Slashdot Mirror
Fatty Foods May Cause Cocaine-Like Addiction
WrongSizeGlass writes "A new study in rats suggests that high-fat, high-calorie foods affect the brain in much the same way as cocaine and heroin. The rats that gorged themselves on the human food quickly became obese."
If you consider what the most fast and junk food are:
pizzas, hamburgers, hot dogs, french fries, sandwiches, kebab rolls, baguettes, kfc's fried chicken, pan pizzas, nuggets and so on.. like this illustrative image shows.
It's not only high-fat thats the problem, but also high-carb. I never really crave for high-fat but low-carb food and my body feels a lot better with low-carb food. It's the combination of high-fat and high-carb that is bad, and leaves all the fat in your body because carbs burn first.
Does this mean fatty food is "that" addictive, or does this perhaps mean cocaine isn't that addictive? Though I suppose the mere notion of shades of "addictiveness" can be dishonest itself, considering the binary nature of addiction (you either are, or you aren't, and exhibit a different set of behaviors based on that).
Also, I wonder if this study holds true for various other pleasurable inputs. As far as anyone knows, cocaine acts by causing direct stimulation of the reward center, a property shared by (as far as I know) any behavior the brain seeks to reinforce, including eating energy dense foods, so I wonder if things like bathing and receiving affection could also demonstrate similar "cocaine-like addictions," witness OCD handwashing and narcissism.
Seems like the scientists continue to find supporting evidence for the brilliant motto, "Everything in moderation. Including moderation." Except probably cocaine.
Assuming that rats and humans are somewhat similar in their responses, this paints a really sickening and embarrassing picture of fat people. Although they are harmed physically by their obesity, they continue at their own detriment. Maybe they really are like the obese rats who continue to eat food in the face of physical pain, when the healthier rats have been scared away.
Systemd: the PulseAudio of init systems
They taste a lot better most of the time than stuff that is good for you without qualification. That keeps your brain cookin with pleasure-inducing chemistry.
The one thing about these foods that I don't agree with is that the poor need to eat them because they can't afford food that is good for them. That's a load of rubbish. My wife has been able to buy enough good, canned vegetables like beans, chickpeas and corn to feed a family of four for at least a week for $50. You can do a lot with those staples if you try.
High fat is not the problem at all. Try gorging yourself on a block of good cheddar and see how much you can eat and how addictive it is. It's not. The addiction is all in the sugars, starches and carbohydrates in general.
Now to read the actual paper:http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/vaop/ncurrent/pdf/nn.2519.pdf
"The cafeteria diet consisted of bacon, sausage, cheesecake, pound cake, frosting and chocolate" - in other words, full of sugar!!! Yet the news article says it's "fatty foods..." when in reality, it's sugary foods the rats were being fed, that fat being incidental. But of course, the sugar lobby is strong...
-- oldthinkers unbellyfeel ingsoc
It's not only high-fat thats the problem, but also high-carb. I never really crave for high-fat but low-carb food and my body feels a lot better with low-carb food. It's the combination of high-fat and high-carb that is bad, and leaves all the fat in your body because carbs burn first.
High fat versus low fat ... high carbohydrate versus low carbohydrate ... the problem is probably better defined as incorrect portion sizing. High fat or high carbohydrate foods are only themselves the problem when you give them to a mindless animal that has a stomach evolved to pack in as much as it can when given to it. When you give a dog five pounds of bacon, it will eat as much as its stomach can hold. It'd do the same thing with a deer carcass but would more than likely get less fat and less calories in it. If our ancestors could sit around eating pizza all day, they'd do it. If they could have made white bread, they would have. Bacon tastes good because it's high fat and high calories. We evolved to seek these things out because they are -- in moderation or small doses -- quite good for our combustion engines. They're rare in nature but great for our energy levels so we crave them. No two ways around that fact.
I know why we blame fat, carbohydrates and foods that are high in them. It's because we don't want to acknowledge that the problem is our own self control and dietary understanding. Food science has evolved to give us whatever we want and we're just not responsible with it. Some regulation is necessary like banning trans fats when an alternative can be used but you're going to get nowhere if you try to focus on vaguely assigned designators as "high-fat" or "high-carb" food. Public awareness, responsible eating and self control are your best weapons here. Put the blame back on those that are responsible: the eaters.
We all evolved to like bacon and pizza and the like. Now act responsibly. In my youth I would eat a whole large deep dish pepperoni pizza. I can still eat that much, I just recognize that my caloric needs when it comes to pizzas is two slices for a meal. I understand some people have lower sensitivity dopamine receptors but that's just how you were born and you should deal with it. At some point we're all flawed in some way. Why do people find that controlling their eating is so difficult?
Note: if there's one thing the government should do, it's put capitalism back in action and remove the subsidiaries being paid out to ensure that corn syrup is cheaper than cane. Or that bacon is cheaper than a fish filet. Although it's great for the United States economy, it's had some very negative results on our belts.
My work here is dung.
In the Documentary Super Size Me, several Doctor's noted the same behavior and stated that Fatty Foods found in Fast Food restaurants (McDonald's in this example) were equal to cocaine in terms of addiction.
string.Empty();
But eating junk food produces a high, a euphoric feeling sometimes. I suppose that's why some foods are called "comfort food".
I can't compare to drug addiction, because I've never experienced that, but a high is definitely present.
Sometimes, with my tinfoil hat on, I've wondered if Taco Bell was slipping something addictive into the food that makes me keep coming back.
Bacon is sugary? Sausage is sugary? Granted, the cake entries are both high-fat and high-sugar, but saying all the food items are high-sugar is wrong. They are all high-fat, though.
Low carb diet is the best diet for losing weight because it works with the body's systems. Carbs are the primary fuel. Take away the primary and it goes to secondary. Be aware of the risks of organ damage and aware of what you intake and you will be fine.
Problem with the low-carb diet is that it is hard to maintain. HARD to maintain. All casual foods are ridiculously high in carbs. Still, when you can do it, it works every time and works extremely well.
To be fair, your body uses fructose too, it's just used by the liver, not by each individual cell. Too much fructose is a problem, but your body does need and use some fructose.
$_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
I think this is another case where the media turn something that might be good: increased understanding of how obesity works, into something bad: telling obese people that they have no control over their behaviour, fueling the "it's no my fault, I have a serious illness" justification for doing nothing to help themselves.
beauty is only a light switch away
Is there really a cure for *anything* that's addictive for "everyone"? (pls note the links at the end of the article) http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/03/28/fatty.foods.brain/
A lot of sausages actually contain a lot of carbohydrates. If you eat sausages, you should go with the ones that are almost full meat. The common belief is that bacon is some extremely fatty food, but it really isn't if you don't mix it with carbohydrates. It's salty though, and that's not really good either.
In Eastern Europe, salo (UK, RU)/szalonna (HU)/slanina (RO), which is bacon with everything except the pure fat skimmed off and then smoked, is eaten daily by many people and they don't tire of it. There, there isn't any maple syrup or pancakes to blame its popularity on. Pure lard is indeed highly appealing to people.
Bacon tastes good because it's high fat and high calories.
No, it tastes good because it is both salty and moderately smoked. With low carb intake, it will make you lose your weight. Calories, measured by burning food in calorimeter, are not good measure of fattening or even energy providing effects of food. When I was on Atkins's, I ate bacon instead of bread ("So Bart butter your bacon") and lost 20 pounds. I must admit I felt hungry all the time, and I mean exhausted, starving, not "my stomach growls" hungry. Fatty foods on their own, your body just can't use them. However, add carbohydrates in - all hell breaks loose. OTOH, food high in carbs low in fat doesn't taste good, doesn't satiate. You could eat all day and still want more. Obviously, there is a sweet spot (no pun intended) of carbs to fats ratio where your meals have best fill to energy intake ratio. If you cut on fats, you end up eating more. If you take too fatty food without severely reducing carbohydrates, you will overshoot your energy needs and start getting obese. IMHO, we should get back too traditional recipes and meals (and portions, which were more modest back then) and start from there. It seems it worked for most folks in their time.
Low carb diet is the best diet for losing weight because it works with the body's systems. Carbs are the primary fuel. Take away the primary and it goes to secondary. Be aware of the risks of organ damage and aware of what you intake and you will be fine.
Problem with the low-carb diet is that it is hard to maintain. HARD to maintain. All casual foods are ridiculously high in carbs. Still, when you can do it, it works every time and works extremely well.
Any diet that focuses on anything other than caloric intake presents a risk that you will fail, and a risk to your health. Mostly these 'fad' type diets are just a way to avoid doing math.
Physics is real simple. If fewer calories go into your body than what you expend, you will lose weight. Simple. If you want to lose weight, forget about carbs, fat grams, protein, fiber or any other item that we've been told to watch. Just do the bloody math. Figure out how many calories are in what you eat. Keep lowering the number you take in until you start losing weight at a sensible pace.
I've worked with a number of overweight/obese people. Many of them have tried the fad diets. Almost all fail. Why? It's simple:
Diets that don't focus on calories tend to focus on something that is a general indication of how many calories are in the food. Low carbs, high protein, high fiber foods tend to have fewer calories than their counterparts. So, the theory goes, eat those and you'll lose.
But here's the problem. Not all foods in those groups are low calorie. At first, people on these diets lose weight. Why? Because they eat from a wide range of foods available in those categories. But it doesn't take long, and the people on these diets learn which of these foods taste good -- and then they focus on eating those instead of that wide range they ate before.
No surprise, the foods within those groups that they like turn out to be the ones that are high calorie. Suddenly, they stop losing weight.
The 'diets' I've put folks on are simple low-calorie diets. Simply put 'here is the number of calories you can eat in a week'. Eat that and no more and you will lose weight. Want to eat more calories? OK. Then you need to exercise. Use up more calories.
The theory isn't hard. It really isn't. You just have to be willing to do the math. (Of course, you also have to be willing to stick with the lower calorie count, which is where most people fall over, but that's true of any diet.)
Nothing in that article tells me whether they controlled for consumption. Does anyone have a link to the actual article published in PBB? My institution doesn't subscribe, and it's impossible to comment intelligently without reading the actual article. FWIW, the corn lobby claims that they didn't control for consumption at all:
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
The "Rat Park" experiment showed that addictive behavior results from stress.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_Park
"""
Rat Park was a study into drug addiction conducted in the late 1970s (and published in 1980), by Canadian psychologist Bruce K. Alexander and his colleagues at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, Canada.
Alexander's hypothesis was that drugs do not cause addiction, and that the apparent addiction to opiate drugs commonly observed in laboratory rats exposed to it is attributable to their living conditions, and not to any addictive property of the drug itself. [1] He told the Canadian Senate in 2001 that prior experiments in which laboratory rats were kept isolated in cramped metal cages, tethered to a self-injection apparatus, show only that "severely distressed animals, like severely distressed people, will relieve their distress pharmacologically if they can." [2]
To test his hypothesis, Alexander built Rat Park, a 8.8 m2 (95 sq ft) housing colony, 200 times the square footage of a standard laboratory cage. There were 16-20 rats of both sexes in residence, an abundance of food, balls and wheels for play, and enough space for mating and raising litters. [3] The results of the experiment appeared to support his hypothesis. Rats who had been forced to consume morphine hydrochloride for 57 consecutive days were brought to Rat Park and given a choice between plain tap water and water laced with morphine. For the most part, they chose the plain water. "Nothing that we tried," Alexander wrote, "... produced anything that looked like addiction in rats that were housed in a reasonably normal environment." [1] Control groups of rats isolated in small cages consumed much more morphine in this and several subsequent experiments.
The two major science journals, Science and Nature, rejected Alexander, Coambs, and Hadaway's first paper, which appeared instead in Psychopharmacology, a respectable but much smaller journal in 1978. The paper's publication initially attracted no response. [4] Within a few years, Simon Fraser University withdrew Rat Park's funding.
"""
Many people in today's industrialized society are under a lot of stress. Creating healthier communities may help reduce addictive behavior. One example of how to do that is here:
"About the AARP/Bluezones Vitality Project"
http://www.bluezones.com/makeover-about
Another is here:
"Surviving America's Depression Epidemic: How to Find Morale, Energy, and Community in a World Gone Crazy"
http://books.google.com/books?id=bCuC2H-6k_8C
Vitamin D deficiency from being indoors too much also contributes to obesity and depression.
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/treatment.shtml
For more on breaking out of a "pleasure trap" leading to obesity, see these:
http://www.healthpromoting.com/Articles/articles/PleasureTrap.htm
http://www.amazon.com/Pleasure-Trap-Mastering-Undermines-Happiness/dp/1570671508
http://www.amazon.com/Supernormal-Stimuli-Overran-Evolutionary-Purpose/dp/039306848X
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
The issue is carbohydrates, and carbohydrates only. Read "Good Calories Bad Calories", 200 years of clinical diet and physiology studies don't lie. See "Protein Power Life Plan" too.
Maybe I'm just cynical, but if those nutritionists gave good advice, they wouldn't be in business long. The truth would spread and become common sense, and then we would have no need for nutritionists. :)