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."
You ever sucked d**k for a cheeseburger?
'nuff said.
P.S: Out of mod points.
Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
- Salty-type snacks? Check. Even the supposedly all-natural pita chips.
Why would HFCS conflict with the "all-natural" label in your mind? HFCS is natural. It comes from corn.
Ever almost run over a runner because he ran out from behind a truck right in front of your car and he didn't even realize he almost died? That's because he IS a drug addict. The "runner's high" kicks in when the pain does and your body produces endorphins. The only reason morphine and heroin work is because they fit the endorphin receptors. Since the health nut's mantra is "no pain, no gain" I suspect that all people who exersize for the sake of exercise are endorphin addicts.
And, I'm thin and get little exercise (I like walking, that's about it) and eat more than most obese people. So you can't judge by appearances.
Free Martian Whores!
Fat addiction is not sufficient to explain the United States obesity epidemic because fats are just as addictive in Sweden, Japan and Uruguay as they are in the United States but we only have an obesity epidemic here.
With diet as with other behavior, one of the most effective ways to encourage responsible behavior, by individuals or corporations, is to internalize economic externalities. That is, make the price paid by the individual (person or corporation) be the true cost. For example, if corporations pollute the air when manufacturing, then they are messing up your air and not paying for it. Charge for air pollution and two things happen: It becomes more profitable to pollute less and the victims of air pollution are compensated. People complain about the "Tragedy of the Commons." Well internalizing economic externalities is what fixes that. Making people pay costs for their decisions encourages responsible decisions.
Socializing costs, that is, externalizing internalities by distributing the costs of individual's actions over everyone encourages irresponsible behavior. Socializing costs is a tragedy, known in fact at the "Tragedy of the Commons." Individuals act irresponsibly when insulated from the costs of their own decisions, because those costs are paid by everyone and reduced to the individual.
So here is the thing. Government policy in the United States is designed to promote obesity by socializing the costs of obesity. The first cost is the food itself, which the government pays for in the forms of, to name two, food stamps and the earned income tax credit. Everyone in the United States is required, by law, to pay for food to feed fat people. Really. The second cost of obesity, greatly increased medical care, is now socialized as well. Those costs could be reflected immediately to the individual in the price of insurance when the insurance market is deregulated and insurers are permitted to charge fatties more. If all those fatties had to pay for their food and pay more for health insurance then their would be a lot fewer fatties. Instead, now, a person who eats responsibly and exercises and who will require far less medical treatment as a result will pay the same amount for medical insurance as they guy who eats two dozen doughnuts for breakfast.
Telling people to eat less does not make them eat less. Making them pay the price for overeating does. After passage of a multi-trillion-dollar bill which sponsors obesity, somewhere down the road Congress will spend billions to create and expand government agencies staffed with overpaid unionized employees paid to tell people not to stuff themselves full of government sponsored food.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
Splenda (sucralose) is not natural because it is chemical modified from sugar. Splenda have never claimed to be all-natural although their commercials are deliberately vague. HFCS is not chemically modified, it is separated from corn.
Well, it is. Doesn't mean it's good for you, but it is natural.
It's not tortured at all. If all the processing that is done is either physical separation (e.g. distillation) or traditional cooking methods (e.g. boiling, roasting) or uses natural processes (e.g. fermentation), then it retains its natural status. Otherwise anything that is cooked would be classed as artificial, which would make it a useless label.
If you, for example, treated it with HCl, then it would be classed as artificial.
Not, as you point out, that being natural makes any difference as to whether or not its good for you.
you would have no objection to the food companies could put lead in their food as a sweetener
That's a stupid comparison. Lead is a toxin. Salt is required for life.
The bottom line is that part of the reason why we have a government is to precisely to prevent people from passing poisonous or other misleading substances off as nutritious food
Salt is a poisonous substance? Your kidding me, right?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Salt sprinkled on top does not taste the same.
Fucking prohibitionists. Should have rounded all of you fucks up and deported you after the repeal of the eighteenth amendment
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Nothing in there invalidates the label of natural (assuming the acid wash involves a natural acid like acetic acid). Do you think making an apple pie has less steps? Does that make apple pie not natural (assuming you use natural ingredients)?
ah yes, the horribly done study with no controls and a sever over feeding of HFCS.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
And Jesus is helping you with that, eh?