Compulsive eating is not a matter of character — but it is not a matter of disease, either. I sympathize with the author of “Compulsive Eating Is a Disease” and her struggle through years of painful dieting experiences, but ultimately, promoting Overeaters Anonymous is no different than promoting any other diet. They boast the same basic tenets: creating an enemy in food, promoting restriction, and compelling suppression of our internal cues. No one is born “addicted” to white flour; what makes us think that this is some defect acquired in adulthood?
Our myopic view of food and eating is questionable at its best, and downright harmful at its worst. If we’ve become unscientific and vague around the way we believe we should eat, it’s because it’s an emotional and deeply personal subject. Guilt and shame around food is a powerful driver of obsession with our eating behaviors, but this is not a disease — it’s an outcome of deprivation.
In the Minnesota Starvation Experiment of 1944, men who were subjected to calorie restriction became obsessed with food, poring over cookbooks and recipes despite no previous interest in such things. The sense of obsession continued for a time even after they were weight-restored and returned to an unrestricted diet. Our bodies are hard-wired to protect us against starvation — both mental and physical. It is the very cycle of restriction and obsession with “off-limits” foods that leads to claims of food addiction.