The distinction of food addiction

I was conversing the other day with my autodidact pal, Ron, when we stuck on a point about eating: He considers "food addiction" and "compulsive eating" to be the same thing, and I don't.

Though they certainly overlap, the distinct and important difference is biochemistry: People eat compulsively for several reasons — emotional upset and unresolved childhood trauma among them — but only food addicts also experience physical cravings that are triggered when some foods (or, in Michael Pollan's famous coinage, "foodlike substances") are introduced into their bodies.

The most common triggers are foods high in added fat, refined grain, and refined sugar, but some food addicts aren't triggered by all of them, and some are triggered by others. That's partly why "food addiction" is a lousy term — no one is addicted to all food, but the term invites scoffers to scoff. A better description might be "some-food addiction," but I don't think it's going to catch on.

Note that I used the word "also" a couple paragraphs back, which reflects another level of complication. Just because someone is a food addict does not mean that he or she isn't a compulsive eater (or emotional eater) as well. It does mean that those who aren't food addicts can, if they work through their trauma, once again eat in "normal" healthy ways. But someone who is both will have to abstain from trigger foods even after doing emotional work, because she or he will have tempered/removed only the emotional triggers, not all the triggers to eat.

As you know, many nutritional advisers tell their clients to eat all things in moderation, which is not helpful to people for whom eating some substances will lead them to want more of it. It's one reason that recognition of food addiction is so vital.

Though my views are not necessarily hers, my friend Sandee Nebel of White Picket Fence Counseling Center in Winter Park, Fla., covers a lot of the same ground in her most recent newsletter, and I was spurred to cover the topic today when I saw it.




One of the things that I have liked about you from day one is your ability to express yourself so very clearly.  You paraphrased our conversation with more clarity than was exhibited in the conversation itself.  Thank you.  I am not yet sure, however, that your description accurately portrayed what I believe the truth to be.  I have an issue, at least in the area of food, with whether there can be such a thing as organic addiction in a strictly physical sense and not caused by what goes on between our ears. People more knowledgeable than I have said that, for alcoholics, the bottle is but a symptom.  The food is but a symptom.  This difference (between physical organic addiction and addiction that arises out of mental activity) is demonstrated in respect to alcohol in the matter of "the first drink".  The fact is that if the alcoholic never takes the first drink he never has a problem.  If the problem were physical then once he cleaned the alcohol out of his system the problem would be solved.  The way I see it.

Author and wellness innovator Michael Prager helps smart companies
make investments in employee wellbeing that pay off in corporate success.
Video | Services | Clients