unhealty foods still with veggis, but you are used to it. It works once your stomak shrinks you won't take as much food to feel full, and if you control that you don't eat any large meals you won't gain weight but lose. Thats the trick shrink your stomak, do it on your own, not with surgery. It just takes a few days, week to be safe. Keep it shrunk till Every pound that you were to lose is off, no excuses, none, especialy for the first month. Only lean protien and veggis, water lots.
Posted by Sebastian on September 5, 2003, at 22:34:28
In reply to Re: how to lose weight; I did it this way; very ef, posted by Sebastian on September 5, 2003, at 22:30:21
I forgot to mention you can have a small bowl of cerial for breakfast, high fiber. In the evening stop food after 6pm supper, except for veggis. On rare occasion a small low carb fruit like strawberrys.
Posted by habbyshabit on September 6, 2003, at 5:15:31
In reply to Re: how about the abuse of food as a substance ? » daizy, posted by galkeepinon on September 5, 2003, at 14:13:11
Regarding Overeater's Annonymous - I would just correct your impression, Gailkeepinon, that people in this program refrain from white flour and sugar. SOME do, but OA does not endorse any diet, just abstinence, which is very generally defined as refraining from compulsive overeating.
When I did it, I ate using the American Diatetic Associations 5 food groups, their portion sizes and the number of portions from each group that would be appropriate to a woman of my age and activity level. With in those parameters, I ate what ever.
The OA abstinence tool I did use was the 3/0/1 rule. Three meals a day, nothing in between, and one day at at time. I lost thirty pounds. I lost my abstinence in the airport on the way to see my dying mother. A year later, I've gained it all back. Relapse.
I believe in the process, but have a hard time with the twelve step/ higher power part. I didn't attend a lot of meetings. I was going to go back to that routine the first of sept, but I only had one abstinent day.
We all know diets don't work, but make eating disorders worse. And I think the phrase "eating disorder" is just a euphemism for addiction. Whether it's addiction to throwing up, eating too few calories, overexercising, overeating compulsively, Junk food cravings that MUST be met, etc.
I do think some of us are true addicts to food.
Why we are, where the addiction is located - in the brain, in the foods, in our psyche - I just don't know. It does seem to run in families...
Posted by Sebastian on September 6, 2003, at 16:33:29
In reply to Re: how about the abuse of food as a substance ? » galkeepinon, posted by habbyshabit on September 6, 2003, at 5:15:31
Two phases of fat in my life, each time I lost it in record time and not put it back on. Once when I was turning into a teen I had just moved very far south put on 50 extra. Two years after I moved back north I went on a 3 month crash diet and exercise, droped from 130 to 90. Kept the weight off for another 10-12 years, moved back down to the states and took zyprexa, slowely put on 80 lbs in 3 years (150 to 230). Just last January I went on anouther crash diet and exercise, lost 30 lbs in the first month, I'm down to 170 now.
Sebastian
Posted by galkeepinon on September 6, 2003, at 17:47:04
In reply to Re: how about the abuse of food as a substance ? » galkeepinon, posted by habbyshabit on September 6, 2003, at 5:15:31
You say tomato I say tomahto, you're right OA does not endorse any diet. What I do know is when I attended for 4 years, my abstinence included abstaining from white flour and white sugar. People who attend OA use the program to fit their own personal needs and choose to tailor the program to THEIR needs regardless of whether it's abstaing or refraining.
That's great you lost 30 pounds. Relapse does happen, I must have relapsed a number of times, but my sponsor was right there to help and encourage me.
I agree that the gene for addiction DOES run in families..........
> Regarding Overeater's Annonymous - I would just correct your impression, Gailkeepinon, that people in this program refrain from white flour and sugar. SOME do, but OA does not endorse any diet, just abstinence, which is very generally defined as refraining from compulsive overeating.
>
> When I did it, I ate using the American Diatetic Associations 5 food groups, their portion sizes and the number of portions from each group that would be appropriate to a woman of my age and activity level. With in those parameters, I ate what ever.
>
> The OA abstinence tool I did use was the 3/0/1 rule. Three meals a day, nothing in between, and one day at at time. I lost thirty pounds. I lost my abstinence in the airport on the way to see my dying mother. A year later, I've gained it all back. Relapse.
>
> I believe in the process, but have a hard time with the twelve step/ higher power part. I didn't attend a lot of meetings. I was going to go back to that routine the first of sept, but I only had one abstinent day.
>
> We all know diets don't work, but make eating disorders worse. And I think the phrase "eating disorder" is just a euphemism for addiction. Whether it's addiction to throwing up, eating too few calories, overexercising, overeating compulsively, Junk food cravings that MUST be met, etc.
>
> I do think some of us are true addicts to food.
> Why we are, where the addiction is located - in the brain, in the foods, in our psyche - I just don't know. It does seem to run in families...
Posted by habbyshabit on September 7, 2003, at 5:59:28
In reply to Re: how about the abuse of food as a substance ? » habbyshabit, posted by galkeepinon on September 6, 2003, at 17:47:04
hey galkeepinon, I think there is an OA subgroup, sort of, called OA How and they do follow a particular food plan that does require them to refrain from white flour and sugar, which definitely are trigger foods.
I stayed off all refined foods before for five years before I started living with my husband. I lost 62lbs over 3 years and kept it off for the next two. I thought I had it whipped.
I move in with my meat and potatoe husband ( and cookies and candy and chips ) and I gained 20 back in the first 5 months. So I know staying off the flour and sugar stuff can have a huge impact. I lived alone when I ate like that so I had a lot of control over my enviroment and kept all that refined food out of my house. I didn't call it a diet at the time - but a health food kick. Ah, the struggles formerly fat and the formally skinny!
Hab
Posted by Larry Hoover on September 7, 2003, at 9:33:17
In reply to Re: how to lose weight; I did it this way; very ef, posted by Sebastian on September 5, 2003, at 22:30:21
> Pure will power. Stick it in your head, you only can eat this small amount of food every day every meal!.... Only lean protien and veggis, water lots.
I've studied the evidence at great length, and you may be interested to know that fat doesn't make you fat. It's the carbs and sugars. Carbs and sugars cause your liver to create a particular type of fat that gets stored very efficiently. The fat is made from the carbs, in a process known as de novo lipogenesis, Latin for "new fat creation".
As fat consumption has gone down over the last fifteen years, how is that obesity has nearly doubled? How do you explain the type 2 diabetes incidence in children? It used to be called adult-onset diabetes, but that name just doesn't work any more. Obesity and diabetes are explainable by portion size, or reduction in activity level, although those are confounding factors. It's the carb intake. Fat is an obesity neutral food, unless it's eaten with carbs. But carbs will make you fat, all on their own.
You might want to read this article:
http://www.ahcj.umn.edu/controversy1.htm#taubpiece
Lar
Posted by Sebastian on September 7, 2003, at 9:51:26
In reply to Re: how to lose weight; » Sebastian, posted by Larry Hoover on September 7, 2003, at 9:33:17
You must be refering to the carbs I had for breakfast? Only breakfast, No carbs any other time of the day. Worked for me?
Posted by galkeepinon on September 7, 2003, at 13:22:41
In reply to Re: how about the abuse of food as a substance ?, posted by habbyshabit on September 7, 2003, at 5:59:28
hey Hab, yeah, H.O.W. Is another 'subgroup' type of OA~~Honest,Open, and Willing~ a little more strict, in my opinion, but nonetheless, very successful. Wow, you just brought back some memories.
Good for you~62 pounds?!!!That's awesome!!! And even though you gained a little back, that's ok, we're not perfect remember, we gotta be gentle with ourselves here somehow. I really want to get back on some sort of program to lose my extra weight, for health reasons!
I hear you sooooooooo much~Ah, the struggles formerly fat and the formally skinny!
gal> hey galkeepinon, I think there is an OA subgroup, sort of, called OA How and they do follow a particular food plan that does require them to refrain from white flour and sugar, which definitely are trigger foods.
>
> I stayed off all refined foods before for five years before I started living with my husband. I lost 62lbs over 3 years and kept it off for the next two. I thought I had it whipped.
>
> I move in with my meat and potatoe husband ( and cookies and candy and chips ) and I gained 20 back in the first 5 months. So I know staying off the flour and sugar stuff can have a huge impact. I lived alone when I ate like that so I had a lot of control over my enviroment and kept all that refined food out of my house. I didn't call it a diet at the time - but a health food kick. Ah, the struggles formerly fat and the formally skinny!
>
> Hab
Posted by galkeepinon on September 8, 2003, at 5:37:21
In reply to Re: how to lose weight; » Sebastian, posted by Larry Hoover on September 7, 2003, at 9:33:17
Long, long article, thank you for posting this. It is very interesting and I agree, carbs and sugar do the damage. (cause the obesity)
plain and simple. It seems difficult to comprehend when the fact of the matter is, it doesn't have to be. We need to expend more energy than caloric matter we take in if we're going to lose fat/excess weight. However, what are your thoughts on the psychological/emotional aspects of food substance abuse?
Do you think that it is wise to say that an intelligent person who is obese may have underlying emotional issues that are preventing them to lose their excess fat, and if so, how does that person succeed in losing the fat?
Very interested in your thoughts.
Thanks.
> I've studied the evidence at great length, and you may be interested to know that fat doesn't make you fat. It's the carbs and sugars. Carbs and sugars cause your liver to create a particular type of fat that gets stored very efficiently. The fat is made from the carbs, in a process known as de novo lipogenesis, Latin for "new fat creation".
>
> As fat consumption has gone down over the last fifteen years, how is that obesity has nearly doubled? How do you explain the type 2 diabetes incidence in children? It used to be called adult-onset diabetes, but that name just doesn't work any more. Obesity and diabetes are explainable by portion size, or reduction in activity level, although those are confounding factors. It's the carb intake. Fat is an obesity neutral food, unless it's eaten with carbs. But carbs will make you fat, all on their own.
>
> You might want to read this article:
>
> http://www.ahcj.umn.edu/controversy1.htm#taubpiece
>
> Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on September 8, 2003, at 6:42:02
In reply to Lar~Thanks, posted by galkeepinon on September 8, 2003, at 5:37:21
> Long, long article, thank you for posting this. It is very interesting and I agree, carbs and sugar do the damage. (cause the obesity)
The issue is by no means "settled". There has been a body of debate, not surprisingly, and you may want to spend some time reading "the other side", and retorts, and so on. Numerous links embedded, and at the bottom of the page.
http://web.mit.edu/knight-science/fellows/inside_the_story.html
The fact is, Taube raised some very inmportant points, did so in a scientifically grounded manner, and I have found ample evidence that he did not cite which supports his perspective. With respect to low-fat dieting, the Emperor wears no clothes. We've been had.
> plain and simple. It seems difficult to comprehend when the fact of the matter is, it doesn't have to be. We need to expend more energy than caloric matter we take in if we're going to lose fat/excess weight.
On diets which are exactly matched for calories, low-carb dieters lose twice the weight that low-fat dieters do. That has recently been proven, but no one can explain it yet. Moreover, low-carb dieters don't complain about hunger.
> However, what are your thoughts on the psychological/emotional aspects of food substance abuse?
It's a mood-altering coping strategy. When you get into specific aspects like bulimia, a person is getting off on the food, then throws up to avoid the weight. If the vomitting wasn't physically harmful, the links to aspects of self-image weren't so burdensome, and the guilt, etc. weren't spiritually toxic, I don't think it would be a negative process. <irony intended> After all, the ancient Romans had special rooms called regurgitoriums, fully staffed, to permit a return to the feast absent the limits of stomach volume. Food is a socially acceptable way to modify mood. Going out to a five-star restaurant is not about "not doing the dishes tonight", ya know?
> Do you think that it is wise to say that an intelligent person who is obese may have underlying emotional issues that are preventing them to lose their excess fat, and if so, how does that person succeed in losing the fat?
Two aspects to that question. It is sensible to use introspection to determine if a person is eating for reasons other than nutrition. "What hole in your life are you really trying to fill?" I'm quite familiar with OA. If there had been more men there, I might have stuck around.
The other involves the total misinformation supplied to the public. Low-fat diets are unhealthy, and they don't work except for brief periods of time when willpower can trump physiology. Look at Oprah.
If you don't like Atkins (not everybody does), another good model diet is the Paleolithic diet. It's based on some assumptions about what was available to our pre-agricultural predecessors. Frankly, that's where we evolved into what we are today. There was no grain to speak of, for example. No vegetable oils (as we use them). That sort of thing.
> Very interested in your thoughts.
> Thanks.Happy to oblige. You know me.....
Gotta run. I'm on the road in an hour.Lar
Posted by Susan J on September 10, 2003, at 12:26:29
In reply to Re: Lar~Thanks » galkeepinon, posted by Larry Hoover on September 8, 2003, at 6:42:02
Larry,
>>On diets which are exactly matched for calories, low-carb dieters lose twice the weight that low-fat dieters do. That has recently been proven, but no one can explain it yet. Moreover, low-carb dieters don't complain about hunger.
>>I have absolutely no scientific proof of what I'm going to say, only my own struggles with food for 20 years. I "think" the reason low-carb dieters lose more is that carbs spike blood sugar and I swear when it drops you become much hungrier. And when you have massive hunger, it's really hard not to cheat and eat a little bit more...Did that study account for folks who cheated on their diets, even a little bit? When I make sure I have a good proportion of healthy fat in my diet, it is so much easier to stick to a diet plan....
Purely anecdotal of course. But it really *is* interesting how often the definition of a *healthy* diet changes...
Posted by Larry Hoover on September 13, 2003, at 8:48:44
In reply to Low-Carb vs. Low-Diet » Larry Hoover, posted by Susan J on September 10, 2003, at 12:26:29
> Larry,
>
> >>On diets which are exactly matched for calories, low-carb dieters lose twice the weight that low-fat dieters do. That has recently been proven, but no one can explain it yet. Moreover, low-carb dieters don't complain about hunger.
>
> >>I have absolutely no scientific proof of what I'm going to say, only my own struggles with food for 20 years.Anecdote is still science, if the data is collected with honesty....
> I "think" the reason low-carb dieters lose more is that carbs spike blood sugar and I swear when it drops you become much hungrier.
Glycemic index issues have been raised many times with respect to carbs. However, fats signal satiety, the feeling of having had enough, far more effectively than do carbs.
> And when you have massive hunger, it's really hard not to cheat and eat a little bit more...Did that study account for folks who cheated on their diets, even a little bit?
From what I can gather, from the evidence available to date, is that on equal calories, there is greater weight loss from carb-restricted diets. In other words, there's something else going on that isn't calorie-driven. The belief that a calorie is a calorie is a calorie may be false.
> When I make sure I have a good proportion of healthy fat in my diet, it is so much easier to stick to a diet plan....
Yes, because your body may use fat intake to "measure" food intake. Restrict fat, and you "don't have enough food, yet", all the time.
Gary Taubes discusses the issue quite effectively, here:
http://www.reason.com/0303/taubes.shtml
> Purely anecdotal of course. But it really *is* interesting how often the definition of a *healthy* diet changes...
As a scientist, I can say that the public message, the one that the political side of science projects, is changing all the time. But that's not because of the science. That's pure politics. We grow so much grain, that we have to do something with it. Grain was never a significant part of the human food chain up until the last couple of thousand years. In the last 50, grain production has increased exponentially. We didn't evolve in an environment that included grains. Why should it be a surprise that they're not what's best for us to eat?
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on September 13, 2003, at 9:03:40
In reply to Low-Carb vs. Low-Diet » Larry Hoover, posted by Susan J on September 10, 2003, at 12:26:29
> And when you have massive hunger, it's really hard not to cheat and eat a little bit more...Did that study account for folks who cheated on their diets, even a little bit?
Here's an abstract of one of the studies Taube mentions. All patients were hospitalized, so there would be no cheating (I'd presume). Discussion below....
Am J Clin Nutr. 1996 Feb;63(2):174-8.
Comment in:
Am J Clin Nutr. 1996 Nov;64(5):823-5.Similar weight loss with low- or high-carbohydrate diets.
Golay A, Allaz AF, Morel Y, de Tonnac N, Tankova S, Reaven G.
Department of Medicine, Geneva University Hospital, Switzerland.
The goal of this study was to evaluate the effect of diets that were equally low in energy but widely different in relative amounts of fat and carbohydrate on body weight during a 6-wk period of hospitalization. Consequently, 43 adult, obese persons were randomly assigned to receive diets containing 4.2 MJ/d (1000 kcal/d) composed of either 32% protein, 15% carbohydrate, and 53% fat, or 29% protein, 45% carbohydrate, and 26% fat. There was no significant difference in the amount of weight loss in response to diets containing either 15% (8.9 +/- 0.6 kg) or 45% (7.5 +/- 0.5 kg) carbohydrate. Furthermore, significant decreases in total body fat and waist-to-hip circumference were seen in both groups, and the magnitude of the changes did not vary as a function of diet composition. Fasting plasma glucose, insulin, cholesterol, and triacylglycerol concentrations decreased significantly in patients eating low-energy diets that contained 15% carbohydrate, but neither plasma insulin nor triacylglycerol concentrations fell significantly in response to the higher-carbohydrate diet. The results of this study showed that it was energy intake, not nutrient composition, that determined weight loss in response to low-energy diets over a short time period.
Glucose, insulin, cholesterol and triglycerides all improved on the low-carb diet. Emphasis. High-fat = lower cholesterol and triglycerides. Does that not contradict the political message that fat restriction will improve those parameters?
Secondly, as Taubes indicates, the low-carb (high fat) dieters lost more weight than the other group. The error bars (the statistical spread) does not overlap ("There was no significant difference in the amount of weight loss in response to diets containing either 15% (8.9 +/- 0.6 kg) or 45% (7.5 +/- 0.5 kg) carbohydrate."), which means that the groups were distinct. Why it was not reported as a significant group difference is not explained, but without the full text, I can't examine the statistical methodology. It meets the definition of a significant difference, on its face.
Bottom line: We've been lied to. The USDA created the Food Pyramid to increase grain consumption, and then the mythical health benefits were fabricated. That's my belief of what happened, anyway.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on September 13, 2003, at 14:57:11
In reply to Low-Carb vs. Low-Diet » Larry Hoover, posted by Susan J on September 10, 2003, at 12:26:29
Look at the correlation coefficient in this study.....
It should be noted that sugar consumption may be a marker for a broader dietary influence, i.e. highly processed foods.
Lar
Depress Anxiety 2002;16(3):118-20A cross-national relationship between sugar consumption and major depression?
Westover AN, Marangell LB.
Mood Disorders Center (MDOC), Department of Psychiatry, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA. anwestover@yahoo.com
We have preliminarily investigated the hypothesis that sugar consumption may impact the prevalence of major depression by correlating per capita consumption of sugar with the prevalence of major depression. Major depression prevalence data (annual rate/100) was obtained from the Cross-National Epidemiology of Major Depression and Bipolar Disorder study [Weissman et al., 1996]. Sugar consumption data from 1991 was obtained from the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. For the primary analysis, sugar consumption rates (cal/cap/day) were correlated with the annual rate of major depression, using the Pearson correlation coefficient. For the six countries with available data for the primary analysis, there was a highly significant correlation between sugar consumption and the annual rate of depression (Pearson correlation 0.948, P=0.004). Naturally, a correlation does not necessarily imply etiology. Caveats such as the limited number of countries with available data must be considered. Although speculative, there are some mechanistic reasons to consider that sugar consumption may directly impact the prevalence of major depression. Possible relationships between sugar consumption, beta-endorphins, and oxidative stress are discussed.
Posted by Susan J on September 14, 2003, at 17:50:24
In reply to Re: Low-Carb vs. Low-Diet » Susan J, posted by Larry Hoover on September 13, 2003, at 8:48:44
Larry,
> When I make sure I have a good proportion of healthy fat in my diet, it is so much easier to stick to a diet plan....
Yes, because your body may use fat intake to "measure" food intake. Restrict fat, and you "don't have enough food, yet", all the time.
Gary Taubes discusses the issue quite effectively, here:
http://www.reason.com/0303/taubes.shtml
That's a really interesting way to look at it! And thanks for the link, I'll look it over.
Susan
Posted by Susan J on September 14, 2003, at 17:52:35
In reply to Re: sugar and depression » Susan J, posted by Larry Hoover on September 13, 2003, at 14:57:11
Larry,
>>For the six countries with available data for the primary analysis, there was a highly significant correlation between sugar consumption and the annual rate of depression (Pearson correlation 0.948, P=0.004). Naturally, a correlation does not necessarily imply etiology. Caveats such as the limited number of countries with available data must be considered. Although speculative, there are some mechanistic reasons to consider that sugar consumption may directly impact the prevalence of major depression. Possible relationships between sugar consumption, beta-endorphins, and oxidative stress are discussed.
<<Wow! I owe you HUGE if you have pointed me in the direction that alleviates both my depression and battle with sugar. :-) Thanks!
Susan
Posted by friendofbillw on September 30, 2003, at 20:52:32
In reply to how about the abuse of food as a substance ?, posted by habbyshabit on September 5, 2003, at 6:00:30
I too have been on the troubled by food abuse. I came across this amamzing article and have had some correspondence with the MD who wrote it. He speaks of low dopamine levels and obesity..
You may want to click and see what he wrote about it. I was someone who did exceptionally well on phen-fen and suffered when it was taken off the market. I was able to quit drinking while on phen-fen, which was HUGE for me. I felt like it was a magic bullet. My life got so much better with it. When it went off the market, I drank again and ended up in treatment. When I tried to convince someone that the dopamine-seratonin of phen-fen was magic bill for sobriety, I was told that I was just doing drug-seeking behavior. I've been sober for 4 years now by using AA. However, I really have become quite heavy and feel that I did switch addictions from alcohol to food. So, having said all of that. I'm going to try wellbutrin and hoping to get the benefit for my ADD which is so frustrating for me. Also, since wellbutrin is a dopamine reuptake drug and is not a controlled substance, I'm hoping to see a difference in my ability to loss weight and feel motivated without abusing it. If you read the link article, and consider my benefits with phen-fen, you may understand my quest. I'll post in the future and let you know how it goes.
> I've gone the OA route, been abstinent over 6 months and then relapsed. sooo very hard to get abstinent again. without this becomming a diet thread, can we talk about food as an addictive substance and coping stratagies?
>
> hope so,
> Hab
Posted by Susan J on October 1, 2003, at 8:39:57
In reply to abuse of food as a substance ?--wellbutrin?, posted by friendofbillw on September 30, 2003, at 20:52:32
Hiya,
Just wanted to say that when I was on Paxil, I gained over 20 pounds in a very short period of time. Since being on Wellbutrin (2 or so months), I've lost almost all of that weight. Don't know if it's the lack of Paxil or the addition of Wellbutrin, but I'm happy. It's not like a magic fat burner to me, though. It has helped me get back energy and motivation to make good food choices and I exercise every day now.
So I say, go for the Wellbutrin if it helps your ADD, the weight loss is a nice side effect, and I've experienced so few good side effects on drugs.
Susan
Posted by femlite on October 5, 2003, at 0:23:42
In reply to Wellbutrin » friendofbillw, posted by Susan J on October 1, 2003, at 8:39:57
Susan,
taking wellbutrin, desperately seeking side effect expereinces. Weak legs biggest one so far. Anything similar? Id like this to work out.
Ill take my answer off the air ..er uh I mean on the med board if nec.
thank you
Posted by mtdew on October 5, 2003, at 23:59:37
In reply to Re: sugar and depression » Larry Hoover, posted by Susan J on September 14, 2003, at 17:52:35
I absolutely believe there is a connection between depression and diet. Up until about six months ago, I was severely depressed and constantly felt tired and paradoxically agitated. I was diagnosed with depression and an anxiety disorder. Since then I discovered on the internet information about blood sugar fluctuations and how they can cause incredible suffering, in some cases leading to suicide. I changed my diet, removing all sugar and minimizing all other carbohydrates. Within a couple of days, my life began to do a 180. Sitting here now, I would never go back to eating a "normal" diet. My black depression lifted, my anxiety disappeared. And as long as I avoid eating too many carbs, they stay gone.
I still have lingering fatigue, and other symptoms, which I believe are CFS. I have also lost weight, which is a problem for me since I have always been underweight. But nothing I experience now can match the suffering I endured before switching to a low-carb diet.
I urge anyone suffering from so-called mental illness to read the page I have linked below, and consider trying the diet. It will only take a few minutes, and it may help you get off the psychiatric merry-go-round and offer real hope.
http://www.guaidoc.com/hypoglycemia.htm
mtdew
Posted by Susan J on October 6, 2003, at 8:13:02
In reply to Re: Wellbutrin » Susan J, posted by femlite on October 5, 2003, at 0:23:42
> Susan,
> taking wellbutrin, desperately seeking side effect expereinces. Weak legs biggest one so far. Anything similar? Id like this to work out.
> Ill take my answer off the air ..er uh I mean on the med board if nec.
> thank youHi. I didn't have *weak* legs, but now I remember that I had what I called muscle twinges in my lower legs. Deep inside the legs. I'm not sure what they were, perhaps in the veins, but all I could think of was blood clots and that I was going to die. :-) I also had swollen ankles. All of this subsided after I'd been on Wellbutrin for about 7 weeks.
My side effects:
Nothing right away.
After about a week, got really irritable/angry.
Much more energy.
Those muscle twinges started after about 2 weeks.
Swollen ankles started after about 3 weeks.Hope that helps.
Susan
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Substance Use | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.