Food Addiction

[ysabetwordsmith]

I was intrigued by this article suggesting that fatty foods can create brain changes in rats, similar to those caused by drug addiction.  I wonder if extremely sweet or excessively modified foods could do that too.  Also, I think it would be interesting to study whether some individuals are resistant to food addiction, as is the case with most addictions -- and look for factors that clue one way or the other.  However, this really just fits a general trend, that too much of any one thing in any part of life tends to have bad effects.

Comments

Hmm...

[ysabetwordsmith.livejournal.com]

It would be nice to have more detail about which foods were used. However, over-indulging in anything is a bad idea. We need fats, sugars, salt, etc. in varying amounts.

Re: Hmm...

[lavenderfae9.livejournal.com]

Over-indulging is a bad idea, but generally when people cut fat out of their diets, they are less satisfied with their food, and eat more of other things, like sugar and carbs. The whole "low-fat" propaganda has done a lot of damage. I know, because I'm just recovering from it.

Re: Hmm...

[ysabetwordsmith.livejournal.com]

Cutting out any of the main food types -- fats, sugars, carbohydrates, proteins -- tends to have bad effects unless your body is already unable to digest it. (I've known people who couldn't digest meat, for instance, or had bad reactions to sugar.) Any diet that does that is almost certain to cause more problems than it solves. A balanced diet is necessary.

Notice that it was the rats who had unlimited access to fatty junk food who exhibited addictive behavior. Normal rat chow or limited junk food didn't produce that result. I think it's the excess that causes the problem, rather than the material itself. That's why I was interested in repeating the experiment with other types of food.

Re: Hmm...

[lavenderfae9.livejournal.com]

To let you know where I'm coming from on this subject, my brother/roommate is working on becoming a Nutritional Therapist, so we've been inundated with nutrition information in our household lately. I've learned A LOT.

Yes, they did say "junk food," which is way different from healthy fats. I have actually come to agree with Nora Gedgaudas that there is no such thing as an ok amount of junk food. http://www.primalbody-primalmind.com/top10-nutritional-mistakes.html The problem is, society has defined junk food as anything with a high fat content. I know people who won't eat avocados because they have too much fat. In fact, I used to be one of those people. (Well, I'd have a quarter of one, on occasion.) I know better now.

As for people who can't digest meat, that's actually indicative of overall digestive problems. Avoiding meat does not mean they are avoiding other health concerns. If someone told me they could not digest meat, I would point them to this website: http://www.nutritionaltherapy.com/ReferralList.htm# Having problems with sugar is different. We can live without that. (I know we can also live without meat, but it's a good way to get a lot of essential nutrients, so I'm a fan.)

So, bottom line, any study that says junk food is bad supports what I believe to be true. I just think the article was worded in such a way that it would be easy for the people who say all fats are bad to latch onto as support of their view. Again, people who cut out fats usually increase carbs and sugar. Those have already been shown to have an addictive quality in studies, so I think it's important to make the distinction.

By the way, heating vegetable oil hot enough to deep fry anything turns it into a transfat, so restaurants that deep fry in anything but lard or coconut oil cannot truthfully say "transfat free." If the rats were eating deep fried food, or the equivalent, that would, indeed cause all sorts of problems, just as it does for humans. So, yeah, french fries are off the menu for me, but good cultured butter and avocados are back on the menu, so I'm a happy camper.

Re: Hmm...

[ysabetwordsmith.livejournal.com]

>>Yes, they did say "junk food," which is way different from healthy fats.<<

Agreed.

>>Gedgaudas that there is no such thing as an ok amount of junk food.<<

That's an interesting article. I think it falls down on practicality, alas. Most people are not capable of sustained perfection; consistent participation is much more likely if the goal is to eliminate "most" rather than "all" junk food. Also, a lot of people don't have access to the makings of a purely healthy diet; either the stores don't carry that stuff, or it's too expensive. By the time you cut out all the things with dire ingredients, a store is almost empty -- there may not be enough left to assemble a balanced diet. And frankly a lot of "health food" is just not very tasty. You're left trying to find single-ingredient foods and cook from scratch, which is great ... if you have the time and skill. Those are in ever-shorter supply.

This is as much as birdcage problem as racism or sexism.

>>The problem is, society has defined junk food as anything with a high fat content. <<

I consider junk food to have some combination of these features:
* highly processed
* little or no nutritional value
* high in calories, fat, sugar, etc.
* contaminated with monosodium glutamate, high-fructose corn syrup, artificial colors/flavors/preservatives, or other obnoxious chemicals.

Junk food is like a "superegg" -- something that is more attractive than the real thing, in a way that causes problems. When people eat junk food instead of wholesome food, they do not get the nutrients they need, and they ingest substances which can cause harm (especially in combination or quantity). It is bait, and it is about as good for you as bait is for fish.

Individual ingredient fruits, vegetables, meats, eggs, dairy products, etc. cannot be junk foods unto themselves, although advisable quantities of each will vary. However, they can be turned into junk foods by overprocessing them.

>>As for people who can't digest meat, that's actually indicative of overall digestive problems. Avoiding meat does not mean they are avoiding other health concerns.<<

Food intolerances are often, though not always, part of some other health issue. Avoiding trigger foods may not solve the problem -- which may or may not even be solvable -- but does a good job of reducing the harm.