The Addictive Power of Food

By Barbara Berkeley

 Here’s my question: why is there still any debate about whether some foods are addictive? As you know, I’m a big fan of empowering POWs (those who have been Previously OverWeight) to rely on the knowledge they’ve gained over years of experience dealing with weight control. Believe me, you, our readers, know more about the intricacies of fat loss and regain than many experts. For that reason, you’ve earned the right to trust your own judgment about things that seem to be completely, undoubtedly and intuitively obvious. One of these is the addictive nature of food.

I have never met a POW who did not use the language of addiction to describe his or her relationship to certain foods. Consider the following:

• “I’m a chocoholic.”

•  "If I could mainline pasta, I would.”

• “I simply can’t give up bread.”

• “I’m a sweets addict.”

• “I’m having sugar withdrawal.”

On the other hand, I have yet to meet a salmon addict, a berry-a-holic, or someone who can’t live without broccoli.

Do certain foods provoke addiction-like responses? The answer is unquestionably yes. You know it and I know it. These responses include strong cravings, a feeling of withdrawal when the foods are removed, an inability to stop “using” the food, and a lack of control over the food.
But the question remains, are we describing a “true” addiction? Does the power of food compare in any way to the power of drugs? Perhaps the answer is more important than we think. The reason is simple: if some foods are addictive, we probably need to practice complete avoidance if we are going to “kick” them. This is the model for drug and alcohol addiction and it may well be the model for addictive foods as well. But the idea of completely cutting out sweets and starches is not one that sits well with most people and conventional wisdom continues to suggest that we will do just fine if we only take a taste here and there. Of course, the problem with that idea – as many of you have commented on this very blog – is that truly addictive substances overwhelm you quickly, even when consumed in small amounts.

While there isn’t a great deal of science out there about food and addiction, there is some, and what exists is intriguing. Lynn and I have discussed the idea of developing a science page for this site. On this page, I’ll be posting interesting articles about obesity, related medical issues, weight maintenance and research. This page will be there for those of you who are interested in delving into the scientific aspects of weight control in greater depth. So, to initiate our science page, I’ll be posting one of the articles I’m about to refer to on our new page. Don’t be discouraged from going to the science page by the technical nature of this article. Skip to the end where the author posts his “discussion.” This will give you a general sense of the results. I promise that future posts will be less technical!

Dr. Bartley Hoebel is a researcher at Princeton University who has studied the response of rats to infusions of sugar. In other words, his team puts an IV into a rat and lets sugar enter the bloodstream. This allows sugar levels to climb quickly, in the same way as human sugar levels soar after eating sweet foods and starches. What Hoebel has shown is that his rats respond to the sugar in exactly the same way as they respond to an infusion of addictive drugs. And when the sugar infusions are stopped, the rats behave as if they are withdrawing from these drugs. Now rats are not human beings, but they are often used as a model for testing biological responses. Could it be that we are wired the same way?

Another interesting fact suggests that this may be so. Most of you have probably heard of the marijuana related phenomenon known as “the munchies.” Smoking marijuana makes people hungry, and this occurs because of stimulation of pleasure centers in the brain called endocannabinoid receptors (for cannabis, which is the formal name for marijuana). Scientists tried inventing drugs that would bind to these receptors thus preventing them from being turned on. What they found was that this blockage reduced interest in eating. Why? The most obvious reason is that eating stimulates these same pleasure areas. When the pleasure response is blocked, eating stops being fun and becomes much less interesting.

About now, many of you may be asking for the name of this drug and wondering when it will be available at the local pharmacy. The drug, called Rimonabant, is actually in use in Europe but has not been approved in the United States. While it does decrease interest in food, it is not a miracle drug and does not create dramatic weight loss in and of itself. More importantly, there is a second problem. People who take Rimonabant have a higher incidence of depression and suicidal thoughts. Blocking the brain’s pleasure response may be a pretty steep price to pay for slimness!

So, we have a couple of lines of research that suggest (from a scientific point of view) that some foods behave like drugs. More than this, we have the power of our own – very legitimate – observations. Do sugars and starches make you lose control? Do you find it impossible to just eat them in moderation? Do you feel gnawing hunger and withdrawal when you try to stop eating them? The answer may be different for each of you. Just as certain people are more biologically sensitive to alcohol and drugs, are prone to becoming addicted – some of you are more sensitive to what I call the “S Foods” (starches and sugars). While some of you can eat these foods occasionally, others simply can’t.

Let me pause here to define what I mean by S Foods: Sugars (including regular sugar, honey, high fructose corn syrup, etc..) and Starches: grains (including whole grains, white and brown rice, corn), anything made from flour (including bread, pasta, bagels, crackers, etc…), potatoes, cereal.

So, rather than pondering whether these foods are addictive or not, I suggest evaluating our own individual sensitivity to S Foods. It is my belief that people who are more genetically original (people whose gene pattern has not evolved to deal with these newer foods) have a lot more trouble with them. If you can accept this premise, it takes a lot of the shame and blame away from your struggle. I don’t believe that people who fall prey to these foods are weak, lack willpower, or don’t really want to solve their problem. I just believe they are more prone to S Food addiction biologically.

Here are some questions you might ask yourself:

• Does your hunger tail off dramatically when you eliminate S Foods and resume powerfully when you reintroduce even small amounts?
• Do you repeatedly find yourself eating more and more S Foods after you’ve reintroduced them, despite all intentions of limiting your intake?
• Do you feel a strong need to eat these foods after you’ve stopped them?
• Have you noticed that eating those supposedly healthy whole grains makes you hungry?
• Do you feel a sense of freedom when you “get off” these foods and a sense of disappointment when you give in to them again?

If this is you, you’re probably very sensitive to S Foods and should think about trying to eliminate them 90 percent of the time. I’d like to tell you to eliminate them 100 percent, but I’m not sure that’s humanly possible and we’re all human! On the rare occasions that you choose an S Food, though, do so carefully and with full knowledge that it may cause a tumble from the maintenance wagon. Monitor your cravings and intakes over the next day and make sure you battle any desire to start eating more of the same.

If, on the other hand, you can control an occasional excursion into the starch and sugar world, or you do just fine with whole grains or a potato here and there, then you are probably less sensitive. I still would counsel caution. Like alcohol, one enjoyable drink can lead to another. But, the goal is maintenance. If you can achieve this while adding back some S Foods and without a constant struggle against them, consider yourself lucky!