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.
You ever sucked d**k for a cheeseburger?
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
...I have just as much respect for fat people as I do for drug addicts.
Oh, few... At first I read that as rats gorging themselves on human fat. Wait a minute... maybe the end of the world will come when rats get a cocaine-like addiction to eating humans. Everybody PANIC!
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
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
Funny, I lost 40 lbs eating high-fat low-carb food, purposely not exercising, and eating whenever I was hungry. And my blood pressure went down to normal from its high of 145/95, so I could stop taking blood pressure medication as well. I'm healthier than I've ever been.
Of course, unlike these rats, I did not eat cheesecake, frosting or other foods high in refined carbs. But this POS study doesn't bother to differentiate between high-fat/high-carb, high-fat/low-carb, etc, let alone about the balance or type of fatty acids present in the food (e.g. grass-fed bacon vs. grain-fed). This is not science, not even close.
How about the HFCS question?
For fuck's sake, there's HFCS in just about everything we eat these days. After the recent study, I went through my pantry. Wanted to see precisely how much of the stuff it was in.
- Hot dogs? CHECK.
- Oscar Mayer "deli meats" for sandwiches? CHECK.
- Breakfast cereals? Almost universal. If it has "modified corn starch", that's HFCS under a disguised name.
- Salty-type snacks? Check. Even the supposedly all-natural pita chips.
- Anything from Chef Boyardee. Check.
- Frozen pizzas waiting to be heated up? Check. Turns out they add HFCS to the goddamn tomato sauce.
The list goes on but I think you get the picture. We're being fed HFCS EVERYWHERE and we just saw a major study done showing an effect on HFCS, either by brain chemistry or satiety reflex, causing obesity. If they were feeding rats the same stuff in their "fatty foods" (and cheesecake is OMG FUCKING FULL OF IT)...
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.
No, it's sugary AND fatty foods that the rats were being fed. The summary ignores the sugar, but you're not being any better by ignoring the fat. When the rats get addicted to plain bread or just piles of granulated sugar, then we can talk about your theory.
Just because you sold your soul to the devil that needn't make you a teetotaler. --The Devil and Daniel Webster
"A new study in rats suggests that high-fat, high-calorie foods affect the brain in much the same way as cocaine and heroin.
Like heroin and alcohol, food is so addictive that the withdrawal symptoms can kill you! Just say NO to eating!
Free Martian Whores!
Sugar is also high fructose and therefore also fattening.
Chemistry fail. Fructose is a sugar, but not all sugars are fructose. Glucose is not fructose.
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.
This is /.
/b/.
The only place with less "socially acceptable" people is
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
Well, here ya go. Sugar is as addictive as cocaine
"However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results" - Winston Churchill
Here ya go.
No, the price of sugar is kept high due to trade restrictions for the US sugar lobby.
"However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results" - Winston Churchill
the sugar lobby is weak (USA). That's why there is so damn much HFC in everything. It's the corn lobby that's strong
Although there appears to be (or have been at one time) a 'sugar Mafia'; years ago, in a restaurant, I noticed that the packets of sugar had an interesting set of statements on the back:
The last line had everyone at the table laughing at the mental image of the sugar Mafia coming around to strongarm cooks... "That's a tasty-looking cake you got there... be a shame if something happened to it."
How about the HFCS question?
For fuck's sake, there's HFCS in just about everything we eat these days. After the recent study, I went through my pantry. Wanted to see precisely how much of the stuff it was in.
- Hot dogs? CHECK.
- Oscar Mayer "deli meats" for sandwiches? CHECK.
- Breakfast cereals? Almost universal. If it has "modified corn starch", that's HFCS under a disguised name.
- Salty-type snacks? Check. Even the supposedly all-natural pita chips.
- Anything from Chef Boyardee. Check.
- Frozen pizzas waiting to be heated up? Check. Turns out they add HFCS to the goddamn tomato sauce.
The list goes on but I think you get the picture. We're being fed HFCS EVERYWHERE and we just saw a major study done showing an effect on HFCS, either by brain chemistry or satiety reflex, causing obesity. If they were feeding rats the same stuff in their "fatty foods" (and cheesecake is OMG FUCKING FULL OF IT)...
That's a major reason why I limit the amount of processed foods I eat. I've been doing this for a long time and cook most of my food from scratch. It does not really take a lot of time and the quality of my meals has improved greatly.
A while back, I came across this article by Michael Pollan and I agree with it:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/magazine/28nutritionism.t.html
"Eat Food. Not too much. Mostly Plants."
Avoid processed/prepackaged stuff as much as possible.
I've been doing this weird thing lately.... "cooking". From base ingredients. I don't mean some kinda "all natural" kick, but most of my meals are cooked using basics. Flour. Sugar. Water. Various cooking oils. Beef/Chicken/Vegetable stock. Spices. Rice. Pasta in reasonable amount. Vegetables - fresh or fresh frozen -- which should take up a larger portion of your meal than they probably do. I also started exercising* a few times a week, and eating reasonable proportions -- and as a result of those changes have lost forty pounds and counting. I still eat the crappy stuff with too much HFCS and excessive fat (I've a mental addiction to cheeze-its and butterfingers) but in moderation.
THe problem here isn't HFCS. It's not fatty foods. If anything, part of the problem lies in looking for external factors to blame. It's eating too much food, too regularly, and most of us not getting any significant exercise*. In my case, for a long time it was lack of knowledge of when is "enough" to eat .(Hint - if you feel full when you're done eating, you've eaten far too much.) Once you have that knowledge, it's also lack of willingness to exercise self control.
The point of this mini-rant: look to yourself when trying to find a reason. For the vast majority of people, it starts and ends there. If you think it's HFCS -- ok, fine. But HFCS in quantity is far easier to avoid than you make it sound. Hell, fresh bread takes 30 minutes of actual time once a week, without even using a bread machine. Most other alternatives are as easy; or come with a slight increase of time in exchange for healthier food that tastes as good or better.
* By "exercise" I'm not talking about anything drastic. I started walking my dogs for 30 minutes at a brisk walk, 4-5 times a week. I also started using stairs instead of elevators for up to three flights at work and not just one flight. More recently I've started running, but that's after I lost most of the weight and I do it because (amazingly) I find that it feels good.
>>>the sugar lobby is weak (USA). That's why there is so damn much HFC in everything.
Bzzzz. The sugar lobby is STRONG and have erected protective tariffs that raised cane sugar's cost to artifically-high levels. Therefore companies look for cheap alternatives (HFCS). This is a classic case of how government laws, which appear good on the surface to protect American sugar workers/farmers, actually cause unintended and harmful consequences.
The sugar tariffs should be removed, so we can import cheap sugar from elsewhere (like Brazil) and therefore make HFCS too expensive to use.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
That argument is silly.: you would have no objection to the food companies could put lead in their food as a sweetener or any other toxin that happened to enhance the taste because you view it as the person's responsibility to know what is in their food. You think I'm going to carry a wet chemical lab around with me to test food every time I'm hungry? 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. If you don't like it, move to some third world country where that sort of thing is acceptable.
Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!
The link was to an article about a assemblyman who wants to BAN salts in NY, and cut salts in manufactured products.
This is not the same as requiring proper and correct food labeling.
When people complain about the nanny-state, they aren't complaining about companies having to tell you, correctly, what's in their products, it's when the state says you can't do something as opposed to making the decision yourself based on correct labeling.
Stupid, sexy Flanders.
The difference between "Fructose" and "Sucrose" (table sugar) is significant, biochemically.
Sucrose is a Glucose + Fructose molecule, linked by a glycosidic (read: "Oxygen atom") bond. The body uses an enzyme, Sucrase, to split up that sucrose into its glucose and fructose componenets.
Sucrase acts, indirectly, as regulator of sorts -- when a whole lot of sucrase is being used, the body observes that change and reacts accordingly, "Hey, we're good on sugar!"
But with High Fructose Corn Syrup, the need for Sucrase is bypassed, leaving that regulatory system out of the loop.
The Sugar lobby may be big, but the Corn lobby is much, much, bigger. And it's heavily subsidized. The main reason HFCS is cheaper than sugar is because of government subsidies.