Thought this was interesting, as it makes a distinction between food addiction which the author does not believe exists, and conditioned hypereating which can be managed through retraining one's brain --
Yeah. Food's not addictive at all. Just like cigarettes, alcohol, and crack aren't addictive, either. Tell a meth addict to "retrain their brain" and see how far that gets them.
My thought is that this particular "scientific" study is full of doo-doo.
It doesn't seem to me that the article or scientists are saying that food addiction doesn't exist, but rather that it does.
It sounds like they are saying this conditioning, as well as physiological brain differences may play a much larger role in binging, than was once thought. At least that's what I get from quotes like these:
It's not an addiction but it's similar, and he's far from alone. Dr. Kessler's research suggests millions share what he calls "conditioned hypereating" - a willpower-sapping drive to eat high-fat, high-sugar foods even when they're not hungry.
Neuroscientists increasingly report that fat and sugar combinations in particular light up the brain's dopamine pathway - its pleasure-sensing spot - the same pathway that conditions people to alcohol or drugs.
Hi Kaplods! Hope you are feeling better.
That is what was confusing me, because as you point out, right off the bat, the Dr. states the following re: conditioned overeating:
"It's not an addiction but it's similar, and he's far from alone. Dr. Kessler's research suggests millions share what he calls "conditioned hypereating" - a willpower-sapping drive to eat high-fat, high-sugar foods even when they're not hungry."
And later, he says:
"Overeaters must take responsibility, too, and basically retrain their brains to resist the lure, he cautions."
which kind of isn't what is recommended for classic "addiction" treatment...
But all the things discussed sure sound like addiction as we know it!
I thought it was interesting, for sure...and I'll bet he wants to sell some books!!!
Personally, I think the reason (one I heartily agree with) that the behavior is described as addiction-like, but not a true addiction, is because "addiction" is a word that's very much mis- and over- used. In college, we were taught to use addiction as a term only under very specific circumstances (I don't remember the list anymore), and anything not satisfying all the requirements for addiction, might fall under the category of dependence (withor without abuse) or abuse (with or without dependence). Even abusing drugs that cause dependence wasn't always addiction (call that confusing) but could be pseudoaddiction (which can occur for example, if a person's doctor is not addressing their issue with proper medication and the person experiments with using his meds inappropriately to attempt relief - the person is not necessarily addicted, they may just need better education and pain management services).
Dependence, especially is often misused as interchangeabe with addiction, and that's not appropriate. I am dependent upon my pain medications (and have been accuses of being "addicted" to them, by family or friends who are ignorant of the distinction between dependence and addiction). Addiction requires the added element of abuse (as determined by the substance having an adverse affect on areas of the person's life). Because I am using my medications appropriately, and not using them for a purpose to which they were never intended, and they are adding function, not taking away function, I am not abusing the medications. However, as my pain level drops (which it has recently), I am able to use less pain medication, and eventually may be able to taper off the meds completely.
Most people do not abuse, even abusable drugs (addiction and abuse rates for most medications, even some pretty strong ones are fairly low overall). There are a lot of drugs that are not prone to severe abuse (because there is no little or no "thrill" potential) that nevertheless require tapering off, rather than cold turkey. Or drugs that will always be necessary unless future advancements are made (diabetics requiring insulin, for example).
Outside of the medical or psychiatric professionsm it isn't likely that most people would appreciate or care about the subtle distinction between addiction, dependence, and abuse, so in general conversation these terms are going to be misused, misunderstood and overapplied.
I got Dr. Kessler's book today and am nearly finished with it. First, just to be clear, it isn't Kessler who is saying it isn't addiction in the Globe article, it's the reporter. That said, in the book, Kessler doesn't actually use the term addiction -- he uses "conditioned hypereating" (and he doesn't address "addiction" in the book as such).
But he does spend several substantive chapters on the brain chemistry that is affected by an American diet loaded with salt, fat, and sugar. He makes the case (convincingly I think) that the food industry has changed our food in a way that more and more of what we eat actually over-stimulates our appetites (not our hunger), with the result that we eat more than we need or sometimes want to eat.
They get profit, and a lot of us wind up eating -- a lot.
BTW, I disagree with the idea that "retraining the brain" isn't something commonly done with addictions. What Kessler is basically saying is that for many of us, overeating is a habitual activity that is supported by the cue-response-reward system that the food supports. But since the cues happen sometimes completely unrelated to food (e.g., seeing a commercial on TV), it does mean that we need to do things so that we can interrupt the process when the first cue (or craving) hits. So when he talks about this, it's very much like the kinds of things an alcoholic or drug addict might do to avoid relapsing.
In the future, I could imagine this might include drug therapies the same way they are experimenting with them for alcohol addiction (he points out that fen/phen really was successful in addressing cravings for people until its dangerous side effects got it taken off the market). But for now, he's suggesting that for some people, eating this kind of food is playing with fire. And so the best bet is to put into a number of practices to eat in a way that will help one control their overeating.
But he does spend several substantive chapters on the brain chemistry that is affected by an American diet loaded with salt, fat, and sugar. He makes the case (convincingly I think) that the food industry has changed our food in a way that more and more of what we eat actually over-stimulates our appetites (not our hunger), with the result that we eat more than we need or sometimes want to eat.
I think that is so very, very true. Avoiding processed food has been key to my success.
I'm listening to Dr. Kessler right now on Northwest Public Radio (NPR). He's explaining how foods are engineered to get us hooked and how our brains work with regard to food and overeating. It's really very interesting. I can't find a link as I'm listening on my mp3 player but for anyone who is interested, it's a show called Tech Nation.
I agree with idea that we can train ourselves out of conditioned overeating, although of course it's more difficult for some than for others (as are all things!).
How, exactly, we can go about it, however...that's a more difficult question. I'm curious--does Kessler address this in the book?
I am about 3/4 of the way through this book on audiobook. It's really interesting information. So far most of his tips are familiar from addiction and weight loss research. I find this, like Michael Pollan's books and Mindless Eating to be as or more valuable than strictly diet books because they make me really think about my food choices.
Conditioned Hypereating -- a new theory
