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.