The study might fall into the "duh" category, but after pointing out the addicitive qualities of fat, sugar, and salt for years now, and getting ridiculed for same, it's nice to have a little more science on my side of the issue. Here's an excerpt from an article covering the study:
"...What we found, in essence, was that the rats were in a persistent state of withdrawal," Kenny said. The researchers also found that the obese rats' need for the high-fat food became so great that they would continue to seek it out even when it was associated with electric shocks. And when the high-fat food was taken away, the obese rats chose not to eat at all rather than partake of more healthy food, even though they were hungry. It wasn't a matter of normal choice anymore. The rats had become, quite literally, addicted to the food.
"This whole notion of being addicted to food is kind of fascinating and strange," Kenny said. "I mean, in a sense, we kind of all are [addicted to food]." But the especially yummy, high-fat foods created the same changes in brain chemistry, and the same shift from impulsive to compulsive use, as had previously been observed with cocaine or heroin..."
Here's some excerpts from another article of note:
According to the authors, foods that are potentially addictive include sweets, carbohydrates, fats, sweet/fat combinations, and possibly processed and/or high salt foods. The support for the food addiction theory comes from alterations in neurochemistry (dopamine, endogenous opioids), neuroanatomy (limbic system), and self-medication behaviors, Corsica and Pelchat say."
It is possible to re-calibrate your taste for fat by no-added fat in your diet for around 14 weeks, I've done this, it works. Reducing sodium and sugar is even easier. We can now add "addictive qualities" to the list of 15 reasons (among others) to avoid added oil. Most faux meats and cheeses are high-fat, and accordingly, addicitive. Going vegan doesn't solve the problem of obesity, heart disease, and other issues. It just lessens the odds a tad.
Have you read Good Calories Bad Calories by Gary Taubes? If so, what do you think about it?
[I've read snippets and pieces of interviews with him. I think his generalizations are broad and inconclusive, muddles up the facts. Humans have existed quite well on complex "unrefined" carbs for thousands of years, and during periods were meat was a minimal input.
But, he came up with a cool jingle, and it's altogether too simplistic to group food in those two categories.
I'd rather go with the only guys who've reversed heart disease and diabetes: Ornish, Esselstyn, and Barnard.
Twenty years of peer-reviewed research means more to me than the opinions of a physicist-turned-science writer.
Thanks for your comment... Mark]
Posted by: Jenna | 2010.03.30 at 12:01