Research into sugar addiction.

Derf_Smeggle

For years now we have been hearing about "sugar addiction". Most of the evidence has been anecdotal at best. Below is a link and a snippet of the conclusion of a free and full research study into whether or not sugar can produce addiction behavior and neuro-physiological changes associated with addiction.

Avena, Nicole M., Pedro Rada, and Bartley G. Hoebel. "Evidence for Sugar Addiction: Behavioral and Neurochemical Effects of Intermittent, Excessive Sugar Intake." Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 32.1 (2008): 20-39. Web. <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2235907/>.

7. CONCLUSION
From an evolutionary perspective, it is in the best interest of humans to have an inherent desire for food for survival. However, this desire may go awry, and certain people, including some obese and bulimic patients in particular, may develop an unhealthy dependence on palatable food that interferes with well-being. The concept of “food addiction” materialized in the diet industry on the basis of subjective reports, clinical accounts and case studies described in self-help books. The rise in obesity, coupled with the emergence of scientific findings of parallels between drugs of abuse and palatable foods has given credibility to this idea. The reviewed evidence supports the theory that, in some circumstances, intermittent access to sugar can lead to behavior and neurochemical changes that resemble the effects of a substance of abuse. According to the evidence in rats, intermittent access to sugar and chow is capable of producing a “dependency”. This was operationally defined by tests for bingeing, withdrawal, craving and cross-sensitization to amphetamine and alcohol. The correspondence to some people with binge eating disorder or bulimia is striking, but whether or not it is a good idea to call this a “food addiction” in people is both a scientific and societal question that has yet to be answered. What this review demonstrates is that rats with intermittent access to food and a sugar solution can show both a constellation of behaviors and parallel brain changes that are characteristic of rats that voluntarily self-administer addictive drugs. In the aggregrate, this is evidence that sugar can be addictive.

What other research have you found that supports or refutes sugar addiction?

sloth3toes

Buddy?

Derf_Smeggle

Buddy?

Are you asking if that's my name? If so, then no. Otherwise, a questioning yes? What can I do ya for?

Derf_Smeggle

It is a snowy, snowy day out there which explains why I found this little piece.

McGonigal, Kelly. "Sugar Addiction In Your Body, Not Just Your Mind - Is out of sight, out of mind the best policy for temptation?" The Science of Willpower, December 8, 2009. Web. <http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-science-willpower/200912/sugar-addiction-in-your-body-not-just-your-mind&gt;

In the article, McGonigal explains and cites research into how physiological adaptation can lead to conditioned responses in the body where the brain releases a chemical called orexin in expectation of intake of sugar. Orexin signals muscle tissue to take up available sugar in the blood stream. This is one way in which the body regulates blood sugar. However, the conditioned response *in the absence of sugar intake* results in craving and decreased resistance that can be compared to a certain degree with nicotine cravings and other addiction cravings.

The article does go on to differentiate the degree of addiction from nicotine and other addictive substances. McGonigal cites a study in which "Out of sight, out of mind" greatly reduced sugar intake among participants.

sloth3toes

Buddy?

Are you asking if that's my name? If so, then no. Otherwise, a questioning yes? What can I do ya for?

You just remind me of another guy who was around for awhile, who tried to spread the word about the evils of sugar. His name was 'Lichent.....' and he always referred to his 'buddy' in his posts. Just thought you might be 'Buddy.'

BobbieInCA

Try reading this excellent article from the December issue of National Geographic: http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2013/08/sugar/cohen-text

It pretty much explains it all.

Derf_Smeggle

Nah. Not related, or involved with either of those posters.

Also, not saying "sugar is evil". Please be assured I'm not saying that. Biologically, you have to have it.

Also, not just blindly posting random beliefs, or something-I-heard-from-someone-once-upon-a-time. Not spreading any gospel here. What I am doing is posting factual data.

Honestly, I started searching for the research after a reading a number of vehement postings from both sides of the aisle, where no one put up anything to support their assertions. Thought I'd dig out a little science instead.

What the science seems to be saying is that there are addictive qualities inherent to sugar consumption. I am actually interested in research that refutes that statement also.

*edit to correct sentence structure*

Derf_Smeggle

BobbieInCA, that is a decent article on the history of sugar and it does provide some commentary from doctors on their views of sugar. I was disappointed that there was no reference to the specific research to back their claims. Instead toward the end of the article, where the health risk discussion occurs, it simply makes an "appeal to authority", or an "argument from authority".

AlabasterVerve

An article in The New York Times someone posted yesterday references this study but the full study isn't available for free:

Relative ability of fat and sugar tastes to activate reward, gustatory, and somatosensory regions.
Stice E, Burger KS, Yokum S.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:
Although the intake of high-fat and high-sugar food activates mesolimbic reward, gustatory, and oral somatosensory brain regions, contributing to overeating, few studies have examined the relative role of fat and sugar in the activation of these brain regions, which would inform policy, prevention, and treatment interventions designed to reduce obesity.

OBJECTIVE:
We evaluated the effect of a high-fat or high-sugar equicaloric chocolate milkshake and increasing fat or sugar milkshake content on the activation of these regions.

DESIGN:
Functional magnetic resonance imaging was used to assess the neural response to the intake of high-fat/high-sugar, high-fat/low-sugar, low-fat/high-sugar, and low-fat/low-sugar chocolate milkshakes and a tasteless solution in 106 lean adolescents (mean ± SD age = 15.00 ± 0.88 y). Analyses contrasted the activation to the various milkshakes.

RESULTS:
High-fat compared with high-sugar equicaloric milkshakes caused greater activation in the bilateral caudate, postcentral gyrus, hippocampus, and inferior frontal gyrus. High-sugar compared with high-fat equicaloric milkshakes caused greater activation in the bilateral insula extending into the putamen, the Rolandic operculum, and thalamus, which produced large activation regions. Increasing sugar in low-fat milkshakes caused greater activation in the bilateral insula and Rolandic operculum; increasing fat content did not elicit greater activation in any region.

CONCLUSIONS:
Fat caused greater activation of the caudate and oral somatosensory regions than did sugar, sugar caused greater activation in the putamen and gustatory regions than did fat, increasing sugar caused greater activity in gustatory regions, and increasing fat did not affect the activation. Results imply that sugar more effectively recruits reward and gustatory regions, suggesting that policy, prevention, and treatment interventions should prioritize reductions in sugar intake. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as DK092468.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24132980

In Food Cravings, Sugar Trumps Fat
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/13/in-food-cravings-sugar-trumps-fat/?hp&pagewanted=all&_r=0

Mr_Knight

Until someone is knocking off liquor stores and gas stations to fuel their sugar habit, I don't consider the use of the term "addiction" appropriate in this context.

ThriceBlessed

Until someone is knocking off liquor stores and gas stations to fuel their sugar habit, I don't consider the use of the term "addiction" appropriate in this context.

I'm not sure wether I would consider the sugar "addiction" a real addiction or not. Possibly. However, at one time in my life I was addicted to multiple substances, ranging from alcohol to PCP, and I NEVER knocked off a liquor store or gas station. I NEVER stole anything to feed my habits. I worked... and I sold to others who had the addictions... but never stole. So I am not sure that is a fair way to judge whether something is an addiction or not.

Sabine_Stroehm

Buddy?

Are you asking if that's my name? If so, then no. Otherwise, a questioning yes? What can I do ya for?

You just remind me of another guy who was around for awhile, who tried to spread the word about the evils of sugar. His name was 'Lichent.....' and he always referred to his 'buddy' in his posts. Just thought you might be 'Buddy.'

I've been asked if I am him as well.
(I'm not)

Sabine_Stroehm

Until someone is knocking off liquor stores and gas stations to fuel their sugar habit, I don't consider the use of the term "addiction" appropriate in this context.

I'm not sure wether I would consider the sugar "addiction" a real addiction or not. Possibly. However, at one time in my life I was addicted to multiple substances, ranging from alcohol to PCP, and I NEVER knocked off a liquor store or gas station. I NEVER stole anything to feed my habits. I worked... and I sold to others who had the addictions... but never stole. So I am not sure that is a fair way to judge whether something is an addiction or not.

^^THIS^^ My father was an alcoholic who worked an 8-5 job and raised a family. Didn't make him NOT an alcoholic. (He ultimately found sobriety, and was sober for many years til his death, in case anyone wonders.)

tigersword

Sugar is not an addiction. The evidence usually given is the fact that eating sugar causes a release of dopamine. So does eating protein and fat. So does exercise. So does anything that causes a positive reaction in life. It's how your body conditions you to keep doing things that keep you alive.

The entire premise is flawed.

QuietBloom

Yeah, I have posted that research here before. But the caveat is, the study was done in rats. While interesting, more research needs to be done.

Derf_Smeggle

Until someone is knocking off liquor stores and gas stations to fuel their sugar habit, I don't consider the use of the term "addiction" appropriate in this context.

You're entitled to your opinion. Doesn't alter the factual data.

Derf_Smeggle

Sugar is not an addiction. The evidence usually given is the fact that eating sugar causes a release of dopamine. So does eating protein and fat. So does exercise. So does anything that causes a positive reaction in life. It's how your body conditions you to keep doing things that keep you alive.

The entire premise is flawed.

The premise doesn't appear to be flawed. What research do you have to support your claim?

Derf_Smeggle

Yeah, I have posted that research here before. But the caveat is, the study was done in rats. While interesting, more research needs to be done.

I don't disagree that further study is warranted. There are more recent studies that I do not have access to the full information. I believe some are studies on human neuro-physiology.

MaryJane_8810002

Honestly I don't buy it. I believe that sugar addiction is just a psychological coping method at best. Last time I checked I wasn't down on Oakland Park BLVD turning tricks for a donut.

sloth3toes

Just in case anyone is interested.... the whole 'is sugar addictive?' subject has been beaten to death at MFP....

Here's 2 links to long threads about it. I couldn't actually find the thread I was looking for.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1085417-sugar-addiction?hl=sugar+addiction

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1002224-is-sugar-addiction-real?hl=sugar+addiction

Derf_Smeggle

Ah yes. A couple of threads where people opined the topic top death. Any research in those threads? What page?

Guys, note I didn't make any research post based on unfounded opinion. I even asked for research that invalidates the premise. This isn't about opinions. Science. Supported evidence is my aim.

I don't give a twig and two berries what you believe if you won't support it with evidence. Work with me here.

fruttibiscotti

Sugar addiction: pushing the drug-sugar analogy to the limit.

AuthorsAhmed SH, et al.
Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2013 Jul;16(4):434-9. doi: 10.1097/MCO.0b013e328361c8b8.

Affiliation
Université de Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France. sahmed@u-bordeaux2.fr


Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To review research that tests the validity of the analogy between addictive drugs, like cocaine, and hyperpalatable foods, notably those high in added sugar (i.e., sucrose).

RECENT FINDINGS: Available evidence in humans shows that sugar and sweetness can induce reward and craving that are comparable in magnitude to those induced by addictive drugs. Although this evidence is limited by the inherent difficulty of comparing different types of rewards and psychological experiences in humans, it is nevertheless supported by recent experimental research on sugar and sweet reward in laboratory rats. Overall, this research has revealed that sugar and sweet reward can not only substitute to addictive drugs, like cocaine, but can even be more rewarding and attractive. At the neurobiological level, the neural substrates of sugar and sweet reward appear to be more robust than those of cocaine (i.e., more resistant to functional failures), possibly reflecting past selective evolutionary pressures for seeking and taking foods high in sugar and calories.

SUMMARY: The biological robustness in the neural substrates of sugar and sweet reward may be sufficient to explain why many people can have difficultly to control the consumption of foods high in sugar when continuously exposed to them.

fruttibiscotti

Effects of dietary glycemic index on brain regions related to reward and craving in men1,2,3,4
Belinda S Lennerz, David C Alsop, Laura M Holsen, Emily Stern, Rafael Rojas, Cara B Ebbeling, Jill M Goldstein, and David S Ludwig

The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition

Received April 10, 2013.
Accepted June 13, 2013.

Abstract

Background: Qualitative aspects of diet influence eating behavior, but the physiologic mechanisms for these calorie-independent effects remain speculative.

Objective: We examined effects of the glycemic index (GI) on brain activity in the late postprandial period after a typical intermeal interval.

Design: With the use of a randomized, blinded, crossover design, 12 overweight or obese men aged 18–35 y consumed high- and low-GI meals controlled for calories, macronutrients, and palatability on 2 occasions. The primary outcome was cerebral blood flow as a measure of resting brain activity, which was assessed by using arterial spin-labeling functional magnetic resonance imaging 4 h after test meals. We hypothesized that brain activity would be greater after the high-GI meal in prespecified regions involved in eating behavior, reward, and craving.

Results: Incremental venous plasma glucose (2-h area under the curve) was 2.4-fold greater after the high- than the low-GI meal (P = 0.0001). Plasma glucose was lower (mean ± SE: 4.7 ± 0.14 compared with 5.3 ± 0.16 mmol/L; P = 0.005) and reported hunger was greater (P = 0.04) 4 h after the high- than the low-GI meal, respectively. At this time, the high-GI meal elicited greater brain activity centered in the right nucleus accumbens (a prespecified area; P = 0.0006 with adjustment for multiple comparisons) that spread to other areas of the right striatum and to the olfactory area.

Conclusions: Compared with an isocaloric low-GI meal, a high-GI meal decreased plasma glucose, increased hunger, and selectively stimulated brain regions associated with reward and craving in the late postprandial period, which is a time with special significance to eating behavior at the next meal. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT01064778.

fruttibiscotti

New York Times

DIETING AND WEIGHT JUNE 27, 2013, 12:02 AM

How Carbs Can Trigger Food Cravings

By ANAHAD O'CONNOR


DIETING AND WEIGHT JUNE 27, 2013, 12:02 AM

Are all calories created equal? A new study suggests that in at least one important way, they may not be.

Sugary foods and drinks, white bread and other processed carbohydrates that are known to cause abrupt spikes and falls in blood sugar appear to stimulate parts of the brain involved in hunger, craving and reward, the new research shows. The findings, published in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, suggest that these so-called high-glycemic foods influence the brain in a way that might drive some people to overeat.

For those who are particularly susceptible to these effects, avoiding refined carbohydrates might reduce urges and potentially help control weight, said Dr. David Ludwig, the lead author of the study and the director of the New Balance Foundation Obesity Prevention Center at Boston Children’s Hospital.

“This research suggests that based on their effects on brain metabolism, all calories are not alike,” he said. “Not everybody who eats processed carbohydrates develops uncontrollable food cravings. But for the person who has been struggling with weight in our modern food environment and unable to control their cravings, limiting refined carbohydrate may be a logical first step.”

Regardless of the diet they choose, most people who lose a great deal of weight have a difficult time keeping it off for good. For many people, despite their best efforts, the weight returns within six months to a year. But a few studies of weight loss maintenance, including a large one in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2010, have reported some success with diets that limit high-glycemic foods like bagels, white rice, juice and soda.

In addition to raising blood sugar, foods that are sugary and highly caloric elicit pronounced responses in distinct areas of the brain involved in reward. Earlier imaging studies have shown, for example, that the main reward and pleasure center, the nucleus accumbens, lights up more intensely for a slice of chocolate cake than for blander foods like vegetables, and the activation tends to be greater in the brains of obese people than it is in those who are lean.

But do rich desserts have a select ability to change our longer-term eating habits?

To get a better idea, Dr. Ludwig and his colleagues recruited a dozen obese men and then fed them milkshakes on two different occasions separated by several weeks. In each case, the milkshakes were nearly identical: flavored with milk and vanilla, and containing the same amount of calories, carbohydrates, protein and fat.

But on one occasion, the shakes were made with high-glycemic corn syrup; on the other, a source of low-glycemic carbohydrates was used. “These test meals were identical in appearance and tastiness, and we verified that our subjects had no preference for one or the other,” Dr. Ludwig said.

As expected, blood sugar levels rose more quickly in response to the high-glycemic milkshake. But the researchers were especially interested in what happened several hours later, about the time most people are ready for their next meal.

What they found was that four hours after drinking the high-glycemic shake, blood sugar levels had plummeted into the hypoglycemic range, the subjects reported more hunger, and brain scans showed greater activation in parts of the brain that regulate cravings, reward and addictive behaviors. Although the subject pool was small, every subject showed the same response, and the differences in blood flow to these regions of the brain between the two conditions “was quite substantial,” Dr. Ludwig said.

“Based on the strength and consistency of the response,” he added, “the likelihood that this was due to chance was less than one in a thousand.”

Previous research suggests that when blood sugar levels plummet, people have a tendency to seek out foods that can restore it quickly, and this may set up a cycle of overeating driven by high-glycemic foods, Dr. Ludwig said. “It makes sense that the brain would direct us to foods that would rescue blood sugar,” he said. “That’s a normal protective mechanism.”

Christopher Gardner, a nutrition scientist at Stanford University who was not involved in the new study, said that after decades of research but little success in fighting obesity, “it has been disappointing that the message being communicated to the American public has been boiled down to ‘eat less and exercise more.’”

“An underlying assumption of the ‘eat less’ portion of that message has been ‘a calorie is a calorie,’” he said. But the new research “sheds light on the strong plausibility that it isn’t just the amount of food we are eating, but also the type.”

Dr. Gardner said it was clear that the conventional approach of the past few decades was not working. A more helpful message than “eat less,” he said, may be “eat less refined carbohydrates and more whole foods.”

Derf_Smeggle

fruttibiscotti,

Nice reading. Thank you for the posts. I'm going to look up the Times' article to see if they reference the actual studies they are pulling the data from.

Mr_Knight

I worked... and I sold to others who had the addictions... but never stole.

My apologies - I forgot to include "deal drugs to kids" in the list of law-breaking possibilities.

I won't make that mistake again.

Derf_Smeggle

Mr Knight,

I think you have a very narrow definition of addiction and you really have not added anything of value here. I'm going to post the definition of addiction here because I'll admit I'm a little shocked at the lack of understanding of what defines addiction.

Addiction

Main Entry: ad·dic·tion Pronunciation: \ə-ˈdik-shən\
Function: noun: 

compulsive physiological need for and use of a habit-forming substance (as heroin, nicotine, alcohol) characterized by tolerance and by well-defined physiological symptoms upon withdrawal; 

broadly : persistent compulsive use of a substance known by the user to be physically, psychologically, or socially harmful.



There are studies posted above that show sugar creates habit forming psychological and physiological changes. There is evidence posted above that demonstrates the removal of sugar can generate physiological symptoms and signs in the brain.

There is growing evidence that the amount/quantity of sugar consumed in the American diet is harmful.

Do you have any research, scientific articles, data that refutes the information already posted?

Fishshtick

Seems like folks get hung up on black or white definitions and some of the social side-effects that go with 'addiction'. I have no problem believing that many substances can trigger varying degrees of neurological addiction. Why would all addictions have to be of the same magnitude to count as addictions? More over, most of the criminal activities tied to illicit substances are more manifestations of scarcity, cost, sensory impairment or changes in psychological state. Sugar is cheap and easily available and does not cause overt sensory impairment or psychosis so it's not likely cause illegal activity. I don't see why that would somehow mean it couldn't have addictive properties to some degree.

Sabine_Stroehm

I worked... and I sold to others who had the addictions... but never stole.

My apologies - I forgot to include "deal drugs to kids" in the list of law-breaking possibilities.

I won't make that mistake again.

You kinda got pwned. Just say: you're right, my bad. Or something similar.

sloth3toes

Ah yes. A couple of threads where people opined the topic top death. Any research in those threads? What page?

Guys, note I didn't make any research post based on unfounded opinion. I even asked for research that invalidates the premise. This isn't about opinions. Science. Supported evidence is my aim.

I don't give a twig and two berries what you believe if you won't support it with evidence. Work with me here.

Ah, I see.... so your thread is different from every other sugar is / is not addictive thread.

Got it now.

Derf_Smeggle

Ah yes. A couple of threads where people opined the topic top death. Any research in those threads? What page?

Guys, note I didn't make any research post based on unfounded opinion. I even asked for research that invalidates the premise. This isn't about opinions. Science. Supported evidence is my aim.

I don't give a twig and two berries what you believe if you won't support it with evidence. Work with me here.

Ah, I see.... so your thread is different from every other sugar is / is not addictive thread.

Got it now.

Well..it is different from the threads I've personally seen so far. Granted, I've not seen them all. However we have people actually utilizing the internet to post and find relevant scientific research on the subject in this thread.

Do you actually have anything constructive along those lines, or just tired, worn out, pretentious commits masked in jaded indifference? Opinion based on nothing of substance? If that is all you have, then, brother, I'll tell you that has been around since the days of 56k dial up bb's.

Come on, man. Put up some relevant research. That's what I'm looking for.