[JumpCrisscross]

> labelling any observable manifestation of poor impulse control as a medical addiction is more of a social trend than a legitimate scientific discovery

What gives you the confidence to overrule medical professionals on this? (Note: I am not a doctor and have zero medical training.)

> We’re all (more or less) exposed to the “addictive substance”, it’s just some people have the ability to deprive ourselves constantly indulging that impulse, while others don’t

One, I’d challenge we’re all similarly exposed. I grew up in a house with no sugary sodas and plenty of leafy greens with each meal. Many people did not.

Two, we know from drug addiction that there is no global measure of addictiveness. Some people can smoke a cigarette or cigar or two, on average, per year. Others get hooked after their first draw. There is no reason to suspect something similar isn’t happening with obesity.

[AmericanChopper]

I’d say it stops being a useful descriptor at that point. If any activity that a person can possibly find rewarding in any way can be addictive, then everything is addictive. Because for any activity that you can possibly think of, you’ll find definitely find somebody who likes doing it.

By this criteria, I’m sure you’ll be able to find at least one eating glass addict somewhere in the world. But if we can stretch the definition to include glass as an addictive substance, then it kinda stops meaning anything at all.

And when I say these innovative addiction diagnoses are controversial, I mean within the community of clinical experts, which they are.