From Excess to Exercise: Group Helps Men and Women Live Sober Through Sweat

re: From Excess to Exercise: Group Helps Men and Women Live Sober Through Sweat

spslferg — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 18:09:27 GMT

Great article here; the guys at Phoenix do great work, and the physical aspect of recovery is a HUGE part. I just wrote about this last week: http://addictiontomorrow.blogspot.com/2009/06/recovery-and-physical-activity.html

re: From Excess to Exercise: Group Helps Men and Women Live Sober Through Sweat

hypoicok — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 19:25:10 GMT

Re: From Excess to Exercise: Group Helps Men and Women Live Sober Through Sweat , http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thehumancondition/archive/2009/06/29/from-excess-to-exercise-group-helps-men-and-women-live-sober-through-sweat.aspx

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not against exercise as a part of a healthy recovery regimen. I'm for it. However, I am against this entire article for other reasons, many of which come right out of the article. First and foremost this article presents a method for addiction recovery based on anecdote and a complete lack of scientific validation - no studies, no data, and no appreciation for their need. This exemplifies the entire history of addiction treatments. It basically says that we don't need science to back addiction treatment. All we need is anecdote and testimonials. This philosophy has ruined the field of addiction treatment from day one in its history and has killed millions of addicts. This is irresponsible and quite damaging despite what sounds like a valid idea, except for one thing - it's not a valid idea in the context in which it is presented.

Right from the start of the piece it says the people behind this methodology don't talk about cause of addiction, that's too cerebral or something, "And there’s very little talk about the underlying cause that brings the group together." But then it says exercise raises dopamine just like drugs do, and therefore that makes it a good substitute for drugs and a promoter of recovery. Has that concept been validated anywhere in the field of addiction recovery? Are things that simulate the action of addictable drugs (raising brain dopamine) in the brain been shown to be beneficial for addiction recovery? No. In fact, today's most modern addiction treatments (medications) work just the opposite, attempt to decrease dopamine release. In fact, however, neither of these methods are good choices for promoting recovery as my book, Hypoic's Handbook, discusses in detail.

So, where does this dopamine raising justification come from? I guess the inventor of this method believes this makes sense intuitively (if it feels good and is good for you then it's automatically good for recovery). But is it really? I quote, "Exercise has been shown to help protect the brain against addiction, says Mark A. Smith, a professor of neuroscience at Davidson University. His research on rats shows that access to exercise reduces the appeal of cocaine. “Vigorous exercise increases dopamine concentrations in the brain in the same sections that are affected by cocaine,” he says. “Exercise mimics a lot of the effects of the drugs.” Really? Where has this been shown to promote recovery? Nowhere. It's completely made up in regards to human addiction. There's no evidence for this in human addiction whatsoever. Dr. Smith knows nothing about the real cause of addictions and therefore nothing about recovery. Exercise decreasing cocaine use in non-addicted rats means nothing in regards to addicted humans. It's pure unadulterated speculation even if it sounds good.

Then we have Nora Volkow putting her 2 cents in about boredom and stress causing relapse. I agree with that too, but not in the context she presents it. Her comments don't relate to the actual issue even though they sound like they do. Hypoism recovery deals with boredom and how to use "fun" activities without them being addiction substitutes. That's a major part of the Hypoism recovery method. The main issue is that recovery is not done on one's own. Self-sufficiency has no place in Hypoism recovery, the major contextual issue that differentiates safe and effective hypoism recovery from all the rest.

All this discussion and its implications must be put in the right context, not just floating around in a vacuum of "what one believes is good for recovery." What's good in one context can actually be dangerous in another context, the main point of this letter. The real issue, like it or not, is the actual cause of addictions and what works in that context and what doesn't work and why. Recovery methods have to be presented in that context because there's an important principle involved here. It is, "Doing the right thing for the wrong reason is just as bad as doing the wrong thing for the wrong reason or doing the wrong thing for no reason," as is what this article presents. My book on addiction causation and recovery says this numerous times in many different places concerning the principles of recovery based on the correct theory of addiction causation, the only correct context. I have a whole chapter on various intervention and recovery methods in the context of the correct theory of causation, Hypoism. In the context of the wrong recovery method, be it AA or psychotherapy or medications, based on self-sufficiency, exercise on its own is meaningless and for the most part dangerous, just as are other individual dopamine raising methods. Why? Remember, hypoics are born with critically low reward (dopamine and other neurotransmitters and their systems) activity. This in-born issue is what makes hypoics unconsciously seek out, use, and get addicted to dopamine raising behaviors and drugs. Things that raise reward activity and dopamine are exactly the things hypoics seek out and get addicted to. That's the definition of an addictor! That's what hypoics get addicted to. So, treating addictions with an addictor makes no sense on its face. Raising dopamine is not a treatment but a substitute addiction, and substitute addictions, when they fail to work in the long run, which they all do, get replaced with "better" addictors, like your original drug or behavior that got you into recovery to begin with. Your primary addiction worked the same way. So, in the context of recovery based on this substitute, it's absolutely contraindicated. Yet, these guys say it's a primary treatment. That's funny, no? No. That's no different from saying methadone is treatment for heroin addiction. It's not. It's a substitute addiction. Methadone patients are no more in recovery that heroin addicts given heroin. And listening to how these guys use exercise, there's no doubt that they are using it as a substitute addiction. The problem with substitute addictions is that in the long run they all fail and then the addict is faced with a dilemma - find another substitute addiction or go back to the original addiction; in other words, relapse. Absent real recovery based on the real disease, these people are sitting ducks. Besides, recovery, which no one understands, isn't just about not using the primary addictor, whatever it happens to be. Recovery is about recovery from the disease itself that caused the addiction, the disease that causes all addictions. As such, recovery is completely misunderstood under the current wrong paradigm of the hijacked brain hypothesis which says the drug caused the addiction. It isn't. That's the main problem with "treating" addictions with dopamine raising methods. They're addictors! This treatment issue is discussed in detail in my book. The reason it seems to make sense to these guys is because they have no idea what the real cause of addictions is nor anything about the brain mechanism responsible for addictions. They have no idea they have a genetic disease that causes their addictions and recovery must be from that disease, not from the addictor. They believe the drug itself caused the addiction, a completely wrong belief based on the hijacked brain hypothesis, a proven wrong theory of addiction causation. Read: http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/hypoismhypothesis/ This paper explains the whole avocado.

It turns out that exercise can be used in the recovery process but only in the correct context, the context of Hypoism recovery as discussed in my book, Hypoic's Handbook. Otherwise I think the way they are using it is merely one of many ways to end up relapsing, because they don't understand what recovery really is. This is not a good idea in the context it's presented. Moreover, proselytizing this method in the absence of proper understanding of its dangers is irresponsible and damaging to people who are looking for valid help, exactly what I'm trying to do with this letter. Exercise, a good thing in the right context. needs to be used as a "fun" thing, as discussed in my book under "balance" rather than as an addictor, the way this article and the people behind it present it.

Dan F. Umanoff, M.D.

Author of Hypoic's Handbook - The Hypoism Paradigm of Addiction.

http://www.hypoism.com

President and founder of The National Association for the Advancement and Advocacy of Addicts, Inc. (N4A), a not-for-profit 501 (c) (3) organization of addicts for addicts offering free educational and legal services to discriminated against and abused addicts of all varieties, "substances" and "behavioral," and their families.

http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/thenationalassociationfortheadvancementandadvocacyofaddicts/

8779 Misty Creek Dr.

Sarasota, FL 34241

941-929-0893

re: From Excess to Exercise: Group Helps Men and Women Live Sober Through Sweat

njander14 — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 21:21:02 GMT

I found hypoicok's comment to be a shameless plug for a book and theory based on absolutely no sound scientific evidence. Ironic, since that is what he accused the author of this article of doing. I could point out many discrepencies in his comments, but I doubt that I need to, as they should be obvious to the average reader.

re: From Excess to Exercise: Group Helps Men and Women Live Sober Through Sweat

newsforchew — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 21:33:04 GMT

@hypoicok

Are you trying to sell your book and why would down something so positive.

How Psychologists does it take to change a light bulb?

but the light bulb has got to really want to change!

As you may know, since you pulled out the MD card, your book and personal website (advertising are we?). That anything that can help an addict over come some of the mental blocks in their life and keep on the path are well worth it.

Studies have proven that working out promotes good moods, I got them, used to be called a runners high!

I have seen personal friends who have gotten off drugs an on the bike, and never looked back. I have seen it enough to know that it works, and if science is behind the curve, so be it. Thank goodness some one is posting this article, maybe it will get someone off the pipe, off the couch, and experience life.

In short, if this was all to sell your book, please pull your comment.

re: From Excess to Exercise: Group Helps Men and Women Live Sober Through Sweat

hypoicok — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 22:54:33 GMT

My first sentence contradicts your argument. However, there's no proof that exercise is an effective stand alone recovery method for any addiction. So, it's irresponsible and dangerous to say it is. I agree that it should be part of an effective treatment regimen. However, there are no scientifically proven effective addiction treatments. That's one of my major points, in addition to the point that the current addiction theories are all scientifically wrong. My paper (below) goes through that. Why not deal specifically with the issues raised in the comment? One by one. Prove them wrong with referenced studies. I'd be interested in seeing them. So would everyone else. Too bad they don't exist. Sorry, anecdotes and testimonials don't count. Here's a free paper about the Hypoism science referred to in my comment: http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/hypoismhypothesis/ . Feel free to refute it with contradictory studies. A recent study proves exactly what I hypothesize for a specific addiction, gang addiction, in my book and paper: "Which Kids Join Gangs? A Genetic Explanation," http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1903703,00.html

Original article: Monoamine oxidase A genotype is associated with gang membership and weapon use. Comprehensive Psychiatry, In Press, Corrected Proof, Available online 5 May 2009

Kevin M. Beaver, Matt DeLisi, Michael G. Vaughn, J.C. Barnes

Low activity [hypoic] genetic allele of the MAOA gene is associated with gang membership and use of violence. That's Hypoism.

re: From Excess to Exercise: Group Helps Men and Women Live Sober Through Sweat

hypoicok — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 23:00:48 GMT

Moreover, there are 5 free chapters from my book on my web site. I think that gives the reader a fair chance for free to decide if they want to buy the rest of the book. The book is one of a kind and the only book about the Hypoism theory of addiction causation and its prevention and treatment methods. It exists nowhere else. I invented it. I apologize that it costs money. But, I don't know of too many free books.

re: From Excess to Exercise: Group Helps Men and Women Live Sober Through Sweat

iw83414 — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 23:22:32 GMT

It sounds like this would be a good addition to a recovery program. I have not seen the sad, depressed, chain smoking, coffee drinking souls referred to in the piece. 74 years of A.A. has shown over and again that 12 step programs that require the member to be honest, open, and willing work. Anyone can say they have 13 years of sobriety, and he may actually be sober for 13 years. My question would be how much recovery does his program offer? How many of the things buried deep inside have been exposed to the light? I don't want sobriety, I want recovery and a new way to live. Good luck selling your snake oil.

re: From Excess to Exercise: Group Helps Men and Women Live Sober Through Sweat

njander14 — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 00:47:02 GMT

hypoicok,

Nowhere in the above article or on the Phoenix Multisport website is it stated or implied that "exercise is an effective stand alone recovery method for any addiction." On the contrary, emphasis is placed on the fact that it doesn't matter why or how Phoenix event attendees or participants became sober. The model used by Phoenix (according to their website), the Integrated Sober Active Community Model, lists as key concepts both "Integration – Opportunities to participate in a sober active community and 12 step...," and "Choice - Individuals with options who make choices feel greater ownership and accomplishment. Individual's paths to sobriety are all different and so goes their path to recovery."

I did not mean to be unkind in my earlier comment; however, I found your criticisms of the above article to be harsh and unfounded. As any competent scientist knows, correlation does not equal causation, and, unlike Dailey, who at least adds disclaimers (e.g., “Exercise mimics a lot of the effects of the drugs.” Whether this mimicry alone is enough to help wean addicts off their addiction has yet to be established."), you claim proof of your hypothesis in the article regarding gang studies that you linked. While they may support your hypothesis, neither the article, nor the study it reports on, proves anything, and they are careful not to state that they do.

re: From Excess to Exercise: Group Helps Men and Women Live Sober Through Sweat

hypoicok — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 02:36:15 GMT

I've been involved in addictions and have observed various unfounded treatments since 1978, the time I entered recovery myself. They come and go. None have ever done what they are claimed they do, none. And, for the most part, addicts have been screwed by them over and over because none have ever been founded on any scientific basis, and they frequently backfire out of the blue. All these programs have been not only useless but harmful, stimulating relapse rather than recovery. That's why in 1990 I decided to study the meager addiction literature and attempt to find the scientific basis of addictions (something that didn't exist) in order to find a rational basis for recovery and ways to prevent relapse. Luckily there was a lot good science on the genetics of addictions and the role of the reward system in the origin of addictions via the instinct regulating system (the reason the reward system was there). http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/thehypoismaddictionhypothesis/ and http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/hypoismhypothesis/ detail all this. The short explanation of all this is at: http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/hypoisminanutshell/ and is laid out sequentially here: http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/openingstatement/

However, hypoics are susceptible to anything that stimulates the reward system. Addictions, according to my interpretation of the science of addiction causation, are caused by the genetic disease of Hypoism (genetic critically low reward system activity - thus the prefix HYPO) and recovery, based on this neurobiology based model, is about the surrender of this system, the instinct regulating apparatus (which includes the decision-making apparatus) to the sponsor, similar to AA's sponsor but better defined and with much more emphasis and control (based on wheere in the brain addiction originate. Addictors (addictive drugs and addictive behaviors) all interact with this system through receptors common to those used by the endogenous brain instinct system and all raise the activity of the reward system. As explained in my original comment, addictors, even something as seeningly benign as excessive exercise, are not used for recovery but instead are guarded against because they stimilate the same brain parts that are stimulated in common addictions, no different than recommending not using addictive mood altering drugs to enhance recovery. They may feel like they're helping recovery because of the feelings engendered but in reality they are just stimulating the addicted parts of the brain. Stimulating the addicted brain either by drugs or behaviors is therefore contraindicated because they raise the chance of relapse - unconsciously stimulate craving, not recovery. They unconsciously make the addict want more and more of that stimulation. The whole concept of Hypoism recovery is to avoid the use of addictors even if using them might seem to be a good idea. Exercise addiction is a real addiction no different from any drug addiction or sex or gambling addiction. Exercise addiction, similar to drug addiction, starts the unconscious process of craving. This is a general principle. Thus, unless there is scientific proof via valid scientific studies that use of seemingly "healthy" addictions actually enhances recovery, I would say to avoid them. Moderate exercise, not enough to raise dopamine and endorphin levels, under the supervision of one's sponsor is a healthy thing. But to use excessive exercise, or any other activity or drug for that matter (because the effect is the same), for the specified purpose of stimulating the reward system is, in my opinion (because it hasn't been studied) dangerous. In Hypoism recovery, we stress acceptance of the feelings caused by the Hypoism pathophysiology, not changing them. Changing feelings always leads to addictions. I think even AA would agree with this for the same reason - stimulation of the reward system is no different from taking the first drink. If you agree with the concept of powerlessness then all this makes sense. If you think on the other hand that addicts are in control of their feelings related to relapse, something I strongly disagree with as discussed in my first comment, then go right ahead and "go for it." Ultimately though it should be studied so we can get a clear answer to this issue. This argument is all theoretical, but the theory makes sense to me because of the incidiousness of this disease - "it seemed like a good idea at the time." Recovering addicts definitely require what I call "fun" activities and this is discussed in my chapter on recovery. The concept of "fun" seems like a simple idea, but it's not because hypoics frequently mistake addictions for fun and vice versa on their own and can relapse based on this misconception. Remember, relapse is an unconscious happening just as addiction is and can't be assumed to be controllable. All these seemingly simple and "healthy fun" issues are a lot more complex than superficially assumed, and being wrong can definitely have life and death consequences. I don't critique this stuff lightly. But playing with neurobiological fire is dangerous in hypoics be it exercise or sex or money or even religion, anything that raises the reward system activity. This is why I made my original comment. I don't enjoy watching hypoics die. It's not because I'm a party pooper.